The "other" film?

[Glenn Viklund]

Much has been said about the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Now we are told that there is yet another film in existence. This other film allegedly holds information that, in my opinion, would settle the case for a conspiracy once and for all.

It is claimed, that:

(1) The Presidential limousine came to a complete stop, for a couple of seconds.

(2) The fatal head shot occured during this complete stop.

(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person.

The implications of this are no doubt huge. If this tilm exists, and if it's authenticity can be established, then:

(1) Tampering with the Z-film has occurred, case closed.

(2) All coincidencies with other films are false.

(3) The case for conspiracy would be definitive.

When discussing this issue a remarkable silence appears. Which I find peculiar. All this effort spent on all thinkable issues related to the JFK assassination, but in this one issue silence is golden?

I would appreciate thoughts on this. Until there's an explanation for the lack of research efforts on this very subject, the only conclusion is that this is all a myth. No researchers on this subject? Come on - there ought to be droves of researchers going to the bottom of this?

What am I missing here?

EDIT: Spelling errors.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Steve Cearfoss]

Much has been said about the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Now we are told that there is yet another film in existence. This other film allegedly holds information that, in my opinion, would settle the case for a conspirancy once and for all.

It is claimed, that:

(1) The Presidential limousine came to a complete stop, for a couple of seconds.

(2) The fatal head shot occured during this complete stop.

(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person.

The implications of this are no doubt huge. If this tilm exists, and if it's authenticy can be established, then:

(1) Tampering with the Z-film has occurred, case closed.

(2) All coincidencies with other films are false.

(3) The case for conspiracy would be definitive.

When discussing this issue a remarkable silence appears. Which I find peculiar. All this effort spent on all thinkable issues related to the JFK assassination, but in this one issue silence is golden?

I would appreciate thoughts on this. Until there's an explanation for the lack of research efforts on this very subject, the only conclusion is that this is all a myth. No researchers on this subject? Come on - there ought to be droves of researchers going to the bottom of this?

What am I missing here?

[Steve Cearfoss]

Glenn: "(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person."

In order to even begin this thread we should know who these "several researchers" are, and certainly we need to know the name of the person who was doing the filming.

[Bernice Moore]

Glen many of your answers and leads i believe are posted within the DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"? thread, also look into William Reymond as far as you can....b

[Dean Hagerman]

Rich Dellarosa has described the "other" film in the book "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"

He has also described it on his old forum

I also have several email conversations with Rich and he goes into even greater detail, however he did not tell me the specifics of who showed him the film on 3 seperate occasions

He left all of that info with a trusted researcher

Im just waiting for that researcher to share Richs info on the "other" film

RIP Rich

[Jack White]

You must be new to this. Those who viewed the other film have been discussed for many years. From memory:

Rich DellaRosa...viewed numerous times under classified circumstances.

William Reymond...viewed numerous times courtesy of former intelligence agent.

Dan Marvin...viewed as a CIA training film.

Scott Meyer...Dallas researcher.

Milicent Cranor...saw it at a TV network.

Gregory Burnham...member of this forum.

...and I think one more. All of them reported:

LIMO TURNING CORNER FROM HOUSTON TO ELM

LIMO COMING TO STOP FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS

Jack

[David G. Healy]

...

Until there's an explanation for the lack of research efforts on this very subject, the only conclusion is that this is all a myth. No researchers on this subject? Come on - there ought to be droves of researchers going to the bottom of this?

...

from Judyth to the "other" film... you're really into the JFK assassination aren't ya there buddy-boy? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! What we need here are lone nuts that are a bit more "opaque"...

Edited April 11, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Glenn Viklund]

Glenn: "(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person."

In order to even begin this thread we should know who these "several researchers" are, and certainly we need to know the name of the person who was doing the filming.

Steve,

As named by Jack White, below.

Jack,

Well, this doesn't have anything to do with me. Would you not agree that the question of why this "other" film is not a subject of research - at least as far as I'm aware - is peculiar? Considering the claimed contents of this film, I find this very odd. The Z-film has rendered a mountain of research, the other film - none?

Dean

So what's stopping this 'other researcher' from stepping forward?

[Jack White]

Glenn: "(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person."

In order to even begin this thread we should know who these "several researchers" are, and certainly we need to know the name of the person who was doing the filming.

Steve,

As named by Jack White, below.

Jack,

Well, this doesn't have anything to do with me. Would you not agree that the question of why this "other" film is not a subject of research - at least as far as I'm aware - is peculiar? Considering the claimed contents of this film, I find this very odd. The Z-film has rendered a mountain of research, the other film - none?

Dean

So what's stopping this 'other researcher' from stepping forward?

I do not understand the question.

Jack

PS

On second thought, I guess you mean people like you and me. Only 6 or 7 people claim to have

seen the other film. After they realized it was NOT the Z film, they DID research to whatever extent

possible to determine what it was they saw. However, it was years later, and the trails were cold.

The important things are:

1. None was aware of the stories of the others, and came forward independently.

2. All said the film was superior in quality to the Z film.

3. All said the film showed the limo turning the corner.

4. All said the film showed the limo coming to a stop.

5. All said the film was from the same OR ALMOST SAME viewpoint as Zapruder.

That is everything we know. Where do we go from there?

One other thing...William Reymond said he was told that the film he saw several

times WAS THE H.L. HUNT COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM. However, this is just

hearsay, since the film he described matches "the other film."

One might say all 6 persons were mistaken. The odds of that?

As for the researcher that DellaRosa told a more complete version to, the answer

lies with whatever the agreement was between Rich and that person.

Jack

Edited April 11, 2011 by Jack White

[Glenn Viklund]

I do not understand the question.

Jack

PS

On second thought, I guess you mean people like you and me. Only 6 or 7 people claim to have

seen the other film. After they realized it was NOT the Z film, they DID research to whatever extent

possible to determine what it was they saw. However, it was years later, and the trails were cold.

The important things are:

1. None was aware of the stories of the others, and came forward independently.

2. All said the film was superior in quality to the Z film.

3. All said the film showed the limo turning the corner.

4. All said the film showed the limo coming to a stop.

5. All said the film was from the same OR ALMOST SAME viewpoint as Zapruder.

That is everything we know. Where do we go from there?

One other thing...William Reymond said he was told that the film he saw several

times WAS THE H.L. HUNT COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM. However, this is just

hearsay, since the film he described matches "the other film."

One might say all 6 persons were mistaken. The odds of that?

As for the researcher that DellaRosa told a more complete version to, the answer

lies with whatever the agreement was between Rich and that person.

Jack

Fair enough, Jack.

And the perplexing reality is that, as an answer to your question of where do we go from here, this has not been followed through. I could think of a whole range of different questions to ask:

(1) Who is in possession of this film? And why?

(2) What's the secrecy all about? The Z-film has been out in the open for years.

(3) Which television station aired this film, and when?

(4) If, as indicated by what I understand, Intelligent Agencys (US/Abroad?)are in the know about this, then why would we believe them in this instance? What would be the reason to think that this film is authentic?

(5) How can it be verified that this film exists? As has been stated many times, exceptional claims demands exceptional evidence, sayso's are certainly not enough.

To name a few.

[John Navin]

I wonder why someone somewhere has yet to upload the "other" film onto the Internet. It could be done anonymously and without traces, under the right circumstances. Or, maybe it's up on the Net and I just haven't found it yet...

[Glenn Viklund]

I wonder why someone somewhere has yet to upload the "other" film onto the Internet. It could be done anonymously and without traces, under the right circumstances. Or, maybe it's up on the Net and I just haven't found it yet...

Another good question, no doubt.

[Jack White]

I do not understand the question.

Jack

PS

On second thought, I guess you mean people like you and me. Only 6 or 7 people claim to have

seen the other film. After they realized it was NOT the Z film, they DID research to whatever extent

possible to determine what it was they saw. However, it was years later, and the trails were cold.

The important things are:

1. None was aware of the stories of the others, and came forward independently.

2. All said the film was superior in quality to the Z film.

3. All said the film showed the limo turning the corner.

4. All said the film showed the limo coming to a stop.

5. All said the film was from the same OR ALMOST SAME viewpoint as Zapruder.

That is everything we know. Where do we go from there?

One other thing...William Reymond said he was told that the film he saw several

times WAS THE H.L. HUNT COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM. However, this is just

hearsay, since the film he described matches "the other film."

One might say all 6 persons were mistaken. The odds of that?

As for the researcher that DellaRosa told a more complete version to, the answer

lies with whatever the agreement was between Rich and that person.

Jack

Fair enough, Jack.

And the perplexing reality is that, as an answer to your question of where do we go from here, this has not been followed through. I could think of a whole range of different questions to ask:

(1) Who is in possession of this film? And why?

(2) What's the secrecy all about? The Z-film has been out in the open for years.

(3) Which television station aired this film, and when?

(4) If, as indicated by what I understand, Intelligent Agencys (US/Abroad?)are in the know about this, then why would we believe them in this instance? What would be the reason to think that this film is authentic?

(5) How can it be verified that this film exists? As has been stated many times, exceptional claims demands exceptional evidence, sayso's are certainly not enough.

To name a few.

I can think of questions like that too. I cannot come up with answers, and do not even know where to begin.

Also you seem to think that ONLY a SINGLE copy of this film existed. It is clear to me that each of the six persons

saw a different COPY of the same film. Dan Marvin, for instance, said it was a CIA TRAINING FILM. Millicent Cranor

said she saw it at the NYC headquarters of a major TV network. Rich DellaRosa said he saw it three different times

at three different places, but a secrecy oath (NASA?) prevented him from disclosing circumstances. The researcher

Rich disclosed more info to is a member of this forum. So is Greg Burnham, who is another who saw the film.

Rich was in the air force, but was assigned to NASA missions. All viewings seem to have been connected with

government or media operations. So how do you go about asking the government about the secret film they are suppressing?

Jack

Edited April 11, 2011 by Jack White

[John Navin]

Let's offer an invitation right here. If you have a copy of the "other" film, please be kind enough to upload it onto the Internet and then let us know where to look for it. I'm guessing that it's out there and available if someone at a news network had it available at one point. Or, someone with government access is itching to get it out there. Okay, let this be the invitation. Please post it and provide a link. Thanks.

[Greg Burnham]

Glen,

1) The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual.

2) The "secrecy" seems to be related, IMO, to the gross negligence (at best) --or the complicity--of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail as

demonstrably evident by their inaction and by several breaches of protocol.

3) Although I didn't see it on any TV station, Milicent Cranor saw it as Jack reported and Scott Myers saw it on television.

4) I was in no position to ask such questions at the time even if I had thought to ask them.

5) I have never expected anyone to take my word for it. I understand the reluctance. I would respond in exactly the same way.

I wish I could be more helpful, but that is all I know.