DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Pat Speer]

Excellent work, Bernice. It is also the case that Charles Crenshaw, M.D., in a televised interview, explained that the bullet had entered his right temple. That interview can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPJVzvlP5o

At the time, Chuck thought it had traveled directly to the back of the head, where Mantik's work explains that it was a frangible (or "exploding") bullet and that it set off shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head to the left/rear, not the projectile itself. And those who have ever watched the "You Were There" segment of NBC's coverage of the assassination on 22 November 1963 know that Chet Huntley reported that the President was killed by a bullet "right through the head", which entered his right temple, a report he attributed to Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician. That wound and the wound to his throat were widely broadcast on radio and television, where Bob Livingston, M.D., for example, knew from the description of the wound to the throat he heard over the radio that it had been an entry wound, which led him to call James Humes at Bethesda, which was across the street from NIH, where he was the scientific director of two of the institutes, to advise him that the throat wound had to be carefully dissected since, "if there is evidence of a shot from behind, then there has to have been a conspiracy", which, of course, is quite ironic, since the Warren Commission would cope with the problem of two shots from in front by deftly reversing their trajectories.

Horne then showed the frame from a film of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head saying "Dr. Burkley told me it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," and he put his finger at his right temple. We don't know if Burkley told Kilduff that there was a wound to the right temple or if Dr. Burkley made that kind of a gesture. It is certainly provocative.Horne then showed the notes of Seth Kantor as seen in Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas," reading: "entered right temple." We don't know if this is an observation he made himself, or if this is a recording that someone told him, or if he writes this down after seeing Malcolm Kilduff. But this too is provocative.Horne commented that if what we are seeing is true then we don't need any "jet effect" to describe what we are seeing. This would be the result of a shot from the front and the debris trail hits the two motorcycle policemen, and litters the back of the limousine.

Shortcut to: http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

Yikes. Let's be clear. Crenshaw never saw the entrance wound in the hairline he points out in this video. If he had he'd have mentioned it in his ARRB testimony and marked it on the drawings he'd created for the ARRB. As far as Burkley/Kilduff/Kantor etc... NO ONE at Parkland noted an entrance AND exit on Kennedy's skull. They saw one wound. They thought it was either an exit for the throat wound, or a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. As a result it's clear as day that Burkley was describing the ONE wound observed at Parkland and had said something to make Kilduff believe it was by the temple...where ding ding ding it WAS.

[Glenn Viklund]

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it.

Jack

The conclusion still is that no hard proof of the existence of this "other" film has ever been brought forward?

[Pat Speer]

“Neither of these issues, Baker or Z film animation, are worth what he [Fetzer] puts into them. I mean what mobility have they given the JFK case? What will the other side do to these issues? Anyone want to take a guess?”

How’s this, Jim, for a guess.

In October 2013 (as the 50th Anniversary approaches), various TV producers are beating the bushes for Kennedy assassination interviews with live people. One popular network has had it in for “assassination buffs” for almost those fifty years. A producer (“Todd”) and anchor (labeled in the business, “the talent”) meet to discuss their anniversary show:

Todd: You won’t believe what I’ve stumbled on. Take a look at this FOX excerpt from Hannity. This dude James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. is a gas.

The Talent: That’s great... although it was so bad, I almost ended up feeling sorry for the schlub.

Todd: Not so quickly. This guy is all over the internet with silly-ass claims. He says Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield shot down Senator Welstone’s plane with some “directed energy weapon.” Oh, and pretty much the same thing for the Twin Towers. They were dropped by some super “directed energy weapon” in space. Fetzer started some organization called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” with another guy. When the other guy found weapons from space too much, Fetzer excommunicated him and 80% of the “scholars” went with the other guy.

The Talent: Yeah, but we saw on TV the second plane hit the South Tower and about 10,000 people witnessed the same thing.

Todd: Fetzer claims the TV coverage was faked up. I’m not sure what he says about the 10,000 witnesses but I heard something about the government using a hologram. He offers the same sort of drivel about the Kennedy assassination. The Zapruder film was faked up and maybe Zapruder never took a film in Dealey Plaza. When you point out that the other films show the same thing, he says they were faked up too. The best thing is what he says about Mary Moorman.

The Talent: Who’s that?

Todd: That’s the poor woman who took a Polaroid just as Kennedy got hit in the head. The Zapruder film shows her standing in the grass taking her photo. Fetzer claims she was actually standing in the street to take her photo and that the limousine came to a full stop.

The Talent: How’re we gonna deal with that?

Todd: We’ve got segments from two other films taken in the Plaza that show her standing right where she stands in the Zapruder film, right where she testified she was standing in the Clay Shaw trial.

The Talent: I’m still worried about him coming across as such a schlub that people will feel sorry for him... I did.

This is no drill, Jim. This could really happen. In fact, it probably will happen.

JT

You're quite correct, Tink. We can feel pretty confident that, come 2013, McAdams and his ilk are hoping to set up some faux five minute debates between the tag team in white (Bugliosi, Holland, McAdams, etc) and a few select CTs they can easily make look goofy.

Fish in a barrel.

[Pat Speer]

"Josiah ducks and feints and doesn't address the questions. Notice that, in responding to the citation of a study from Harvard that showed observers were 98% accurate and 98% complete regarding features of situations they took to be salient--where features are "salient" when they are important to the observer--he quotes some puff piece from the book cover! Well, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., first discovered this finding, which he cites on page 278 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I confirm it on page 210. David has a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan. My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science, where my dissertation was on the relationship between probability and explanation. My most recent book, my 29th, is a collection of studies by a dozen distinguished philosophers entitled, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). David and I are most unlikely to be wrong about this."

It turns out that you and Mantik are wrong about this... all the letters after your name not withstanding.

"Eyewitness Testimony" by Elizabeth Loftus was published by Harvard University Press. The Press summarized the book on the back cover as follows:

"As pertinent today as when it was first published more than a decade ago, this engaging and highly praised study makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness."

"By shedding light on the many factors that can intervene and create inaccurate testimony, Elizabeth Loftus illustrates how memory can be radically altered by the way an eyewitness is questioned, and how new memories can be implanted and old ones altered in subtle ways. She thus calls into questin today's widely held assumption of eyewitness authority over the details of a crime or other events."

"Eyewitness Testimony provides a sobering counterpoint to today's theatrical reliance on eyewitness accounts in the media, and should be required reading for trial lawyers, psychologists, jurors, and anyone who considers the chilling prospect of confronting an eyewitness accusation in a court of law."

Just as the summary indicates, this book has revolutionized the treatment of eyewitnesses in court and the procedures law enforcement uses in dealing with eyewitnesses. Numerous persons have been convicted on eyewitness testimony and later exonerated. There is simply no question about the forceful argument Loftu puts forward in this book: eyewitness testimony is unreliable because it is haunted by a slew of factors that degrade its reliability.

To back your argument about the Zapruder film, you and Mantik cherry-picked the book and pulled a page out of Loftus' summary of the Marshall article. I asked Loftus about the Marshall article back in 1998 when this first came up. (I've known Elizabeth Loftus for some twenty-five years. We've worked on several cases together, most recently a death penalty case in Alabama.) Back in 1998, I asked her about the Marshall study. She made the common sense point that there's a real problem in defining what "salient" means. Salient for one person may not be salient for another. Her conclusion was that for this reason it was perilous to try to apply the data from this experiment outside the actual experiment. (Don't worry. I may even have the email from her.)

Yet this is exactly what you have done. This is perhaps a longer explanation than your point deserves. It shows how multiple letters after your name innoculate no one from making mistakes of generalization.

JT

Tink, FWIW, when I first started pondering the possibility the Parkland witnesses were incorrect, I fired off a few emails to Loftus and another prominent cognitive psychologist. Loftus, as I recall, was short and to the point, and said it was possible they were incorrect, or some such thing. But the other psychologist, Barbara Tversky from Stanford, actually opened my eyes a little. She said the key was not whether the Parkland witnesses REMEMBERED the wound location incorrectly, but whether they perceived it correctly to begin with. This led me to spend a month or so researching the effect of image rotation on human perception. I discuss this in chapter 18d of my webpage.

In short, I found that people stink at identifying facial features when a face is laying flat or upside down. This is demonstrated here.

[Glenn Viklund]

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

HI GLENN, YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN WILLIAM REYMOND'S INTERVIEW WITH JIM MARRS ON THE OTHER ZAPRUDER FILM...B

dr jim...you left out the motorcyc;ist chaney in the differences seen in the zapruder, in your summation at the top of page 11.....fwiw...thanks b

Thanks, Bernice.

[Richard Hocking]

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

Glad you got back to that Glenn... if what Monk is saying is even remotely possible, it is indeed mind boggling

What makes sense as a possibility to me is a complete, non-telephoto lens film, shot from/by Zapruder's pedestal and then edited within the frame... maybe this process makes the intersprocket area "more" possible... Two films from Zap's location seems to make no sense since if you move the camera closer or father away, there is no way to keep the same angle during the entire panning... the camera would have to move side-to-side pretty significantly for every foor from the original Z location....

Greg, if Zap's film was at 24.3fps (or even slow-mo 40fps) instead and not shot thru a telephoto lens, would alteration of the "original" make more sense to you after what you've seen?

Finally, if the 85 feet between cars is right, something is VERY wrong... in the extant Z film the Queen Mary is following behind by about 6-8 feet... the ONLY way Hill makes it to the limo from 85 feet is if the limo virtually stops... and even then at 20mph it takes him 3 seconds to overtake it...

Greg - what did you see with regards to Hill chasing the limo?

and thanks for the revelation... not sure about others but this is pretty amazing stuff to me...

David (and Greg),

I listened to the description Blaine gave on the Video interview and jotted down his words about Hill:

" ... I've got to comment on Clint's ability that day. The vehicle was going 11 miles an hour. There were 85 feet for Clint to catch up with. He ran basically about 15 miles an hour to reach the Presidential car and he got there after thethird shot hit. …"

Seems like there are two ways you can take this: 1. The Limo and the QM were separated by 85' when Hill jumped off. This is in severe contrast with what is shown in the Z film. 2. The total distance that Hill had to run to catch the limo was 85'. If this is what Blaine meant, we can calculate distance using the information furnished. Hill running at 15 mph (22 feet per second) Limo traveling at 11 mph (16.1 fps) Doing the math (and assuming the Limo does not slow down) Hill would have been 23 feet from the rear of the Limo when he jumped off the QM; and it would take Hill 3.84 seconds to reach the Limo. At 18.3 frames per second, that equals 70 frames on the Z film

This still places the QM further behind the Limo than what we see in the Z film, but probably closer to 17 feet or so separating rear of limo to front of QM.

Have not looked yet but if we knew which Z frames Hill Jumped off the QM, and reached the limo, we could check that out with the 70 frame estimate from Blaine's figures. Greg, which scenario comes closer to your recollection of the film you saw?

[Robin Unger]

There appears to be massive damage to the top & right side of the head.

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

David (and Greg),

I listened to the description Blaine gave on the Video interview and jotted down his words about Hill:

" ... I've got to comment on Clint's ability that day. The vehicle was going 11 miles an hour. There were 85 feet for Clint to catch up with. He ran basically about 15 miles an hour to reach the Presidential car and he got there after thethird shot hit. …"

Seems like there are two ways you can take this: 1. The Limo and the QM were separated by 85' when Hill jumped off. This is in severe contrast with what is shown in the Z film. 2. The total distance that Hill had to run to catch the limo was 85'. If this is what Blaine meant, we can calculate distance using the information furnished. Hill running at 15 mph (22 feet per second) Limo traveling at 11 mph (16.1 fps) Doing the math (and assuming the Limo does not slow down) Hill would have been 23 feet from the rear of the Limo when he jumped off the QM; and it would take Hill 3.84 seconds to reach the Limo. At 18.3 frames per second, that equals 70 frames on the Z film

This still places the QM further behind the Limo than what we see in the Z film, but probably closer to 17 feet or so separating rear of limo to front of QM.

Have not looked yet but if we knew which Z frames Hill Jumped off the QM, and reached the limo, we could check that out with the 70 frame estimate from Blaine's figures. Greg, which scenario comes closer to your recollection of the film you saw?

Muchmore stabilized GIF showing the separation between the limo and the follow up car.

It appears to me that Hill only starts his run AFTER the head shot..

Quote:

The Limo and the QM were separated by 85' when Hill jumped off.

The gap between the two only looks to be about (1) - motorcycle length

Edited March 29, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Bernice. John discovered Officer Chaney had ridden forward to advised Chief Curry that the President had been shot during the limo stop when he collated the testimony of the Elm Street witnesses, which I published in "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm In part,

February 5, 2008 at 10:44:55

New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence," Experts Claim

By Jim Fetzer (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes. (The Nix film was taken from the opposite side looking toward “the grassy knoll.”) Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.com with Fetzer. Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects. What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later. Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney’s report. But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.

During the past dozen years, substantial evidence of the Zapruder film’s alteration has accumulated in a research effort that became serious in 1996 during a symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in November. Fetzer brought together numerous experts on the film, including Jack White, David W. Mantik, and Noel Twyman, the author of Bloody Treason (1997), which includes scientific studies of the film’s authenticity. Twyman, a retired engineer, had noticed that the driver of the President’s limousine, SSA William Greer, had turned to look at JFK and then turned back with preternatural speed. He hired a professional tennis player to study how fast human head turns could be made and determined that Greer’s head turns were approximately twice as fast as humanly possible. That might not sound like much initially, but it would be like converting a 4 minute mile into a 2 minute mile. Based upon this research, Twyman had discovered objective evidence of the removal of frames from the film.

Studies published in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), provide overwhelming additional proof of alteration, including technical studies by Costella. For example, Frame 232, which had previously been published in LIFE magazine, turned out to have optically impossible features. He also discovered that, in recreating the film, which had to have its frames re-shot using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects—in order to avoid disclosing the deception via “ghost images” in the sprocket area, which cannot be reproduced—the conspirators had made mistakes during their reinsertion of images of the Stemmons Freeway sign and of a lamppost. Moreover, Erwin Schwartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported seeing JFK’s brains blown outward to the left and to the rear, while several agents of the Secret Service had reported being nauseated by the blood and the brains splattered across the trunk of the car. Neither is visible today in “the Zapruder film”. A visual seminar of Costella’s research is archived at assasssinationscience.com.

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations. , , ,

(more)

OK Greg, thanks for your answer.

What you are saying is that you have seen a film where the JFK limousine came to a full stop at the exact moment when the presidents fatal head shot occurred?

Sorry to be a pain, but in my world these claims are mind boggling.

HI GLENN, YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN WILLIAM REYMOND'S INTERVIEW WITH JIM MARRS ON THE OTHER ZAPRUDER FILM...B

dr jim...you left out the motorcyc;ist chaney in the differences seen in the zapruder, in your summation at the top of page 11.....fwiw...thanks b

[Jack White]

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Several of us know the identity of the researcher that Rich DellaRosa confided the FULL STORY of the OTHER FILM to.

Since Rich is now deceased, his security oath no longer applies, and I think Rich's confidante should reveal all the

details that Rich withheld. This would make Rich's story much more believable, since it would reveal places and times

the film was seen and what circumstances (which Rich led us to believe were military in nature).

I think the time is now appropriate.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Robin:

Really nice job.

I don't see what is so hard to believe about Hill making up that space from that angle.

Secondly, Fetzer says that is SSD TInk wrote that LHO shot at JFK twice.

Can you please furnish page citations, as any scholar would if he were saying something like that.

Third, this whole thing about the motorcycle has been talked to death here. From the photographic evidence I have seen, it does not do what Fetzer says it does. He is now recycling old arguments that did not take in the first place.

Thanks Jim

I replaced the original GIF with a better version.

The follow up car was so close to the Limo, that if Hill had tripped over while running he may have been hit by it

Edited March 29, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Jack White]

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it.

Jack

The conclusion still is that no hard proof of the existence of this "other" film has ever been brought forward?

What do you mean HARD PROOF? Seven witnesses in concord would be considered hard evidence in a court of law.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Several of us know the identity of the researcher that Rich DellaRosa confided the FULL STORY of the OTHER FILM to.

Since Rich is now deceased, his security oath no longer applies, and I think Rich's confidante should reveal all the

details that Rich withheld. This would make Rich's story much more believable, since it would reveal places and times

the film was seen and what circumstances (which Rich led us to believe were military in nature).

I think the time is now appropriate.

Jack

In fact that person that Rich trusted has made posts in this thread

He should post everything that Rich told him

[Jack White]

Robin:

Really nice job.

I don't see what is so hard to believe about Hill making up that space from that angle.

Secondly, Fetzer says that is SSD TInk wrote that LHO shot at JFK twice.

Can you please furnish page citations, as any scholar would if he were saying something like that.

Third, this whole thing about the motorcycle has been talked to death here. From the photographic evidence I have seen, it does not do what Fetzer says it does. He is now recycling old arguments that did not take in the first place.

Jim...your third quote is most strange. All the witnesses report Chaney moving forward. The photos don't show it. You prefer to believe FORGED PHOTOS

which are being questioned rather than the witnesses, whose first day testimony would take precedence over faked photos which they impeach.

Jack