Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is the "Other" film a hoax?


Guest Duncan MacRae

  

24 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      14


Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 ...... blink.gif

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...... blink.gif

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

What exactly is it you are seeing Chris?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...... blink.gif

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

Hey Chris,

I have that edition of LIFE very handy. I'll look at the frames published and try to see that to which you are referring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I do not have the magazine in front of me. As far as the flag goes ... I understood why it looked like it did.

Now about the Mad Magazine remark ... you have a long standing habit of seeing things and jumping the gun before finding out the alternatives which have normal explanations. But who knows ... maybe you'll finally come up with something that doesn't have a logical explanation and that is why I made the remark about needing to fold pages and how that related to Mad Magazine. I will eagerly watch where this all goes.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well let us consider some things .... No one has ever time stamped the date and fellow witnesses who watched this so-called other film from what I recall. I can remember where I was and who I was with when far less shocking moments occurred at the schools and events I have attended and yet such data has not been forthcoming from these witnesses. I can remember seeing the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show, the Zfilm on Goodnite America, Elvis from Hawaii ... where I was and who I was with when I saw each event. Had I of seen JFK's murder in vivid living color as some of these alleged witnesses have claimed, I would expect for information from them.

Has anyone bothered to run their Bell and Howell camera for the duration of the Zapruder film to see how much of their wind did they use up? And what could possibly be missing from the Zapruder film as we know it ... the shooting didn't start until after Betzner took his photo, thus what would be missed that isn't seen on Zapruder's first generation copy print?

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well let us consider some things .... No one has ever time stamped the date and fellow witnesses who watched this so-called other film from what I recall. I can remember where I was and who I was with when far less shocking moments occurred at the schools and events I have attended and yet such data has not been forthcoming from these witnesses. I can remember seeing the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show, the Zfilm on Goodnite America, Elvis from Hawaii ... where I was and who I was with when I saw each event. Had I of seen JFK's murder in vivid living color as some of these alleged witnesses have claimed, I would expect for information from them.

Has anyone bothered to run their Bell and Howell camera for the duration of the Zapruder film to see how much of their wind did they use up? And what could possibly be missing from the Zapruder film as we know it ... the shooting didn't start until after Betzner took his photo, thus what would be missed that isn't seen on Zapruder's first generation copy print?

Bill

Huh?

That is about as good a job of attempting to distract from the subject as I've recently seen. Anyway, what I said was that I disagree with your characterization of what the "other film's witnesses" have claimed. None claimed to have seen an "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film.

This is, at least, the second time (if we include Toni Foster) in this thread that you have misrepresented what was said by witnesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...... blink.gif

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

What exactly is it you are seeing Chris?

Craig,

There is a sharpness and clarity difference among the 2 pages.

Bill,

I never did receive an answer to my question about the detail in the flag logo. Not from you nor anyone else.

Once again, I'm waiting for anyone to supply a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's 6, which possesses the same detail in the limo flag, which the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 11-23-63.

It's not a difficult request if other versions previously supplied are even close to the original.

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

That is about as good a job of attempting to distract from the subject as I've recently seen. Anyway, what I said was that I disagree with your characterization of what the "other film's witnesses" have claimed. None claimed to have seen an "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film.

This is, at least, the second time (if we include Toni Foster) in this thread that you have misrepresented what was said by witnesses.

Well then I will have to ask that you post their comments ... I recall the days when this subject ran its course on DellaRosa's site and that film was being represented to show the things not seen in the Zapruder film. At no time when I mentioned the problems being created by the alleged quantifying of people who was being represented in those post did you or anyone else ever mention that this 'other film' was just another altered version of the Zapruder film.

As far as Foster ... I didn't cite her, but rather included her into a group of witnesses. I have stood corrected concerning her comments, which doesn't take away from what others have said about the limo only slowing to a near stop, rolling stop, or only faltering. These things were also covered on the old DellaRosa site.

So is it your position for the record that you believe the alleged 'other film' was altered or had been edited? If so, what do you base your opinion on??

Thanks!

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

I never did receive an answer to my question about the detail in the flag logo. Not from you nor anyone else.

Once again, I'm waiting for anyone to supply a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's 6, which possesses the same detail in the limo flag, which the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 11-23-63.

It's not a difficult request if other versions previously supplied are even close to the original.

chris

Maybe you had received an answer to your question, but didn't catch it. You can post your image again or link it because I am not interested in wasting lots of time with it. I do know that it was not uncommon for newspapers to airbrush photos so to sharpen them up where ever possible. I would have to see your images again, feel free to post a link to them or repost them again.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the people I know/knew who saw the OTHER FILM, none claimed it to be an

unedited Z film, but all said it was shot from the same or similar location.

That said, I have always thought it possible that THE Z FILM IS AN EDITED VERSION

OF THE "OTHER FILM". It is possible that Zapruder was NOT on the pedestal, but

a professional photographer was...shooting professional quality film.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that Zapruder was NOT on the pedestal, but

a professional photographer was...shooting professional quality film.

Jack

Was there a double for Sitzman as well? And when they walked into the shelter and stood with the Hester's ... did the Hester's then become part of this game of substitution?? icecream.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it your position for the record that you believe the alleged 'other film' was altered or had been edited? If so, what do you base your opinion on??

Thanks!

Bill Miller

Huh? No, that is not my position. How did you interpret ANYTHING I have ever said to mean that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a double for Sitzman as well? And when they walked into the shelter and stood with the Hester's ... did the Hester's then become part of this game of substitution?? icecream.gif

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...