The "other" film?

[Glenn Viklund]

You're welcome. Glenn.

I know that we have "butted heads" in the past. Perhaps we will again in the future. I don't know.

But, I am grateful for the manner in which you have comported yourself in this thread. You seemed

to be genuinely seeking the truth.

I am, Greg - and I was a year ago as well. But thanks for you answers. This is not personal vs you, but this entire story has gaps and holes and inconsistensies that just do not make sense.

That's all.

[Greg Burnham]

Indeed.

[Glenn Viklund]

sorry, screw up.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

Rich Dellarosa's version, as captured in an interview:

Edited April 16, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[John Navin]

Here's what would be cool: a frame by frame re-creation of the "other" film by a skilled computer animator, based on the recollections of those who've seen that film. The turn at Elm Street. The limo coming to a complete stop. Everything is corrected in the animation version of the Other Film. Let's just see what it might look like. Then, we'd have a visual reference point.

It wouldn't have to include everything, just the relevant details. Since the Zapruder Film is an apparent re-creation, I don't see why an animator couldn't put together the basics of such a thing. Or, experts could comment on the creation of this version of the "other" film until some kind of consensus about its accuracy is reached.

Edited April 16, 2011 by John Navin

[Glenn Viklund]

Indeed.

Greg,

I could not help myself but being somewhat surprised by one of the passages in that interview:

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist...".

Please explain?

[Greg Burnham]

Hi John. No offense, but it rather seems like a parlor game to me, at first glance. No thanks.

I find it interesting that there EVER were any "re-enactment films" of the JFK assassination ever made by anyone. Don't you?

That includes the FBI, DALLAS PD, CIA, SECRET SERVICE, etc. -- Why would they need a "re-enactment film" of the crime when they

had the ORIGINAL film available? Did they also re-enact the NIX Film? How about the Muchmore Film? Paschal? Bronson, etc.?

Imagine watching the TV Show: "COPS" and that the producers showed an actual surveillance camera's capture of a crime in progress

at a convenience store, like a 7-11, for example. Imagine that the authorities decided to make a "re-enactment" film of the crime

in order to "help" them figure out how it actually happened...AND they filmed from the same location as was the ACTUAL film of the

crime?

But, that is exactly what happened. "THEY" -- filmed a re-enactment film of a crime for which they already had THE REAL DEAL!

Why the re-enactment film at all?

[Greg Burnham]

Indeed.

Greg,

I could not help myself but being somewhat surprised by one of the passages in that interview:

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist...".

Please explain?

Let me answer you with a question of my own (for starters) before answering more directly.

Glenn, if I characterized you as "One who believes that crimes are usually not the result of a conspiracy for the most part..." -- Would I be mistaken about your

beliefs? Or would you say that I essentially understand your view? Or "other" answer?

The answer to your question is bigger the the question asked.

The crime of conspiracy is probably the MOST common of all crimes because it only requires 2 people, by definition. It is not required that more than one person

even be involved in the actual commission of the immediate crime as long as someone knowingly "helped" -- in any way -- before, during, or after the fact. Not

all conspiracies come to light, but many do. The majority of crimes committed in this country [the US] -- beyond petty crimes -- involve conspiracy.

So, there is no need for me or anyone to "theorize" about the likelihood of conspiracies. They are a fact of life. They are "the rule" not the exception. They are

unfortunate, but very much a part of the world as we know it (and that we must change, if possible).

I am mystified how anyone, in the year 2011 (or as grandma used to say: "In this day and age"), is surprised by the idea of "conspiracy" being a very real, albeit

unfortunate, state of affairs.

[Robin Unger]

Hi John. No offense, but it rather seems like a parlor game to me, at first glance. No thanks.

I find it interesting that there EVER were any "re-enactment films" of the JFK assassination ever made by anyone. Don't you?

That includes the FBI, DALLAS PD, CIA, SECRET SERVICE, etc. -- Why would they need a "re-enactment film" of the crime when they

had the ORIGINAL film available? Did they also re-enact the NIX Film? How about the Muchmore Film? Paschal? Bronson, etc.?

Imagine watching the TV Show: "COPS" and that the producers showed an actual surveillance camera's capture of a crime in progress

at a convenience store, like a 7-11, for example. Imagine that the authorities decided to make a "re-enactment" film of the crime

in order to "help" them figure out how it actually happened...AND they filmed from the same location as was the ACTUAL film of the

crime?

But, that is exactly what happened. "THEY" -- filmed a re-enactment film of a crime for which they already had THE REAL DEAL!

Why the re-enactment film at all?

Quote:

Did they also re-enact the NIX Film?

Hi Greg

There is a Secret Service film online it was a LARGE FILE about 150MB download

In the film they showed what appeared to be a NIX re-creation. ?

A few frames from the film showing the snipers nest point of view.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Robin. I've seen the sniper window re-enactment shots, but I haven't seen the NIX, Muchmore, Bronson, etc., POV "re-enactment" films.

That is very interesting, indeed--in light of this discussion. So now we have a "crime scene" [could be a 7-11] in which

the perpetrators were captured on several films simultaneously, in real time--

...but, the authorities thought that they could make a "better version" --? Or perhaps a more "accurate version"? -- than the actual films themselves

showed?

Edited April 17, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Someone who would ask a question as naive as this is either pulling our leg or out of his depth.

The government--especially the CIA, the FBI, and the ONI--does not want the truth about the

assassination to be known (for all of the obvious reasons). The Joint Chiefs were involved, too,

where the Secret Service set him up, the CIA/military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement

took him out, the FBI was used to cover it up, and Lyndon and J. Edgar were principals. What do

you expect under these circumstances? That those behind the death of JFK are going to admit it?

I am stupefied by Glenn's attitude. Having been involved in exploring the authenticity of the film

and doing our best to expose what has been faked and what has not since the Zapruder Symposium

at Lancer in 1996 and having published many chapters in books and stand-alone articles about it,

not to mention organizing the Duluth conference on the film, which led to the publication of THE

GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which is now available in 66-segments on YouTube under

the heading "Zapruder Fakery", what does he think we have been doing for all these years? Really!

The other film is like the Holy Grail of Christian mythology--except we have no doubt that this

film actually exists. What is there about this situation that "doesn't add up"? That experts and

scholars have been sorting out the real from the fake for all of these years? That we have made

extensive efforts to compare the reports of the witnesses with the medical and ballistic evidence,

not to mention comapring photos and films with the Zapruder? Has Glenn missed the dozen or

so articles I have published about it, many of which have been threads here, such as "Who's telling

the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder fiim'?" Stunning.

In my opinion the reason Monk does not want to tell more about his viewing of the

other film is that as a youth (his father had important Washington connections) he

had access to many individuals still living whose safety might be compromised if it

becomes known that they know of THE OTHER FILM. This is speculation on my part.

Perhaps some day the situation will change.

Jack

No matter if somehow the SS could be embarrassed - or perhaps worse - by this other film, it's indeed extremely odd that only a selected few have actually viewed the film. Beside, that is, those who certainly must have watched it when an un-named TV-station aired it?

It all just doesn't add up, in my opinion.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Glenn,

Reading more of this thread, I am becoming convinced that you are sincere in asking about this. I like

the fact that more discussion has emerged from your having raised "a naive question". Perhaps the

answer you are looking for is that anyone who released it to the public might expect to lose his life.

Jim

quote name='Glenn Viklund' date='16 April 2011 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1302970956' post='223745']

Greg,

I listened to the interview you gave with Jim Fetzer.

The obvious differences that you claim between those films are of course in and of themselves astonishing.

But it is also a fact that the extant film has led many to believe that a conspiracy occured. So therefore I wonder: Is it fair to say that your view is that this other film supports a conspiracy to a higher degree than the extant film?

If so, why? Would that mainly have to do with the limo having stopped completely when the head shot occured? When listening to you I get the impression that this is the most important difference between the extant film and the "other" film?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are not the first to make this suggestion, John, but I do think it has merit. Oliver Stone still believed

that the film was authentic when he made "JFK". What a difference if he had only known better! Thanks.

Here's what would be cool: a frame by frame re-creation of the "other" film by a skilled computer animator, based on the recollections of those who've seen that film. The turn at Elm Street. The limo coming to a complete stop. Everything is corrected in the animation version of the Other Film. Let's just see what it might look like. Then, we'd have a visual reference point.

It wouldn't have to include everything, just the relevant details. Since the Zapruder Film is an apparent re-creation, I don't see why an animator couldn't put together the basics of such a thing. Or, experts could comment on the creation of this version of the "other" film until some kind of consensus about its accuracy is reached.

[Greg Burnham]

You are not the first to make this suggestion, John, but I do think it has merit. Oliver Stone still believed

that the film was authentic when he made "JFK". What a difference if he had only known better! Thanks.

Here's what would be cool: a frame by frame re-creation of the "other" film by a skilled computer animator, based on the recollections of those who've seen that film. The turn at Elm Street. The limo coming to a complete stop. Everything is corrected in the animation version of the Other Film. Let's just see what it might look like. Then, we'd have a visual reference point.

It wouldn't have to include everything, just the relevant details. Since the Zapruder Film is an apparent re-creation, I don't see why an animator couldn't put together the basics of such a thing. Or, experts could comment on the creation of this version of the "other" film until some kind of consensus about its accuracy is reached.

In all due respect guys...

Dale Meyers "re-created" a bullsh*t scenario with computer graphics so far removed from the "real deal" as to be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

That's one reason I'm so repulsed by the suggestion of yet another "re-creation" of the event. It just "rubs me wrong" --that's all.

[John Costella]

@John Navin:

Many people have suggested this (creating a film that is closer to the real event) to me over the years. On the surface it seems like a reasonable idea, but to me there are two fundamental problems:

1. The amount of effort required to do even a reasonably decent job would be immense -- certainly much more than I am able to contribute.
2. Whatever the intentions, it would solidify an alternative view of the assassination that itself would only be an approximation, an educated guess, to what really happened.

But even given that, I would welcome anyone with the required talents and spare time to give it a go.

However, roll back to an earlier time when video wasn't our primary source of information. (I've even been amazed to see that the most common thing that my sons type into Google is 'YouTube' -- they'll look for a YouTube video explaining something over a text-based web page or Wikipedia entry any day.) Imagine that we had no video or photographic evidence of the crime at all. Imagine putting all of the eyewitness testimony together into a chronological composite, and then reading it through like an old-fashioned book, allowing your imagination to paint the mind's-eye picture for you.

That's something I did do -- you can find it at Eyewitness Compilation.

What I find most amazing is that when you remove (as far as possible) the extant film and photographic evidence from your mind, and just listen to what the eyewitnesses said, you come to a view of the assassination that is infinitely closer to what is described by viewers of the "other" films.

I'll take it one step further. If you have the chance to visit Dealey Plaza, like I was fortunate enough to do in 2003, then stand there by the road (say, near the Mary Moorman spot) early in the morning on a non-descript weekday when there is no traffic and scarcely a person in the Plaza -- and superimpose your mind's eye "video" of the assassination onto the real Elm Street.

When I did that with the Zapruder/Nix/Muchmore films as a guide, it felt like a cartoon. Everything glided down Elm Street like water down an aqueduct; it was over before I -- if I had been there in 1963 -- would have even known that anything had even happened.

Then, after a stroll around the Elm/Main grass area to clear that away, I went back and did it again with my mind's eye video of what most likely happened. Watching the limo lurch to a stop. Watching the SS agents swarm out. Watch the horror of the blood and gore that has been sanitized out of the extant footage. Watching the motorcycles circle around and go in every direction. Watching the limo jump out of the street and speed away.

You go down there and experience that, and you'll understand why I nearly lost it when talking about my Dealey Plaza panorama at the Duluth Conference two days later.

Before that trip, critics would tell me that I couldn't really speak with any conviction about Dealey Plaza until I'd actually been there in the flesh.

They were right.

Now I know.

John