Jump to content

Is the "Other" film a hoax?


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the "Other" film a hoax?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      14


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bill,

Perhaps you can provide us with a CLEAR photo or film frame that unmistakably and dis-ambiguously proves that Zapruder and Sitzman were, in fact, where they claim to have been that day? I have yet to see ANY visual evidence that supports their claim. There appears to be someone on the pedestal, but it is impossible to determine who that person(s) was, IMO. If you can provide proof...that would help.

That's a good point, Greg ... let us see if we can draw a logical response from the available evidence.

To start with, Zapruder did have at his office following the assassination what is now known as the Zapruder film. Sitzman supports being on the pedestal with Zapruder. Just prior to taking the film, Zapruder got Sitzman to turn around and face him as she stood with the Hester's ... that is truly Sitzman's face on the woman who turns to the camera. The Hester's knew Sitzman and Zapruder if my memory serves me correctly and not once have they ever said that the man and woman on the pedestal was not Abraham Zapruder and Sitzman.

But we want an image that ID's the couple ... for what ever reason I do not know because there will always be someone who will then say that it was possible that look-a-likes could have been used, which means that Zapruder, Sitzman, and both Hester's were part of the plot to have someone take a film that Zapruder could have taken himself. The throw crap at the wall scenario starts to take shape.

Following the shooting, the film record shows the two people on the pedestal getting off of it (Pascall's film catches Zapruder reaching the ground as he dismounts the pedestal). Sitzman and Zapruder or the look-a-likes then enter the shelter where they are met by the Hester's or should we suggest that it really wasn't the Hester's at all, but rather they were substituted with look-a-likes too?

Then in Trask book where I may have seen it ... there is a good clear up close image of Sitzman standing near the pedestal giving an interview to a reporter about what she had just witnessed. So while it may be said that during the shooting there was no up-close clear images of Zapruder or Sitzman's face, the same can be said about that really being Toni Foster on the south pasture. In fact, there is not a good clear image of Betzner, Croft, or Willis taking photos of the assassination ... so now someone can say that the other film shows these witnesses to be someone other than who we thought they were.

If the above sounds silly, then its because it is an extension of the same lack of common sense that would suggest that Zapruder and Sitzman were not on the pedestal when all the evidence points to the contrary. Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Bill Miller

Sitzman seen in Skaggs & Sitzman being interviewed while standing at the pedestal

Click on thumbnail to view full size:

Here are two frames i forgot about from the Cook / Cooper Film showing Sitzman and Beatrice Hester

Originally posted by Bernice.

Not sure of the original source ( very nice frames )

Possibly Charles Hester seen on the left of Beatrice. ?

going by the Wiegman frames i would say yes.

moore_Houston_TSBD.JPG

Frame showing Beatrice Hester and Marilyn Sitzman

Sitzman can be seen standing near the "Willis 15" position at the corner of the TSBD wall.

moore_marilyn_beatrice1.JPG

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many other film claims were created from someone seeing some of the old reconstruction films that were made? A couple inserts looked to have been added to this piece. It would certainly account for why there were some differences in their independent descriptions.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Bill,

Any "reconstruction film" that was so poorly shot in terms of misrepresenting the content would have been less than useless. Why would a so-called "reconstruction film" include so many errant events? Why would a "reconstruction film" fail so miserably to "reconstruct" what happened that day? If the events, as shown in such a reconstruction film, never happened, then WHY FILM such useless fictitious content in the first place? According to your theory, what event were they attempting to reconstruct by such a film? According to you, much of what was shown in the "reconstruction film" never happened. If so, it is such a lousy representation of reality, why would anyone call it a "RECONSTRUCTION FILM" ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Any "reconstruction film" that was so poorly shot in terms of misrepresenting the content would have been less than useless. Why would a so-called "reconstruction film" include so many errant events? Why would a "reconstruction film" fail so miserably to "reconstruct" what happened that day? If the events, as shown in such a reconstruction film, never happened, then WHY FILM such useless fictitious content in the first place? According to your theory, what event were they attempting to reconstruct by such a film? According to you, much of what was shown in the "reconstruction film" never happened. If so, it is such a lousy representation of reality, why would anyone call it a "RECONSTRUCTION FILM" ??

Actually my so-called theory considers all the various descriptions given by those who claimed to have seen it ... not to mention the lack of data offered by such individuals as to the date and location of the film viewing, not to mention the people who were present during this alleged viewing. I remember where I was and who I was with when Groden went on Geraldo Rivera's 'Goodnite America''. All these years and this group of 'other film viewers' can't be more forthcoming with specifics. They offer little to support their claims. All I have done is offer an explanation that allows them to at least appear sincere.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined...

Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with?

This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one?

Ask yourself this: Why would the authorities ever NEED OR WANT to create a "film" of the crime when they already had a film (Zapruder's) of the crime in their possession? But, even assuming they sometimes did create film re-enactments in 1963 under specific circumstances (which is a stretch)--still-- why would they this time... since they already had an ACTUAL film of the crime now?? If Zapruder already filmed the crime, why "fake a film" of it? In a criminal investigation such a re-creation would be useless as it would be inadmissible in a court room. How could a re-enactment (on film) of a crime help when an actual film of the event is available?

Sounds like it has more to do with the alleged film of the assassination than it has to do with the assassination.

Just for "grins and giggles" watch the YouTube below. Imagine the authorities saying: "Let's make a re-construction film of this robbery that we already have on ACTUAL FILM from the convenience store because it will..." -- SHEESH, I can't even END THAT SENTENCE because it is too idiotic to contemplate long enough to come up with a stupid enough scenario! There is no justification for it. None.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined...

Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with?

This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one?

I do not believe that the alleged 'other film' was government sponsored, but rather a re-creation film for independent documentaries.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't need to mention the following, but it's apparently less obvious than I would have imagined...

Why did any official investigation that was conducted by any of the following: the FBI, the Secret Service, or any other investigative body of the US Government, and/or why did the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Police Department, or the County, or any other local authority--why did ANY OF THEM require a reconstruction film to begin with?

This is significant. Why did they need a "reconstruction film" at all?? IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC why do investigators need to "fabricate" a film that can never be as authentic as "the real deal" but will always be a fake. Why did they want one?

I do not believe that the alleged 'other film' was government sponsored, but rather a re-creation film for independent documentaries.

Bill

Bill quote '''Actually my so-called theory considers all the various descriptions given by those who claimed to have seen it ... '' Bill could you please post the comp.of that information for us,i do not have it and have never found it on the web, and i for one would like to know what all was said...the last i knew from Rich, was that he did not have them, the posted information from each, as the f had been hacked after and the info lost, so that is the why many have never had access to it...thanks,..b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, Bill, Bill...I mean Robert, Robert, Robert....

Who do you think created this re-enactment footage [see below]? Was it an amateur opportunist named Zapruder or a professional team paid by the US Government? You said you didn't think the "other film" was Government sponsored. Upon what do you base your unsupported assertion?

Again, WHY did the US Government's Investigative Apparatus need a RE-CONSTRUCTION FILM to begin with IF they had ACTUAL, real time footage of the crime as it happened! Why?

Why did they NEED THIS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg.

That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson.

Why do it ?

could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed.

To test the sinle bullit theory alignnment.

This image may be from the same test.

May 1964

dealey-plaza1964may-mndc02.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg.

That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson.

Why do it ?

could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed.

Why? They had the ACTUAL FILM? Who cares what ANY OTHER SUBSTITUTE FILM would offer--when you have the original? Indeed, they had the original film itself and the original camera itself.

To test the single bullet theory alignment.
[edited original for spelling]

Speculating, Robin...?? But, then again, so am I!

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg.

That looks like a recreation of Zapruder, Nix, and possibly Muchmore / Bronson.

Why do it ?

could be to work out various frame counts / limo speed.

Why? They had the ACTUAL FILM? Who cares what ANY OTHER SUBSTITUTE FILM would offer--when you have the original? Indeed, they had the original film itself and the original camera itself.

To test the single bullet theory alignment.
[edited original for spelling]

Speculating, Robin...?? But, then again, so am I!

from the secret service comes this wee gem, seems they were showing the real zapper as a trainig film to the recruits...because it was very gory, more so than what we see...fyi..

From former Secret Service agent Marty Venker's book

"Confessions of An Ex-Secret Service Agent" , pages 24-25:

" [in Secret Service school] We'd also watch films of real-life

assassinations. Naturally, the featured attraction was the home movie

Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

THEY SHOWED YOU THE GRUESOME VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC USUALLY DIDN'T SEE, WHERE PARTS OF

PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BRAIN SPRAYED ALL OVER JACKIE. Again and again, I

watched that film. The instructors didn't want us to ever forget it

[Emphasis added]."

And, yet, Jackie is clean in appearance in the Z film we know of...?:blink: b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...