Russell Reier Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'm 31 years old and my hope is that one day the original z film will be available to watch. Is anyone aware of additional descriptions of the original from people other than burnham, dellarosa, or reymond? I love to hear descriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I am mystified as to how an entity capable of pulling off a complex plot could have failed to prevent "the other film" from being exhibited in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I am mystified as to how an entity capable of pulling off a complex plot could have failed to prevent "the other film" from being exhibited in public. how did the "alleged" in-camera original Zapruder escape public viewing for as long as it? What's so mystifying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The in-camera original was exhibited publicly in still frame right from the time of the assassination. Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example. The other film, as I understand it, is either an unknown film taken from a slightly different location, or an unedited Zapruder film. If plotters went to the trouble of making and concealing (or editing) such a film, how could they have been so careless as to let it leak out and be shown in theaters or TV, especially to several of our own group of assassination researchers? Something doesn't make sense here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Reier Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 I was unaware that there was still a feeling that the zapruder film is authentic. I have seen no serious evidence to support it, other than the fact that the film has been widely shown to the public. But that's not evidence of authenticity. No eyewitness accounts support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The in-camera original was exhibited publicly in still frame right from the time of the assassination. Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example. The other film, as I understand it, is either an unknown film taken from a slightly different location, or an unedited Zapruder film. If plotters went to the trouble of making and concealing (or editing) such a film, how could they have been so careless as to let it leak out and be shown in theaters or TV, especially to several of our own group of assassination researchers? Something doesn't make sense here. "Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example." Out of their kindness of LIFE magazines heart, right? Kinda like Jack Ruby doing a huge favor for Jackie by murdering LHO, eh? Vietnam murder and mayhem on Uncle Walter's Evening News 5 nights a week, no-less.... LMAO! Self-serving BULL pookey, Blackburst! All sorts of shenanigan's going on with all sorts of Elm Street assassination-related films/photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I was unaware that there was still a feeling that the zapruder film is authentic. I have seen no serious evidence to support it, other than the fact that the film has been widely shown to the public. But that's not evidence of authenticity. No eyewitness accounts support it. Roland Zavada was the lone nut's last hope in authenticating the Zapruder film. He was qualified to only comment on the physical properties of the film itself, NOT content of the film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The in-camera original was exhibited publicly in still frame right from the time of the assassination. Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example. The other film, as I understand it, is either an unknown film taken from a slightly different location, or an unedited Zapruder film. If plotters went to the trouble of making and concealing (or editing) such a film, how could they have been so careless as to let it leak out and be shown in theaters or TV, especially to several of our own group of assassination researchers? Something doesn't make sense here. "Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example." Out of their kindness of LIFE magazines heart, right? Kinda like Jack Ruby doing a huge favor for Jackie by murdering LHO, eh? Vietnam murder and mayhem on Uncle Walter's Evening News 5 nights a week, no-less.... LMAO! Self-serving BULL pookey, Blackburst! All sorts of shenanigan's going on with all sorts of Elm Street assassination-related films/photos No, you're wrong David, your sarcasm notwithstanding. I've worked in the news biz for my whole career. There is no way Time-Life or anybody else would show that film on TV in 1963-4. Do all of us remember the horror when WE saw it for the first time? (By the 70s, we had seen lots of Vietnam footage, but we were still only barely ready for it in 1975.) Stills were available, but it was simply too graphic for TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Stephen, i lean toward your concern, honestly - i cannot imagine how the film could be suppressed so completely. YET - the descriptions by those who saw something else are just that - something else. And I don't suspect their veracity, that much, anyway. I fully believe Doug Horne's story - well, I believe his sincerity and the details as much as he could believe them. No doubt SOMETHING surreptitious happened that weekend that pretty much HAS to lead to something shady done with the ORIGINAL. The young French journalist who says he saw it "sounds" sincere (as sincere as one can sound without much English proficiency) but states some DUMBASS reason the owner of said film won't come forward with it. As you've said, something isn't right here. Just like, to me, it was the perfect storm that brought the elements of assassination together to do that thing, I think sometimes elements work together to cover-up a thing like this. Between hacks who think they have an "in camera original", and the secrecy of the handling of the original - that's not making sense - but it's easier for me to believe that the film is somehow less than authentic than it is to think it can't be because we'd have seen it by now. It simply cannot be original, I think, not because my theory needs it to be altered, but because of the "preponderance of suggestion" that it is. i.e., the damn sign moves - i can't show exactly how it moves, and John Costella didn't prove to me that it does, nor any other scientist, but still my eyes tell me something is wrong there. and that's just an example. I'm sold, but i'm not giving it much energy - real solution can be found without the film, i think. i hope. Edited June 27, 2015 by Glenn Nall 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