The "other" film?

[Greg Burnham]

G'day John,

You said: "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." [additional emphasis added]

Thanks for that comparison. Very apropos, indeed. There is something that's "too even, too smooth, too easy" about it all...Even intuitively, people can just sense it. Prouty

described the entire "change in administration" the same way: "too even, too easy, too smooth" -- as if it were expected and planned for in advance.

[Daniel Gallup]

G'day John,

You said: "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." [additional emphasis added]

Thanks for that comparison. Very apropos, indeed. There is something that's "too even, too smooth, too easy" about it all...Even intuitively, people can just sense it. Prouty

described the entire "change in administration" the same way: "too even, too easy, too smooth" -- as if it were expected and planned for in advance.

In regards to the Z-film debate I never tire of mentioning the great contribution Debra Conway made with her 2000 interview of Toni Foster. She (that is , Toni) clearly had never seen the extant Z-film, and expressed in no uncertain terms how shocked she was that the limo stopped. The contrast between Foster and the extant film ("too even") is undeniable. Add to this Lifton' early interviews (1971) of eyewitnesses, as recorded in TGZFH, and I for one have no doubt the "other film" shows it like it happened. That no one has recently reported seeing it is most distressing. Let's face it: if the other film existed in the past, it was the most dangerous piece of film in the history of this country. It showed Kennedy was set up by our government, and our government was concealing all this with a fake film, fake photos, x-rays etc. It would be the most damning indictment of the character of our country imaginable.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[Pamela Brown]

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.

With all due respect, doesn't your theory beg the question that the 'other film' is actually the unaltered Zapruder film?

[Len Colby]

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.

Are you saying you saw the "other" film at a CHiPs training session? Odd that that the PTB would allow it such wide circulation. If it was on TV or in movie theaters more than 3 or 4 people would remember having seen it. Why would the PTB allow it on TV or in theaters? If the source was someone in the assassination community why hasn’t it ever re-surfaced? Memory is fallible and yours seems to have played a trick on you same goes for those who claim to have seen it on TV or in theaters.

[Len Colby]

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.

With all due respect, doesn't your theory beg the question that the 'other film' is actually the unaltered Zapruder film?

He didn't present a theory he pointed out logical flaws in an unlikely one. Doesn't your question "beg the question" that the Z-film was altered and that an alternate has been circulated?

[Pamela Brown]

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.

With all due respect, doesn't your theory beg the question that the 'other film' is actually the unaltered Zapruder film?

He didn't present a theory he pointed out logical flaws in an unlikely one. Doesn't your question "beg the question" that the Z-film was altered and that an alternate has been circulated?

Then this theory is that a copy of the Z-film(s) was altered to include things that point to conspiracy and that the relatively grainy version(s) that we currently have available, replete with obvious splices and odd anomalies, is actually 'the original'?

[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.

With all due respect, doesn't your theory beg the question that the 'other film' is actually the unaltered Zapruder film?

He didn't present a theory he pointed out logical flaws in an unlikely one. Doesn't your question "beg the question" that the Z-film was altered and that an alternate has been circulated?

Then this theory is that a copy of the Z-film(s) was altered to include things that point to conspiracy and that the relatively grainy version(s) that we currently have available, replete with obvious splices and odd anomalies, is actually 'the original'?

This IS NOT A THEORY. Several believable people have reported seeing another film (different from the Zapruder film). That is why it is called THE OTHER FILM.

It resembles the Z film, but shows events not seen in the Z film. Most saw it BEFORE they saw the Z film, but THOUGHT it was the Z film at the time they saw

it. Only later ON SEEING THE Z FILM did they realize the two films were different. They knew they had previously seen the LIMO TURN and LIMO STOP.

Jack

[David Andrews]

Has anybody ever attempted to film Elm Street from inside the west enclosure of the north pergola?

Could a cameraman get a view of the corner turn and the underpass escape from that windowed pillbox?

Could the result be matched to any memories of the "other" film?

Edited April 18, 2011 by David Andrews

[John Navin]

Greg, I believe you. Your recollection of the "other" film jibes with Richard Dellarosa and William Reymond. It's actually spooky to listen to your memory of it and then Dellarosa's and then Reymond's. Everybody's in accord -- very rare circumstance in detective work to have such basic agreement on key points.

I don't think it would be a waste of time to reconstruct via animation the basic narrative of that mostly unseen film. In this kind of detective work, sometimes one's ability to understand is only developed visually. A recreation might open up certain knowledge-yielding contexts that have been missed so far.

Also, I'm reasonably certain that this forum and possibly this thread are being read by someone somewhere who's been holding back on uploading the other film onto the Internet. It might even be someone we're all familiar with - the thought of a animation project might spur such a person to go ahead and find a way of YouTubing the "other" film.

Edited April 18, 2011 by John Navin

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, I believe you. Your recollection of the "other" film jibes with Richard Dellarosa and William Reymond. It's actually spooky to listen to your memory of it and then Dellarosa's and then Reymond's. Everybody's in accord -- very rare circumstance in detective work to have such basic agreement on key points.

I don't think it would be a waste of time to reconstruct via animation the basic narrative of that mostly unseen film. In this kind of detective work, sometimes one's ability to understand is only developed visually. A recreation might open up certain knowledge-yielding contexts that have been missed so far.

Also, I'm reasonably certain that this forum and possibly this thread are being read by someone somewhere who's been holding back on uploading the other film onto the Internet. It might even be someone we're all familiar with - the thought of a animation project might spur such a person to go ahead and find a way of YouTubing the "other" film.

Hi John,

Perhaps someone will step up to the plate and deliver a well done animation. If the "other film" is in the possession of someone

with a sense of duty to history, perhaps you are correct and they will upload it. It's funny, in a way, but I (perhaps naively) never

even considered the possibility before it was raised here that the "other film" might be anonymously uploaded one day. I hope

so. It would end the debate over alteration, but more importantly, the debate over conspiracy would expire once and for all.

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg, I believe you. Your recollection of the "other" film jibes with Richard Dellarosa and William Reymond. It's actually spooky to listen to your memory of it and then Dellarosa's and then Reymond's. Everybody's in accord -- very rare circumstance in detective work to have such basic agreement on key points.

I don't think it would be a waste of time to reconstruct via animation the basic narrative of that mostly unseen film. In this kind of detective work, sometimes one's ability to understand is only developed visually. A recreation might open up certain knowledge-yielding contexts that have been missed so far.

Also, I'm reasonably certain that this forum and possibly this thread are being read by someone somewhere who's been holding back on uploading the other film onto the Internet. It might even be someone we're all familiar with - the thought of a animation project might spur such a person to go ahead and find a way of YouTubing the "other" film.

Hi John,

Perhaps someone will step up to the plate and deliver a well done animation. If the "other film" is in the possession of someone

with a sense of duty to history, perhaps you are correct and they will upload it. It's funny, in a way, but I (perhaps naively) never

even considered the possibility before it was raised here that the "other film" might be anonymously uploaded one day. I hope

so. It would end the debate over alteration, but more importantly, the debate over conspiracy would expire once and for all.

Assuming it exists and that it's authenticity can be established. The thought of such a procedure is indeed interesting - would those who now claim the Z-film is tampered with, instead claim that this film is authentic?

[Greg Burnham]

Assuming it exists and that it's authenticity can be established. The thought of such a procedure is indeed interesting - would those who now claim the Z-film is tampered with, instead claim that this film is authentic?

That is a very specious question, in my opinion, Glenn. Forgive me if I misinterpreted it. But, as written, your question appears disingenuous.

If there was indeed a conspiracy, it makes sense that those with something to gain from covering it up would in fact cover it up. That includes altering film evidence.

However, speaking for myself, I would very much prefer to live in a country where such a horrific national nightmare did NOT exist. I would prefer it if there had

been no conspiracy at all, as that would be a much more comforting world, to say the least, in which to live. I have no vested interest in "proving" there was a conspiracy

if there was, in fact, none present.

So, where the "cover up" artists have a vested in interest in fabricating the film to conceal the conspiracy, I don't see the vested interest of a conspiracy researcher in a

similar light. The "cover up" artist is insincere, BY DEFINITION, while the researcher is not. True, there could be exceptions, but generally the latter has no motivation to

fabricate the existence of a very UGLY world in which to raise his children. It makes no sense.

[Glenn Viklund]

Assuming it exists and that it's authenticity can be established. The thought of such a procedure is indeed interesting - would those who now claim the Z-film is tampered with, instead claim that this film is authentic?

That is a very specious question, in my opinion, Glenn. Forgive me if I misinterpreted it. But, as written, your question appears disingenuous.

If there was indeed a conspiracy, it makes sense that those with something to gain from covering it up would in fact cover it up. That includes altering film evidence.

However, speaking for myself, I would very much prefer to live in a country where such a horrific national nightmare did NOT exist. I would prefer it if there had

been no conspiracy at all, as that would be a much more comforting world, to say the least, in which to live. I have no vested interest in "proving" there was a conspiracy

if there was, in fact, none present.

So, where the "cover up" artists have a vested in interest in fabricating the film to conceal the conspiracy, I don't see the vested interest of a conspiracy researcher in a

similar light. The "cover up" artist is insincere, BY DEFINITION, while the researcher is not. True, there could be exceptions, but generally the latter has no motivation to

fabricate the existence of a very UGLY world in which to raise his children. It makes no sense.

That's OK, Greg. Perhaps it is a somewhat specious question.

But do you really think it is that far fetched? Would you not agree that LNs would dismiss such a film out of hand? Or that the CT community generally speaking would embrace it? I surely don't have to tell you about how many similar instances there has been in the past related to other subjects of the JFK assassination..

After having followed a couple of forums more closely over the last few years, I'd say the odds for this are very low.

[David Josephs]

Excellent point John...

I went to DP in 1994 and it literally changed everything... when one sees the "bowl" of a shooting gallery that spot, that street, is... and how unbelieveably small everything is.... the culpability of the Secret Service is hard to ignore... as soon as the limo turned onto Elm it should have continued speeding up and been out of there...

Absolutely no reason to slow the limo or to be traveling less than 8 mph down that street... NONE. Especially after we see how easily it was for the limo to accelerate and leave as quickly as it did.... {sigh}

Has Greer ever offered anything to explain the severe slowdown?

What Greer should have done http://assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter08.pdf

The relevant rule set forth in the Secret Service document outlining principles of Presidential protection states: “The driver of the President’s car should be alert for dangers and be able to take instant action when instructed or otherwise made aware of an emergency [emphasis added].”45 Former Inspector and Assistant Director Thomas Kelley told the HSCA: “… generally the instructions to the drivers of the cars are to be prepared to get the President away from any dan-gerous situation.”46 For his part, Chief Rowley wrote to the Warren Commission: “The Secret Service has consistently followed two general principals in emergen-cies involving the President. All agents are so instructed. The first duty of the agents in the motorcade is to attempt to cover the President as closely as possible and practicable and to shield him by attempting to place themselves between the President and any source of danger. Secondly, agents are instructed to remove the President as quickly as possible from known or impending danger. Agents are instructed that it is not their responsibility to investigate or evaluate a present danger, but to consider any untoward circumstances as serious and to afford the President maximum protection at all times. No responsibility rests upon those agents near the President for the identification or arrest of an assassin or attacker. Their primary responsibility is to stay with and protect the President.”47 [Emphasis added.] In addition, the Secret Service liked to maintain speeds of at least 20–30 miles per hour during motorcades.48

Altgens 6 should have shown 2-3 agents running to the limo, Kellerman climbing over the seat and all the occupants of the limo pushed to the rear as the limo accelerates....

[Greg Burnham]

Hi David,

Excellent post. Even the extant films show the absolute and utter failure of the President's Protection Detail. This failure is not only seen in the

loss of "the client" (which is the ultimate failure), but it's also evident in their gross departure from everything that they have been taught to do in a

similar circumstance.

Your observation that:

Altgens 6 should have shown 2-3 agents running to the limo, Kellerman climbing over the seat and all the occupants of the limo pushed to the

rear as the limo accelerates....

...is spot on.

Moreover, the agents should have reacted to the very fact that the client vehicle was about to take a 90+ degree turn as it approached Elm from Houston.

They should have been off the Queen Mary prior to the start of the turn--and at the first "sound" of anything out of the ordinary, i.e. "popping, cracking,

snapping, firecrackers or backfires"--swarming the vehicle and shielding the occupants. They did none of these things even in the extant films available.

...

Edited April 18, 2011 by Greg Burnham