The "Other" Zapruder Film

[Mark Knight]

I'm going to keep an open mind on the subject.

I read an account several years ago written by someone [i don't remember who] that said the film he saw was prior to the 1975 showing of the extant Z-film. He claimed that it was in a military setting, something to do with training. I consider the story to be plausible.

However, until/unless the "other" film surfaces publicly, it has the same effect as being nonexistent. There's nothing to measure, nothing to study, and therefore nothing to debate. And what those who claim to have viewed the "other" film say they saw is just as unprovable today, at this very hour, as Trejo's claim that the John Birch Society and/or Edwin Walker killed JFK.

[David Andrews]

Missing turn onto Elm Street?

Dark spot on back of JFK's head during fatal shot sequence, different from the expected view under noontime sun?

So the Z-film was faked / altered in certain places or, as Jon G. Tidd says, "from start to finish"?

--Tommy

I go for alteration, which can include instances of visual fakery within frames, beyond the mere editing of frame sequences. As for your "start to finish" query, this is a moot issue given the brevity of the film. Which film, after all, starts with the limo turn edited out, and has questionable visuals at the climactic frames c. Z-313.

Edited April 26, 2015 by David Andrews

[Robert Prudhomme]

The one outstanding indication of alteration, at least in my eyes anyways, is just after the head shot, beginning roughly at z319. Greer has apparently made a hard brake application (actually, those early 60's Fords had very sensitive power brakes, and even a light application could lock the wheels up) and he and Kellerman can be seen being thrown violently forward by the sudden deceleration. Nellie and John, just behind the SS agents, can also be seen being thrown forward, at the same time.

However, quite miraculously, Jackie and JFK seem completely unaffected by this textbook display of inertia, and remain unmoved on the rear seat as if no brake application had been made. This is quite astounding, when one considers Jackie appears to be perched on the very edge of the seat while her husband is, for all intents of purpose, quite dead, and totally unable to counter external forces, such as a limo in sudden deceleration.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Regarding the alleged "other" film - here are some observations and notes based on various interviews and web sites:

According to Rich D -

* He saw a movie that was "better quality" than the Z film. It was "professional quality."

* In it, Greer had hard time maneuvering car onto Elm. It appeared at first that he was targeting the service road in front of the TSBD, then realized he wasn’t supposed to go there, then maneuvered to get back to the center lane of Elm.

* Just as Greer maneuvered the limo to where the shots were fired, there was a “lot of activity” on the right hand side.

* The Umbrella Man was pumping umbrella “furiously”

* He claims a bystander is "furiously” trying to get the attention of Greer, and this person was standing in the street.

* That person signaled the driver with a closed fist.

* It's "very clear" that when Greer saw the closed fist, he stopped the car. He “stopped on a dime.”

* He stopped with such suddenness that it jostled the occupants of the limo.

* They’re all “thrown forward”

* Greer turned around and faced JFK.

Okay, so that's what he claims to have seen. Here's how he claims he got the chance to watch the film:

* In 74, 75 he was at the University of Maryland taking courses on Sat/Sunday

* "Some people" said there was a film available to watch.

* He went to an empty classroom. There was a 16 mm projector set up.

* This "unknown person" ran the film. Rich as aghast.

* He asked the gentleman to run it again, which he did.

Later, when Geraldo showed the Z film, Rich thought, "This isn’t the same film I saw..."

* Still later, he saw it AGAIN at the same college.

* He watched it more than twice.

Then years later he was able to locate half dozen researchers who had seen the same film.

One was in France.

Another was in a different suburb of Maryland.

One was in NYC.

All six of the versions "matched up."

"One individual living in Europe allowed a researcher the opportunity to view the film on multiple occasions. That researcher set out to convince that person to allow a copy to be made of it. That person felt his life was in jeopardy over that film. But the researcher began to wear the guy down and he was considering making a copy. A short time later while the researcher was travelling abroad the guy with the film was found murdered. The guy was retired from French Intelligence."

Others making the claim:

William Reynaud

Friend of his – a mercenary – told him about it

Spoke to three other people who saw the film

First man – member of French intelligence

Christian David also may have seen the film

Met the owner of the film

Ex leader of far right group in the sixties and seventies

Perfect copy of the film

Hesitant to come forward

Afraid because he knew who was involved

HL Hunt bought a copy of the unaltered version from Zapruder

Complete stop maybe two seconds

One of the shots hit the sign, ricochets off the sign

Eight or nine shots

Greg Burnham

"As you may or may not already know, it appears possible that Rich, William, Milicent Craynor, Scott Myers, and I all saw the same film and it was not shot by Zapruder, but from a similar position."

"A number of years ago the debate between those who saw the film and the LN/WC apologists became extremely heated. Ironically, the debate became even more heated because of folks who have a vested interest in the Zapruder film's authenticity and who are NOT Lone Nuts, like Groden and Tink. It was at that time that I swore off ever speaking about it again. It seemed to cause more division and uncertainty than anything else. So, Jim had to work hard to convince me to go on the air, but I did. I answer very few questions about it today. Some things I am not at liberty to discuss at all."

Best recollection: May have been a brief stop around the corner of Houston/Elm – not positive

Began to drift to the far left lane

Oriented more toward the grass

Follow up car was right on the bumper of JFK car

Cars started growing distance between them

Stemmons sign was slanted, not flat

Car came to a complete and full stop

Could see follow up car as well as limo in the film

Still coming up from behind, had to slam on brakes to avoid hitting JFK car

Agents came out of Queen Mary, three of four, weapons drawn

Seemed disoriented

Nix film is also altered

95 percent same as Rich D

More from Mr. Burnham:

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 cannot say to a moral certainty what the film was. That is the truth. I can only go on my honest impression. I do not now know, nor have I ever known, who owned or who was in "control" of the film that I saw. The first time I saw it--there was literally no warning! None of us knew what we were about to see. Afterwards, the room was deadly silent. After multiple viewings each one of us went away with the impression that we were each somehow personally responsible for "losing the client" -- which was actually the intended reaction being solicited."

"The subject of the existence of this film is a bit nerve rattling for most people. I understand. It has left me rattled at times, too. I am a researcher, first and foremost. I am not a "witness" per se. Let's keep it that way. However, when a few of us are adamantly convinced that the Z-film is a fraud, perhaps this explains it. For those who know me, I would normally reject "theories" that do not live up to certain standards. However, in this case, I am not relying on any "theory" of alteration."

Others who claim to have seen it:

Dan Marvin...viewed as a CIA training film.
Scott Meyer...Dallas researcher.
Milicent Cranor...saw it at a TV network.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Mark Valenti

[Paul Baker]

There's another common thread with viewers of this alleged film. They claim that there is information attached to their viewing of said film, or the circumstances therein, that they simply cannot reveal. As if revealing info would cause the Phillipines to blow up or something.

It's the same BS we see coming from Ricky White and his ilk. They are "in the know" until it comes time to prove something. Then they demure. Lemkin does this all the time. "There are vastly important things that I cannot reveal..."

I believe this is strictly a matter of a few guys wanting to somehow elevate their experience of JFK research into the murky caverns they purport to be researching.

There is no "other" film.

Brilliant.

Photo and film alteration is a dead donkey. These clever conspirators who have managed to deceive everyone for half a century decided to kill Kennedy in a place where lots of people were watching. Some were holding cameras. No way José.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

[Jon G. Tidd]

From the comments here I detect allegations of not just one other film but rather multiple other films.

Nonetheless, if one assumes there exists or has existed one other version (perhaps better quality, richer in detail) of the Z-film, then one is bound logically to regard the extant Z-film as possibly an alteration.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is to assume there never has existed another, different version of the Z-film.

To do that IMO is to put on blinders.

Far more important than what think is the verifiable fact that on the assassination weekend, two completely different NPIC teams, one led by Homer McMahon the other by Dino Brugioni, produced two different sets of briefing boards based on two different versions of the Z-film. Case closed, as Gerald Posner would say.

[Paul Baker]

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

Prove it

[Robert Prudhomme]

What is the point? Your group has been in denial for 51 years now.

[Larry Hancock]

Actually this would be an ideal topic for education. It would take some work but there would be no reason why a list of all the primary films and photos could not be prepared and posted - listing issues with chain of possession, disappearing masters or footage, indications of image loss etc. The same sort of thing Mark Valenti did with the list of folks who had seen the second film. Then folks could get very specific in focusing in on whether the issues are simply human error or bureaucracy or something more questionable.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

It's a good idea Larry. I would love to see an objective and comprehensive timeline.

[Glenn Nall]

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 21, 2015:

In the following the late Rich Dellarosa speaks for himself, as he always did in his replies to some questions in 2009...about the often asked...

The "other" Zapruder film -- FAQs

Since I appeared recently on Len Osanic's "Black Op" radio

program, I have been receiving several questions, I'll try and

answer them here:

1. Where can this film be viewed?

I really don't know. I believe that copies exist in various places around the world. However I have no knowledge where it can be viewed. I never at any time possessed a copy myself. When I saw it, the film was shown by a person unknown to me along with some others in a suburb of Washington DC (College Park, MD).

2. Do you believe it is an unedited version of the Zapruder Film?

Personally, I do not believe the film is in any way a version of the Zapruder film. The Z film appears amateurish to me and unrealistic in the sense that it seems like an animated "cartoon". The "other" film seemed to be professionally done with great color rendition and smooth panning. Additionally, I am unsure as to whether Zapruder shot the film attributed to him. A French photo journalist who saw the film on several occasions does refer to it as an unedited version of the Z film FWIW.

3. What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?

The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm.

The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when

the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left

the Plaza, The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm.

The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St. In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen.

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.

The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z

film shows no stop.

The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.

With the limo stopped, Greer turned to face JFK. At that moment JFK received 2 shots to the head: one from the rear causing his head to move forward slightly and one to the right temple, fired from the front, resulting in a violent explosion out the rear of JFK's head and sending a huge spray of blood and brain matter toward DPD Officer Hargis hitting his helmet with what William Manchester termed a "red sheet" and with such force that Hargis later said he thought he himself was hit. This most gory explosion of matter is not accurately portrayed in the extant Z Film.

Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and accelerated the limo leaving Dealey Plaza and passing the lead car to entrance the Stemmons freeway.

4. If the Zapruder film is altered, why did "they" leave in the explosive

head shot?

The first thing to keep in mind is that "they" never believed the Z film would be viewed by the public. Members of the WC stated that they believed only a few college professors would even read their report. With Time, Inc. and the FBI controlling access to the Z film they could control who could view it or even selected frames from it. If questioned, they could always say it was being withheld due to concern over the Kennedy family's right to privacy.

In 1975, the extant Z film was shown on national TV on Geraldo Rivera's

"Goodnight America" program by Robert Groden. That segment

can be found on MPI's DVD Image Of An Assassination." The public

was shocked to see the head shot. To many, the Z film was proof of a

second gunman, one firing from the front. To counter those beliefs a

Nobel winning physicist (Luis Alvarez) concocted a "jet effect" theory to

explain how a shot from the TSBD could cause the violent "back and to the left" reaction defying Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows:

The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

The alterationists IMO HAD to leave in the fatal head shot. They couldn't

very well claim that JFK was a victim of whiplash. At the necessary time

Dr Alvarez was dragged out to produce a total canard.

5. Why was the Zapruder film fabricated/altered?

IMO, and simply stated, the purposes of altering the Z film, in order of

priority, were:

To remove all evidence of multiple shooters

To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible

To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity

6. On 11/23, Dan Rather claimed to have viewed the Z film, the first

reporter to do so. He claimed that JFK's head was throw violently

forward not backward. How can that be?

IMO, he may have been shown an early attempt of an altered film in which the frames were reversed. But it is possible that he saw NO film at all --and he was instructed what to say. Keep in mind that on 11/22, Rather was simply a TV reporter for the local Dallas CBS affiliate -- but virtually overnight he was promoted to CBS's official White House Correspondent. Quid pro quo??

7. Will the "other" film ever become accessible to the public?

I truly doubt it. It is a dangerous property because that one film proves that JFK was murdered as a part of a well planned and executed conspiracy. It lays the WCR bare as an intentionally written pack of lies and proves the complicity of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the highest levels of the U.S government.

I have known of ~ a half dozen people who have seen the film in the distant, past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. I truly wish that someone would come forward and report a more recent viewing.

-----------------------------

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 22, 2015:

What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?

The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto Elm.

The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming when

the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the limo left

the Plaza,

The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, nearly going

up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the center of Elm.

The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm St.

In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen. In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down, not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open

umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.

The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice) and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Z film shows no stop.

The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.

--------------------------------

Danny Vasquez wrote on Facebook on April 22, 2015:

The people who saw THE OTHER FILM are very willing to talk about it. Some who saw it were in military circumstances. Some were in college settings. Some were in intelligence connections. But all described the exact same film.

I was not convinced that this was even a consideration by serious researchers until i looked at some of the alignment problems in some of the frames. I'm open to the idea, am a bit concerned how the crowd does seem so lethargic - wonder how such an enormous spray of blood and brain can disappear from the air in less than 1 quarter of a second - wonder why the sign jumps so drastically... i've heard several people describe umbrella man raising and lowering the umb. for whatever reason (and read his expl.) but haven't noticed it on the film.

it seems to me too many people unknown to each other have something to say about it for that to be chalked up to the delusional wanting special attention. that's too easy.

[Glenn Nall]

Burnham: "For those who know me, I would normally reject "theories" that do not live up to certain standards. However, in this case, I am not relying on any "theory" of alteration."

what a load bearing statement that is. I LOVE it.

[Ron Ecker]

Deleted. I'll try one more time to use the quote function.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

i've heard several people describe umbrella man raising and lowering the umb. for whatever reason (and read his expl.) but haven't noticed it on the film.

In the Z film you see the umbrella rotate.

As far as raising and lowering, see how low umbrella man holds it in Willis 5:

Now see how he's holding it in Bronson5: