Brad Milch Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) One might notice after reading Pat Speer's 3 Dan Rather TV broadcast 'takes' that Dan doesn't mention JFK's head exploding & gore flying in the air up, forward & away from the President's head. Could this be a sign of the times where such graphic detail was not allowed to be broadcast on TV? Back in those days, married people were depicted on TV as sleeping in separate beds; sometimes separate bedrooms. Or does it mean such images were not present in the z-film Dan Rather viewed? In the 'Dan Rather reports from the scene' broadcasts posted at YouTube & featured in several TV documentaries, one might also notice Dan Rather failed to mention that some witnesses indicated the shooting originated from the grassy knoll area. Dan kept the focus on the 6th floor TSBD 'sniper's nest' window whenever he went on TV in Dallas & CBS relayed his local broadcasts to the nation & the world. Dan Rather also fails to mention he was supposedly standing at a film drop several yards on the western side of the TUP during the ambush, did not hear any shots being fired during the ambush, did not follow the swarm of police officers & detectives converging in the rail yards searching for an assassin or assassin & did not interview any of the eyewitnesses he passed in Dealey Plaza on his walk back to his TV station. Just how close to the ambush was Dan Rather? In his 2013 AXS TV special (Dan Rather: My Days In Dallas - A Remembrance) to reach the area behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll (where Sheriff Decker ordered his men to 'hold everything secure"), Rather had merely walk up the slope of the TUP & cross the train tracks. A matter of yards. Quite a trained, professional reporter, responding to a Presidential ambush playing out yards from him, wasn't he? How many TV reporters have you ever seen avoid an area law enforcement converges on in pursuit of a suspect? I recently read an interesting synopsis online comparing Dan Rather's assassination reporting to that of Bill O'Reilly claiming he was present when George de Mohrenschildt allegedly killed himself on March 29, 1977 in Florida. The importance of O'Reilly's lie is that it eliminates the suspicion that a hired killers or killers entered the house of the important assassination witness & murdered him (Being at the man's doorstep, O'Reilly would have seen or heard them breaking into the house, right?). Rather's reporting focused solely on Lee Oswald & no other shooters & he kept himself out of the ambush. The synopsis concluded with both reporters rising to the top of their professions following their public deceptions, indicating that lying pays off extremely well for some people in some instances. If a poll is ever taken on who made out the best after their assassination coverage, my money goes on Bill O'Reilly, Bill gets to sit next to another multi-millionaire TV journalist broadcast after broadcast: the gorgeous Megyn Kelly (LOL). Neither would give me the time of day if I asked them for it IMHO. Just sayin'... BM Edited April 12, 2015 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 "Some folks are born fabulists. The truth seems boring to them." -- Valenti Valenti, I am not a xxxx. You have called me that. You will not get away with it. Check your friend Burnham's Forum. Kathy C I think you prefer larger-than-life fantasies over boring reality. That doesn't make you a xxxx. Where did you get this from? Your attitude towards me. I told you everything Rich told me, but he never mentioned Jackie being slapped or pushed. I read that I think on Burnham's forum. Where do you get "fantasies" from? How do you know me? You don't. And if Burnham is involved with this there will be fireworks. Kathy C Kathy, apologies for being rude to you. I have been reading your posts for many years and I admire your energy and determination. Apology accepted. I am not making this stuff up. I like to contribute, but I'm all over the Internet all day as I'm addicted. I try to write down the address of something, but if I don't I forget where I've read something. I think, Oh, I'll remember. But I don't. The "other" film, according to Rich Dellarosa who told me this, was like a feature film. The quality was fantastic. What I always wondered was, did the "other" film have a soundtrack. It was not taken from a home movie camera. It was professional, so Howard L. Hunt and his cronies could watch it gleefully. Supposedly, LIFE has a copy and probably one of the networks. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 It is not that we aren't familiar with the "other film" idea;it's that we are concerned that information has been added, and we wanted to see some type of cite, or which of the folk who said they have seen it said it. You just can't throw stuff up, and expect us to believe it. If it is your opinion that Hill slapped her, that's one thing, but if someone else said it, it may be someone other that the folks we know who claimed to have seen it in the first place. It's not that I won't go to Burnham's site and check there. he threw me off the forum. It seems a few years ago I wrote in an obscure forum that Rich said Burnham is a bully. I was telling this to a man who said Burnham threw him off a forum because they didn't agree on something. Burnham must have google alerts for whenever his name turns up. He was nursing a grudge all that time. But he didn't throw me off for anything having to do with my posts. Rather, it was because I sent him a private message telling him something odd about a mutual friend. "That is none of my business," he said, and called me despicable for spreading gossip. I was confiding in him this thing about a mutual friend. What I told him came off the Internet! It was public! Sooner or later he'd probably hear about it himself. After sending me an email, he blocked me so I couldn't get back to him. Right now we are bitter enemies. He thinks I lied about what I told him, like he doesn't believe Rich often called him a bully. Well, he is a bully. He should have stayed in the Seminary. Kathy C And then maybe I read this somewhere else. I will try to see if it was on a different forum. Kathy, I didn't know you people didn't know more about the "other" film. It shows everything the Z film doesn't show. Remember, I started this thread about blood on the hood of the car in which Kennedy got killed. And look where we are. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) I read the first of Clint Hill's books. I don't recall a statement about blood on the trunk. I wish I could remember his precise description of whether Jackie was reaching for brain matter on the trunk lid. This was in the Daily Mail, David. Might be of interest to you. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236766/Clint-Hill-Jackie-Kennedys-bodyguard-reveals-decades-guilt-49th-anniversary-JFKs-assassination.html Apologies to all if I am wrong. In Hill's first book, with its "I had a crush on Jackie" theme, I recall a bloody back seat and a back-of-the head wound described, but not specifically a bloody trunk lid. Not owning the book, I perhaps should not have commented until I checked. UPDATE: I should be able to get the Hill book at the library tomorrow and quote the passage on this thread soon. Edited April 13, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) The fact is, MOST of us have NEVER seen any footage showing Clint Hill slapping Jackie. To cite that he did, you must also be ready to produce a source for that. Otherwise, it comes off as someone's fantasy. Where was it seen? Who saw it? Is there a written source, or was this someone's verbal statement? CAN IT BE VERIFIED? Rich Dellarosa told me about it. We talked about it a lot. I never heard he slapped her, as this individual said. The film shows everything we don't see in the Z film. Rich was in the air force and saw it twice in a theater on a college campus. Another time the "other" film showed up on a TV show in the background. They accidently showed the wrong film. Burnham said he saw it too. Edited April 12, 2015 by Kathleen Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 A couple of images related to the blood on the trunk comments... below the rant.... ------------------- KC has been a constant source of quality information and discussion here for all the years I've been reading and posting here which I think started in 2001 or so. The attacking stance that a few here take - as opposed to offering support and research has indeed dragged this place down. Prior to John closing up shop a little while back due to the ongoing efforts of a few whose only purpose was to disrupt and aggravate - it was virtually impossible to carry on a discussion. It closed, and reopened with many of the offenders no longer allowed to post... As one searches within the Forum and finds their older posts the word BANNED appears under their names... There remain a few here who believe it is their RIGHT and PURPOSE to be "Discussion Nazis" when an idea or research is offered that they disagree with or interfere with their selling of books with ideas that are counter to what is offered. And then, when shown their rebuttals are hollow, without evidence beyond opinion, they get belligerent, abusive and oppressive, all in the THEIR name of saving us from the BS that may be posted. Is it possible for the Moderators here to tell attack tactics from discussion of Evidence and theory? Is it possible for the moderators here to stop people in their tracks when all that is offered is junk science and uncorroborated opinion as opposed to sourced and referenced PROOF? No one here is so lost that we cannot tell BS from theory developed after extensive research. Should a member be allowed to push the GREER DID IT scenario at this point without Moderation? I am and will remain at the center of the H&L theories and the mountains of real evidence which supports it... When evidence is offered to refute any one area - fine... let's talk about why Palmer himself writes to tell us his detractors are wrong, that he was there and others were not. If they coudl PROVE he was wrong they would... but they can't. Yet that simple fact does not stop the attacks. But until completely disproven, as the GREER DID IT "theory" easily is, ad hominem attacks and opinions without basis in ANY fact need to be addressed by the moderators While some of these detractors offer a body of work which is exemplary, one is lost for why this great work ethic is set aside and in its place we get repetitious opinion designed only to enrage and attack... Years and years ago a set of rules was offered 1. Address the Subject not the person 2. Provide Evidence to back the rebuttal 3. Provide the SOURCES of said evidence when possible and let people see and decide for themselves. We are all on the same side - yet to those outside we will forever appear as a bunch of Conspiracy Nuts because we choose to sacrifice those who offer evidence laden theories we may disagree with to forward our own agendas. This all sounds like nothing but NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING - which we hate to see politicians do... How about putting forth what you believe and show why you believe it with reference? Do we actually believe that readers hear come here to be "convinced" or rather to be exposed to other ways to see and perceive the events ?? Posts that include, "IN MY OPINION" are fine for speculative discussion - they are not put forth so certain yahoos who feel it their right and job as "discussion nazis" can find the nearest hammer and pound away at their perceived stupidity of the OPINION or theory developed - if the idea or theory is so wrong - it will be obvious. I address JVB with FACTS about how her Evidence is not authentic or says the opposite of what is offered as a conclusion. There are many that day who claim the limo was COVERED IN BLOOD, hood, trunk, handrails, everywhere... FBI and SS men who make this claim. Blood stained metal does not SHINE,it smears and to anyone who claims the limo was "CLEANED" at Parkland need only look at the FBI color versions of CE352 yes, a bucket was seen but no cleaning was done... the top was put on. One POSSIBILITY is that the bucket was used to put pieces and parts of JFK - Evidence that needed to be "evaluated"... Is there any evidence to show someone actually WASHING THE LIMO or is it speculation based on a bucket? A tough hide and turning the other cheek should NOT be a requirement to discuss the case among peers. We're a few hundred people trying to make sense of this... can we stop acting like the curator of that Museum where lies are thrown into the faces of any and all visitors and nonsense is offered up as FACT? Or, whatever... (let the games begin...) Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 The fact is, MOST of us have NEVER seen any footage showing Clint Hill slapping Jackie. To cite that he did, you must also be ready to produce a source for that. Otherwise, it comes off as someone's fantasy. Where was it seen? Who saw it? Is there a written source, or was this someone's verbal statement? CAN IT BE VERIFIED? Fetzer has Rich Dellarosa's description of the "other" film in one of his books. It was a day when Rich was a little cranky about going over it again. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) The "other film" did not have a sound track. For the record, I have no axe to grind with Ms. Collins and I wish her well. I do not consider her an "enemy" (bitter or otherwise) and I never have. Edited April 12, 2015 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 I read the first of Clint Hill's books. I don't recall a statement about blood on the trunk. I wish I could remember his precise description of whether Jackie was reaching for brain matter on the trunk lid. This was in the Daily Mail, David. Might be of interest to you. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236766/Clint-Hill-Jackie-Kennedys-bodyguard-reveals-decades-guilt-49th-anniversary-JFKs-assassination.html Apologies to all if I am wrong. In Hill's first book, with it's "I had a crush on Jackie" theme, I recall a bloody back seat and a back-of-the head wound described, but not specifically a bloody trunk lid. Not owning the book, I perhaps should not have commented until I checked. In the Z film, the trunk is immaculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) The "other film" did not have a sound track. For the record, I have no axe to grind with Ms. Collins and I wish her well. I do not consider her an "enemy" (bitter or otherwise) and I never have. Then why did you throw me off the forum after your nasty email? Why did you call me despicable. What I told you doesn't happen everyday. Kathy C Edited April 12, 2015 by Kathleen Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) There may be a third Z film. I may have seen it in Dallas in 1990 and it still bothers me. It was shown (regularly, I assume) in a museum or assassination center that was near Dealey Plaza. I can't remember the place's name and don't know if it's still there. I'm certain it wasn't the museum in the TSBD because of what I saw as I remember it. (Do they show the Z film there?) I recall the film being in black and white. But what stood out, what I still vividly recall, was the flap that opened up on the side of JFK's head. It was more prominent, more detailed, than in any viewing of the Z film I've seen before or since. What's more, it looked entirely faked and painted in, like a crude and extremely poor alteration. That's how I remember it. If what I saw was the Z film, the one and only, then I can understand how other people may have seen the Z film years ago and now think that they saw something else. And that's all I know to say. Edited April 12, 2015 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) The fact is, MOST of us have NEVER seen any footage showing Clint Hill slapping Jackie. To cite that he did, you must also be ready to produce a source for that. Otherwise, it comes off as someone's fantasy. Where was it seen? Who saw it? Is there a written source, or was this someone's verbal statement? CAN IT BE VERIFIED? Rich Dellarosa told me about it. We talked about it a lot. I never heard he slapped her, as this individual said. The film shows everything we don't see in the Z film. Rich was in the air force and saw it twice in a theater on a college campus. Another time the "other" film showed up on a TV show in the background. They accidently showed the wrong film. Burnham said he saw it too. I did NOT see Clint Hill "slap" Jackie in the "other film" and I never have said that I did. Moreover, I can assure the members of this forum that Rich dellaRosa did not claim that the film he saw showed Clint Hill slap Jackie. He never wrote that anywhere and he never mentions it in any interview, including his 2009 Black Op Radio interview. I cannot claim to know what Rich told Ms. Collins. However, based on her false claim above: "Burnham said he saw it too...." I advise caution. ------------- Kathy, I think it best of we choose to steer clear of each other. I will not address you, talk behind your back, or in any way disrespect you. I would appreciate the same courtesy. I only responded this time because you brought my name up and I needed to set the record straight. Let's leave it at that. Edited April 12, 2015 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Hi, Greg Burnham: Could you direct us to where your experience viewing the 'other' z-film can be found? If it's no longer online, could you kindly go over it here at EF for those of us that missed it? I found this interview of you about the 'other' z-film posted at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WMOvsPm0Hk Does this interview contain all of what you want to say about your experience viewing the 'other' z-film? best wishes, Brad Milch Edited April 12, 2015 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 The question is not whether Clint Hill slapped Jackie. The question is whether the trunk surface was littered with brain, blood, and bone. I believe it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 The question is not whether Clint Hill slapped Jackie. The question is whether the trunk surface was littered with brain, blood, and bone. I believe it was. Based on what Jon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now