David Josephs Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 Just now, Paul Bacon said: David, I do understand what you just laid out. I believe that Dino saw the original film, but Chris doesn't have a copy, I think I can safely say. As you said, a half a dozen only have seen that version over the years. What am I missing? Is Chris saying that there are multiple Z films floating around whose frame compositions are different depending on which version you're seeing? Where did the black and white version come from? And where did the color version come from? Does frame 306 show the white patch in the black and white version, but not the color version. I have Costella's frames--no white patch in 306. God help me! :>) This is most likely new to most of you; to some, like me and Chris, it gnaws quietly within the electricity of the brain reminding us that people "ain't gonna learn what they don't wanna know" and pulling on Superman's cape is foolish. I've been made aware of a few people who said they saw it and described it online. One is Greg Burnham referred to in the Prouty thread, the other Rich Dellarosa. Paul ,they did not "only" see this film. The people I refer to have seen both films. This can be taken as definitive proof if you like... as I find these 2 people beyond reproach for their integrity and dedication to the truth. Back in '09 (and throughout my time online) I have a habit of copying significant posts and threads and saving them on my computer and printing them out for fear of them disappearing someday. Of losing them to history for what they suggested. From my files I have these two presentations of what was written and if I remember correctly, the published pages from Rich are in Fetzer's Assassination Science... first off is Greg Jim, The short answer is: In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck. There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left". My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky, abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film. Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo. ============================== I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film. GO_SECURE monk Rich Delorossa posted this about that film - and the attachments below provides a bit more background. I show page 1 just to understand who he was... and how he feels about what he is writing. Title: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: admin on March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - 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 Zfilm 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=20 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 accuratelyportrayed 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=20 inversely proportional to the mass of the object. = (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSC...aws/u2l3a.html). 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: a.. To remove all evidence of multiple shooters b.. To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible=20 c.. To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity6. 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 foreward and report a more recent = viewing. I truly do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: Walt Rollins on March 15, 2009, 11:52 AM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where this film might have come from....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: Dean Hagerman on March 15, 2009, 12:26 PM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Rich you have already talked to me about the POV (Inside the Pergola) Just a thought that you might want to add that into your post for members who have not heard your opinion on where the "other" films camera (i.e. Tri-pod in Betzner) or camera man was standing in Dealey Plaza. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: Rich DellaRosa on March 15, 2009, 01:59 PM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Quote from: Walt Rollins on Today at 11:52 AM Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where this film might have come from....... Walt, I mentioned that on the program. In 1974-76, I was stationed at Andrews AFB outside DC. I was working on a B.S. in Political Science part time. I used to attend classes at the U of Maryland's main campus in College Park on weekends. On Saturdays and Sundays classes were 3 hours each. One each morning and one each afternoon. There was a break for lunch in between. Some people studied, some went off campus to eat, some brown-bagged it. Most of us just hung around. On 2 occasions while I was there, word got around that if anyone was interested, a film of the JFK assassination would be shown at lunch in an empty classroom. I went, once before the Z film was shown on TV, once again after. I had heard of this happening at other colleges in that time period. So I went and a guy, unknown to me, waited until a fair number of people arrived, and used a 16mm projector to show the film. I recall him running it twice each time. Some of us joined in spontaneous discussions afterward. The first time I assumed it was the Z film but no one said it was. The second time I knew immediately that it wasn't the Z film. I remained silent about these viewings for over 20 years. I don't know where the film came from but recall that College Park is only a short drive around the Beltway from both DC and NSA. The guy with the film didn't identify himself and I don't recall anyone asking him. At that time, I held a Top Secret/Crypto security clearance and I was very accustomed to not asking questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 39 minutes ago, David Josephs said: This is most likely new to most of you; to some, like me and Chris, it gnaws quietly within the electricity of the brain reminding us that people "ain't gonna learn what they don't wanna know" and pulling on Superman's cape is foolish. I've been made aware of a few people who said they saw it and described it online. One is Greg Burnham referred to in the Prouty thread, the other Rich Dellarosa. Paul ,they did not "only" see this film. The people I refer to have seen both films. This can be taken as definitive proof if you like... as I find these 2 people beyond reproach for their integrity and dedication to the truth. Back in '09 (and throughout my time online) I have a habit of copying significant posts and threads and saving them on my computer and printing them out for fear of them disappearing someday. Of losing them to history for what they suggested. From my files I have these two presentations of what was written and if I remember correctly, the published pages from Rich are in Fetzer's Assassination Science... first off is Greg I've been aware of Greg Burnham and Rich Dellarosa's stories for quite a few years. I unconditionally believed them from the start! Your post provided many more details than I was aware of, so I'm very grateful for your taking the time to post. It is astonishing to think about. But, again, I knew about it (and believed it). My question, though, is where did the two (different) versions (of the extant Z film) Chris used in his gif come from? I didn't realize there was more than one version of the extant film available. All I knew was that there were just crappy versions as well as better versions of the same film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 13 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said: My question, though, is where did the two (different) versions (of the extant Z film) Chris used in his gif come from? I don't know Paul. I may have seen the vertically squashed frames at some point but did not notice the white thing on the grass at the time. I've looked thru my files knowing I've had a gif with all the B&W frames, but have yet to find it. I would love to see the source of the frames, that frame, for myself. I don't question his integrity, I just cannot give him 100% without knowing more about the provenance of that frame. That spot on that frame after it appears earlier in the extant film, and has not changed location has to be from somewhere in the alteration process. Thinking logically now within the assumptions made about alteration... Frames are removed to effectively allow for the revised film to show no stopping of the limo - color Copies were made of the extant film capturing the same frame by frame images as the original, iow the limo stops, the white dot stops, the limo accelerates, the white dot moves across the page. B&W copies of these copies are made. The extant film does still show the slowing of the limo, only due to the removal of frames the amount of slowing time is drastically reduced The white spot does not enter the frame in color until after the B&W one shows it above Greer's head. frame 305 or so versus 315 The white spot in the B&W frame remains on screen in the unaltered film all thru the excised frames between 305 and 315 due to the stopping of the limo for less than .5 seconds - frame 305 below white blob is not in the extant film at frame 305 but enters the frame at 313 yet is elongated much more so than anything else in the frame which is not the limo, is the amount of elongation the same as what we see for Foster - frame 313 below that 315, below that, appears as if everything is in the same focus: limo, foster, white spot 316, below that, is back to the limo and occupants in focus as he pans and the background blurryFor 1/18th of a second, in the midst of Zapruder panning with the limo as it is supposed to be moving at 9-11.2 mph everything in frame is in the same focus. therefore for that frame the limo must be standing still along with Zapruder's camera, otherwise foreground or background would be out of focus since one is moving and the other isn't. This has to mean that that area of the original film, where the white spot has reached that location in the B&W frame 305 and stays at that spot until 315 when we see it in the extant film, must have contained many more frames while the limo was stopped. When removed, that area of the grass needed "fixing" while the extant color film returned to "normal" as we see the white spot move along the frame and out of picture as the limo accelerated away from the stop. How he has a frame from the original film, unaltered, is beyond me; but he obviously does. Maybe he will be so kind as to let us know about it and where he was able to acquire it... or then again it may be best not to at this point. I take him at his word. Sorry I couldn't be more help in that area, yet this little exercise which I did spontaneously has helped me understand the possible process employed. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: This is most likely new to most of you; to some, like me and Chris, it gnaws quietly within the electricity of the brain reminding us that people "ain't gonna learn what they don't wanna know" and pulling on Superman's cape is foolish. I've been made aware of a few people who said they saw it and described it online. One is Greg Burnham referred to in the Prouty thread, the other Rich Dellarosa. Paul ,they did not "only" see this film. The people I refer to have seen both films. This can be taken as definitive proof if you like... as I find these 2 people beyond reproach for their integrity and dedication to the truth. Back in '09 (and throughout my time online) I have a habit of copying significant posts and threads and saving them on my computer and printing them out for fear of them disappearing someday. Of losing them to history for what they suggested. From my files I have these two presentations of what was written and if I remember correctly, the published pages from Rich are in Fetzer's Assassination Science... first off is Greg Jim, The short answer is: In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck. There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left". My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky, abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film. Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo. ============================== I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film. GO_SECURE monk Rich Delorossa posted this about that film - and the attachments below provides a bit more background. I show page 1 just to understand who he was... and how he feels about what he is writing. Title: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: admin on March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - 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 Zfilm 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=20 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 accuratelyportrayed 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=20 inversely proportional to the mass of the object. = (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSC...aws/u2l3a.html). 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: a.. To remove all evidence of multiple shooters b.. To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible=20 c.. To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity6. 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 foreward and report a more recent = viewing. I truly do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: Walt Rollins on March 15, 2009, 11:52 AM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where this film might have come from....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: Dean Hagerman on March 15, 2009, 12:26 PM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Rich you have already talked to me about the POV (Inside the Pergola) Just a thought that you might want to add that into your post for members who have not heard your opinion on where the "other" films camera (i.e. Tri-pod in Betzner) or camera man was standing in Dealey Plaza. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs Post by: Rich DellaRosa on March 15, 2009, 01:59 PM=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Quote from: Walt Rollins on Today at 11:52 AM Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where this film might have come from....... Walt, I mentioned that on the program. In 1974-76, I was stationed at Andrews AFB outside DC. I was working on a B.S. in Political Science part time. I used to attend classes at the U of Maryland's main campus in College Park on weekends. On Saturdays and Sundays classes were 3 hours each. One each morning and one each afternoon. There was a break for lunch in between. Some people studied, some went off campus to eat, some brown-bagged it. Most of us just hung around. On 2 occasions while I was there, word got around that if anyone was interested, a film of the JFK assassination would be shown at lunch in an empty classroom. I went, once before the Z film was shown on TV, once again after. I had heard of this happening at other colleges in that time period. So I went and a guy, unknown to me, waited until a fair number of people arrived, and used a 16mm projector to show the film. I recall him running it twice each time. Some of us joined in spontaneous discussions afterward. The first time I assumed it was the Z film but no one said it was. The second time I knew immediately that it wasn't the Z film. I remained silent about these viewings for over 20 years. I don't know where the film came from but recall that College Park is only a short drive around the Beltway from both DC and NSA. The guy with the film didn't identify himself and I don't recall anyone asking him. At that time, I held a Top Secret/Crypto security clearance and I was very accustomed to not asking questions. Wow David. I'm trying to absorb this at the moment, it's got my head spinning. I don't contest the story of Greg or Rich. I had read something quite a while back about another film taken from near where Zapruder was. Just two or three lines which was quickly and heavily contested by others, then no more comments about it. Nothing like this for sure. thanks for posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: I take him at his word. I do too DJ. Thanks for your thought process. And I second Ron: "minds blown..."!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: Nothing like this for sure. thanks for posting this. 1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said: I do too DJ. Thanks for your thought process. And I second Ron: "minds blown..."!! Yeah... I remember just sitting and staring at the sky when I was first exposed to this all those years ago. I hope too that my little foray into the logic behind the images we see in Chris' gif hits home as it did for me as I was doing it. Like finding the page when Dulles crosses out Cadigan's testimony and writes his own instead - which then gets published as Dulles rewrote it in the final transcription... After that post I feel an closeness to understanding how they did it, and how much easier it was than people think. I remember years ago asking Chris "what if they actually did cut out 120 frames from the Elm turn and specifically chose to start the frame numbers where it made the most sense?" He then goes on to prove what they did and they they synced it to the other films. His work and the works he references are so far beyond the pale. I'd come back here from time to time just to check on what progress he's made... and maybe lend a hand in translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 4 hours ago, David Josephs said: I would love to see the source of the frames, that frame, for myself. I don't question his integrity, I just cannot give him 100% without knowing more about the provenance of that frame. How he has a frame from the original film, unaltered, is beyond me; but he obviously does. Maybe he will be so kind as to let us know about it and where he was able to acquire it... or then again it may be best not to at this point. I take him at his word. Sorry I couldn't be more help in that area, yet this little exercise which I did spontaneously has helped me understand the possible process employed. DJ DJ, Check your forum mail from March 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 41 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: DJ, Check your forum mail from March 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 It's a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma :>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 Here is a paper written by Doug Horne on the chain of custody of the Zapruder film..https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 There is no "other" Zapruder film and there never has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 8, 2023 Share Posted May 8, 2023 As time passes and new things come to light, revisiting images and exhibits which have become second nature to see and notice what we used to notice - are seen in a completely new light and shed new revelations. Not trying to be obtuse, just respectful. The WCR exhibits contains a number of sections where Z-frames are offered. I've looked at them hundreds of if not thousands of times and did not see what I now see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 Understood. Thanks DJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 On 5/5/2023 at 5:20 AM, Jonathan Cohen said: Two words: Roland Zavada. http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm 8 words for ya concerning old Rollie: Harry Livingston; David Lifton; John Costella and yours truly... 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