Is the "Other" film a hoax?

[David G. Healy]

Again, your reply is legitimate and your points are, of course, well taken. You are very thorough and reasonable and I respect that. I have not researched exactly where he was when he "saw" the limo stop.. I did not solicit the comment but he offered it. He was looking at the limo. Obviously the Z film shows nothing like a stop. He sounded very puzzled why it did not. I believe his comment (I will need to listen to it again) was to the effect "I could swear that it stopped." When evidence is corroborative and cumulative it carries more weight. Yes, a witness can be mistaken. However, it becomes noteworthy if sixty witnesses describe the same thing. Dealey Plaza, can be an enigma as to sounds and echoes. I have seen nothing in Dealey Plaza that lends itself to creating optical illusions. When the limo turned onto Elm two officers saw the ground and dust come up in the plaza across from the depository, convincing them that it was from a shot. They shared this with WC investigators and both were told they could not have seen that. The one officer diagrammed for me exactly where it hit.

Best,

Doug Weldon

... I dismissed the idea that such a stop would be removed from the film record.

Bill

of course you do, that's expected, the 6th Floor expects you to do so! End of story, yes?

The possibility of an ALTERED Zapruder film has kept the JFK assassination research community in an uproar for the past 10+ years... as a result, the 1964 WCR evidence "cornerstone" (the Zapruder film) has rendered the entire WCR-Dealey Plaza visual record, ineffectual (not that the remainder of WCR needed that, by any means...) the WCR is a farce..... what YOU or I dismiss is irrelevant (that includes the Dallas City Fathers!)

[Bill Miller]

of course you do, that's expected, the 6th Floor expects you to do so! End of story, yes?

The possibility of an ALTERED Zapruder film has kept the JFK assassination research community in an uproar for the past 10+ years... as a result, the 1964 WCR evidence "cornerstone" (the Zapruder film) has rendered the entire WCR-Dealey Plaza visual record, ineffectual (not that the remainder of WCR needed that, by any means...) the WCR is a farce..... what YOU or I dismiss is irrelevant (that includes the Dallas City Fathers!)

Hey David ... as I recall, you are on record saying that you have seen no proof that the Zapruder film is altered ... and come to think of it ... you have also said the opposite. Always good to be on both sides so to at least be right with one of them.

Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

Toni Foster, and so on do not seem to have ever stated that the progressive movement of the limo in the films is different than what they saw with the naked eye. I have read many instances where people said the motorcade/parade came to a stop, but they didn't specify if that included the limo.

Bill.

In Toni Fosters interview with Debra she states that the Limo STOPPED.

Toni Foster.

For some reason the car stopped, it did stop for some seconds.

Click on thumbnail to view full size:

Edited November 14, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for the correction on Foster. It's funny that she is seen in at least two films in motion and the limo and the cycles advance in sync with one another frame per frame around the time of the kill shot. The only thing I can think about Foster is maybe when she changed direction at the last moment that to her the limo looked to have stopped as she moved away from the car for there is no other logical excuse for it when so many other witnesses saw it slow to a near stop. There were about 500 people in and around the plaza and Life made transparencies of the Zapruder film frames soon after purchasing the film rights ... and at a time that no one knew who all was filming the motorcade and that their film wouldn't surface at a later time. I think the whole matter of stopping comes down to perception.

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

Hi Duncan,

I think if one has the opportunity to look at the Nov25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine, they do so.

I recommend they look at Page 40-41 which comprises Z frames 193,206 and 222-231.

Then turn to Page 42 and flip back and forth between the two pages, looking at the overall frames on each page.

If it doesn't hit you, bend page 42 in half and compare "side by side" with page 40.

You'll know what my answer to your question is.

chris

[Robin Unger]

Hi Duncan,

I think if one has the opportunity to look at the Nov25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine, they do so.

I recommend they look at Page 40-41 which comprises Z frames 193,206 and 222-231.

Then turn to Page 42 and flip back and forth between the two pages, looking at the overall frames on each page.

If it doesn't hit you, bend page 42 in half and compare "side by side" with page 40.

You'll know what my answer to your question is.

chris

Nov25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine Online.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DFMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Life+Magazine,+November+25,+1966&hl=en&ei=4brfTIOVOIyfcaLhtJcM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Click on thumbnails to view full size.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Dean Hagerman]

Toni Foster.

For some reason the car stopped, it did stop for some seconds

Boomshakalaka

[David G. Healy]

Thanks for the correction on Foster. It's funny that she is seen in at least two films in motion and the limo and the cycles advance in sync with one another frame per frame around the time of the kill shot. ...

Bill

and your two film source is? The alleged camera originals, perchance?

...Life made transparencies of the Zapruder film frames soon after purchasing the film rights ...

all the more reason to be leery, kinda like saying: "hi, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you...."

...I think the whole matter of stopping comes down to perception.

finally you admit photo musings are "opinion" including your own -- we're getting somewhere, finally!

Until the alleged in-camera originals are put on the table for scrutiny, these Z-film threads are a waste of time! Unless of course one gets paid to post endlessly on Zapruder film subject matter....

[Bill Miller]

and your two film source is? The alleged camera originals, perchance?

...Life made transparencies of the Zapruder film frames soon after purchasing the film rights ...

all the more reason to be leery, kinda like saying: "hi, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you...."

Until the alleged in-camera originals are put on the table for scrutiny, these Z-film threads are a waste of time! Unless of course one gets paid to post endlessly on Zapruder film subject matter....

David ... haven't I seen you on celebrity rehab? We have been through all this stuff before without you being able to defend your double talk. Were you working for the government when you posted that you have seen no proof of alteration? I know you haven't forgotten about it for it was in your face for a year or more before your disappearing for a while.

I also remember posting countless times to you (David) that to show people that you were serious about needing to see the in-camera original Zapruder film by sharing the letter you wrote to get to examine it. This was only a couple of years ago, so your letter of request should be filed and awaiting and been answered by now, so what did you write and what was the response, David??? Do I dare guess that you didn't do squat .... what a shocker that would be to discover. So enlighten everyone to the level of seriousness you possess so people won't think you are just trolling for attention. Lay it on us!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Hi Duncan,

I think if one has the opportunity to look at the Nov25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine, they do so.

I recommend they look at Page 40-41 which comprises Z frames 193,206 and 222-231.

Then turn to Page 42 and flip back and forth between the two pages, looking at the overall frames on each page.

If it doesn't hit you, bend page 42 in half and compare "side by side" with page 40.

You'll know what my answer to your question is.

chris

Are you sure you aren't talking about the back cover of MAD Magazine ......

[Greg Burnham]

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, assuming that there is more than one "other film", -- those who claim that they saw "it" -- may have, in fact, all seen the same film...or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Bill Miller]

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, if there is more than one "other film" those who claim they saw "it" may have, in fact, all seen the same film or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.

Hello Greg,

I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film because unless there were multiple versions of JFK being killed (and somehow with the cooperation of the other players in the car) ... then we may very well have people merely mistaken about they really seeing the actual assassination or else there are multiple people saying they saw a film that they obviously had not..

Bill

Edited November 14, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Greg Burnham]

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, if there is more than one "other film" those who claim they saw "it" may have, in fact, all seen the same film or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.

Hello Greg,

I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film.

Bill

This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything.

However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer.

[Doug Weldon]

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, if there is more than one "other film" those who claim they saw "it" may have, in fact, all seen the same film or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.

Hello Greg,

I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film.

Bill

This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything.

However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer.

Again, there is remarkable consistency from the the witnesses I find most credible claiming to have seen another film: the limo took a wide turn onto Elm Street ( I am most suspicious of the Z film because of this because I don't believe Zapruder ever said he stopped filming) and that the limo STOPPED. It is interesting that "The Kennedy Detail" indicates that the film was constantly used as a training film. It would be so interesting to know what was being shown. I have a friend who was a SS agent under Ford who knew many of the Kennedy agents but he is reluctant to say anything. I also believe that the SS agents and former agents were ordered not to talk after the publication of "The Dark Side of Camelot." I have to agree with Monk that whatever people saw it is impossible to say if anyone saw an unedited version.

Doug Weldon

[Chris Davidson]

Hi Duncan,

I think if one has the opportunity to look at the Nov25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine, they do so.

I recommend they look at Page 40-41 which comprises Z frames 193,206 and 222-231.

Then turn to Page 42 and flip back and forth between the two pages, looking at the overall frames on each page.

If it doesn't hit you, bend page 42 in half and compare "side by side" with page 40.

You'll know what my answer to your question is.

chris

Are you sure you aren't talking about the back cover of MAD Magazine ......

Bill,

Do you even understand the point?

Or, did this one go over your head, just as the Altgen's flag logo did.

Instead of a snide comment, why not comment on the Life magazine frame differences.

Or, do you not see a difference between pages.

My wife saw it immediately and she has no interest in this case at all.

chris