Rich Delarosa and the “other” film of the assassination

[Nick Bartetzko]

9 hours ago, Dan Rice said:

The 'other film' refers to the original un-altered Zapruder film, not a film shot by a second photographer.

Personally, I'm undecided as to whether the Zapruder film was altered.

No, that is not my understanding of the "other" film. I was a member of DellaRosa's forum for a number of years. I believe there were discussions regarding possible locations for the second photographer on other forums as well. There were also recollections of a slightly different vantage point from where the "other" film was shot. I don't think there was another film from the area where Z was standing as there is no photographic evidence for it. I believe what was seen was a clean original of the Z film and the film was without doubt altered. 

[Nick Bartetzko]

22 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

We can put at the top of the list Erwin Schwartz, Abraham Zapruder's business partner, who undisputedly viewed the camera-original Zapruder film multiple times on Friday and Saturday, 11/22/1963 and 11/23/1963, while Schwartz was accompanying Zapruder to have the film developed, and watched it projected multiple times for journalists and investigators.

We can place him in the category of individuals who viewed "the other Zapruder film" because his descriptions of what he viewed in that film differ from what we see today in the extant "original" Zapruder film.

I've long been interested in Schwartz's testimony in relation to his account (as well as the accounts of numerous other witnesses) of seeing blood, brain and skull blown backwards out of the President's head -- imagery that is not in the extant "original" Zapruder film.

I have had the following, from Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason," for a good number of years:

"...When I interviewed Erwin Schwartz, I asked him several questions about what he saw on the film when he first viewed it in its original state at Eastman Kodak. [In a footnote, Twyman made clear that Schwartz was referring to first viewing the film in its 16 mm wide, unslit state at the Kodak plant in Dallas.] ...I also asked him to describe what he saw at the instant of the fatal head shot. His answer was very descriptive. He said he saw Kennedy's head suddenly whip around to the left (counter-clockwise). I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "It went this way." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "Yes." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "No; it was to the left and rear." We went over this several times with him to be certain he was clear on this point. He was very clear. Of course. Schwartz's statement that the blood and brains went back to the rear and left was completely consistent with all of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the rear of Kennedy's head blow out and brain and blood go to the rear. It was also consistent with Dallas motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis's testimony that he was riding to the rear and the left of limousine and was splattered with blood and brains...So here we have testimony from a man who first saw the original Zapruder film (he said he looked- at it at least fifteen times over the weekend)...who...saw the eruption of blood and brains in a direction opposite [to] what we now see on the Zapruder film...."

In preparation for this post I did some research and found that Richard Bartholomew published the source interview for the above material on the internet on May 25, 2023, and the following excerpts from that interview are relevant to this subject:

"...Erwin remembers that JFK leaned toward Jackie after the first shot. And the camera didn't stay on him. “It kind of moved,” Erwin said. Jackie “kind of pushed him upright,” Erwin said, and she looked at him as if to be saying, “What's wrong?” Then his head snapped back, and half of it came off. “You didn't see the open skull, but you saw stuff flying everywhere.” Erwin said the debris went toward the back. JFK was turned toward Jackie. Erwin did not see any stopping of the motion of the car or the film. “I don't think it ever came to a stop,” he said.

This motion was seen by Erwin at the first viewing and during his subsequent viewings. “People have asked me, ‘did he go straight back like that?’” Erwin said. “No, he went that way. I mean, you know, because you could see his face after the shot,” Erwin answered....

...Erwin cannot comment on witness claims that the limousine came to a stop because he wasn’t there. The car had not stopped in Erwin’s estimation. When Clint Hill caught up with it, the car was moving. Erwin did not see any indication in the film that the panning action of the camera stopped either. Erwin thinks Clint Hill’s actions were the most heroic thing he has seen. “He literally pushed her back into that seat. Dove on top of her. I mean, if anybody deserved a medal it’s that guy.”

At the first indication that JFK had been hit, Erwin could not tell where he got hit. There was no blood or anything. Erwin always saw the film at full speed. He never saw it slow. The debris flew off JFK’s head quick enough that Erwin described it as “a jerk.” When asked if he saw any debris go forward, Erwin said, “No. Not that I recall. It went backwards, left.” It looked like just one shot, “then you see her trying to get the hell out of there.”..."

'Erwin Schwartz Interview, Nov. 21, 1994'
Regarding Mr. Schwartz's and his business partner Abraham Zapruder’s early chain of possession of Mr. Zapruder's film
BARTHOLOVIEWS | By Richard Bartholomew | May 25, 2023 | https://medium.com/@bartholoviews/erwin-schwartz-interview-nov-21-1994-c86708034449

The takeaways from this, in my opinion, are that just like Dan Rather of CBS and Cartha DeLoach of the FBI, Schwartz did not see the violent backwards head snap in the camera original film (the violent backwards headsnap also was not reported by a single Dealey Plaza witness as happening in real time [Doug Horne discussing this subject speculates that the violent rearward headsnap is the result of frame removal to excise the rearward flying biological debris coming out of JFK's head]).

And Schwartz also repeatedly emphasizes seeing the rearward flying biological debris, imagery which is completely absent from the extant "original" Zapruder film (instead, we see only the black patch that covers the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head):

The following witness accounts are indicative of the rearward flying biological debris we should be seeing in the Zapruder headshhot sequence directly above, but which has clearly been completely excised from the extant film:

__________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).
__________
"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13
__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).
__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs
__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________
"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.
__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329.  

__________

 

I agree about Erwin Schwartz, but he wasn't part of the group mentioned with Rich DellaRosa and others. I think Greg Burnham would readily know the other names.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

I believe there were discussions regarding possible locations for the second photographer on other forums as well. There were also recollections of a slightly different vantage point from where the "other" film was shot. I don't think there was another film from the area where Z was standing as there is no photographic evidence for it. I believe what was seen was a clean original of the Z film and the film was without doubt altered. 

I've read some years back of a second film from a location somewhere near Zapruder, but nothing I recall convincing or proving such.  It's been a while.

After listening to the you tube audio Keven linked again of Delarosa I'm more convinced than I already was that, as you say, he saw a clean original.  And the one we are all familiar with was altered. 

As I'm not well versed in this aspect, and some of this is from memory please feel free to correct me, I'd appreciate any further education on it.

I can only think of three people who might have seen the same version and spoke of it, for different reasons in less detail.  Dan Rather mentioned the forward motion Delarosa refers to in his first report after seeing the film on 11/22/63.  He quickly changed his mind.  Then Cartha Deloach, Hoover's number three man at the FBI also mentions the forward motion.  I don't remember the source on this.  Then Dino Brugioni.  Who if memory serves was asked by Doug Horne primarily about the head shot.

In re-listening to the you tube audio interview a few things stand out to me.  I think the clarity was mentioned.

The turn off Houston onto Elm is on the film.  Described in detail.  Greer over shot the turn onto Elm apparently thinking he was to go down the Elm Street extension directly in front of the TSBD between it and Elm then corrected.  

Then as they approach where the shots happened we have Umbrella Man "seriously pumping" his umbrella up and down.  With Dark Complected Man waving his arms (to get Greer's attention, says Delarosa).  Then stepping into the street with a fist raised. Reportedly a military signal to stop.  Which Greer did, and looked back and saw the head shot.

Interesting.

[Paul Bacon]

On 5/19/2024 at 10:50 AM, Keven Hofeling said:

So when I weigh all of the cumulative evidence of the stop and/or significant slowing of the Presidential Limousine -- as well as the evidence of Secret Service Agents fanning out and dispersing from the follow up car -- against the Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni evidence to the contrary from their accounts of the camera-original film given thirty and forty years after the fact, I have to wonder whether they simply forgot those particular details after all of those intervening years. There has to be some kind of explanation along those lines, given that the evidence of a stop or near stop is so significant and compelling.

I agree.  Now, add to that, Dan Rather's repetitive observations in his broadcasts, that the limo never stopped.  What could be going on there.

Edited May 20 by Paul Bacon
add sentence

[Pat Speer]

If one searches the archives of this forum one will no doubt find numerous threads in which the "other film" has been discussed. 

The evidence for the other film comes down to people remembering the film in a manner different than what is shown in the current film. 

This is not a surprise. 

Humans are not recording devices. We create impressions and these impressions are subject to change.

Bill Newman, for example, said he'd heard but two shots in his earliest interviews. Within a short period, after most everyone--including his wife--had claimed they'd heard three shots, he started claiming he heard three shots, and could even tell you exactly how they sounded. Now I've talked with him about this and he shook his head and said something like I know I told people I heard two shots but for the life of me I don't know why I did that, as it's now quite clear to me I heard three shots. 

Impressions are subject to change. This has been studied thousands of times in thousands of ways. And it all comes down to that.

 

Now, if someone had taken detailed notes on a second film that could not possibly be aligned with the current film (e.g. Roy Kellerman jumped into the back seat) that would be one thing. And if people claimed they saw a previously unknown film taken by an unknown or possibly unseen witness that would be another. But the witnesses for the "other film" of whom I am aware all claimed to have seen THE Zapruder film years before it was widely available, and remembered it a bit differently than it is in the current version, which of course matches the version whose frames were published in Life Magazine shortly after the assassination, and whose frames were published by the Warren Commission. 

So, as it stands, it's really hard to give claims of a  second film much merit...any more than you would someone's remembering some other detail from 10, 20, 30 years before in a manner inconsistent with the historical record. 

I mean, my Mom always told me I was born on a Friday. She had a clear recollection of that. But then as an adult I looked at a calendar for the year of my birth and realized I was born on a Thursday. So what should we make of that--that I was born twice? Of course not. 

 

 

Edited May 20 by Pat Speer

[Nick Bartetzko]

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've read some years back of a second film from a location somewhere near Zapruder, but nothing I recall convincing or proving such.  It's been a while.

After listening to the you tube audio Keven linked again of Delarosa I'm more convinced than I already was that, as you say, he saw a clean original.  And the one we are all familiar with was altered. 

As I'm not well versed in this aspect, and some of this is from memory please feel free to correct me, I'd appreciate any further education on it.

I can only think of three people who might have seen the same version and spoke of it, for different reasons in less detail.  Dan Rather mentioned the forward motion Delarosa refers to in his first report after seeing the film on 11/22/63.  He quickly changed his mind.  Then Cartha Deloach, Hoover's number three man at the FBI also mentions the forward motion.  I don't remember the source on this.  Then Dino Brugioni.  Who if memory serves was asked by Doug Horne primarily about the head shot.

In re-listening to the you tube audio interview a few things stand out to me.  I think the clarity was mentioned.

The turn off Houston onto Elm is on the film.  Described in detail.  Greer over shot the turn onto Elm apparently thinking he was to go down the Elm Street extension directly in front of the TSBD between it and Elm then corrected.  

Then as they approach where the shots happened we have Umbrella Man "seriously pumping" his umbrella up and down.  With Dark Complected Man waving his arms (to get Greer's attention, says Delarosa).  Then stepping into the street with a fist raised. Reportedly a military signal to stop.  Which Greer did, and looked back and saw the head shot.

Interesting.

The small group that was mentioned in DellaRosa's forum was Rich, Greg Burnham and 3 other guys as I recall. None of the guys in that small group was Rather, DeLoach or names that would normally be familiar to us. There was even discussion as to where that other film could have been taken...within the pergola or even on top of the pergola. There was discussion that maybe even the slight reflection of a camera lens could be detected on one of still photos known to us that had a view of Zapruder, Sitzman and the area on both sides of them. 
If anyone has contact info for Greg Burnham, pls let me know and I'll ask him. Otherwise I don't think any old forums exist like Rich's or Duncan MacCrae where we could do a search and come up with those names. That was all 15+ years ago and my memory isn't quite that good. 

[Mark Ulrik]

56 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

If anyone has contact info for Greg Burnham, pls let me know and I'll ask him. Otherwise I don't think any old forums exist like Rich's or Duncan MacCrae where we could do a search and come up with those names. That was all 15+ years ago and my memory isn't quite that good.

NB! The current incarnation of Duncan's site doesn't go further back than January of 2018.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

The small group that was mentioned in DellaRosa's forum was Rich, Greg Burnham and 3 other guys as I recall. None of the guys in that small group was Rather, DeLoach or names that would normally be familiar to us. There was even discussion as to where that other film could have been taken...within the pergola or even on top of the pergola. There was discussion that maybe even the slight reflection of a camera lens could be detected on one of still photos known to us that had a view of Zapruder, Sitzman and the area on both sides of them. 
If anyone has contact info for Greg Burnham, pls let me know and I'll ask him. Otherwise I don't think any old forums exist like Rich's or Duncan MacCrae where we could do a search and come up with those names. That was all 15+ years ago and my memory isn't quite that good. 

Greg Burnham's site is AssassinationofJFK.net. I believe it is still active and that you can contact him there.

I don't think you've mentioned Pamela McElwain-Brown, a still-active member of this of forum. She has long-insisted she saw an alternate version of the film in the 60's at a movie theater. 

Now, you can probably tell from my previous post that I am a bit skeptical of the "other film." This is in part because to my recollection those claiming to have seen it have given vastly different descriptions of what it contains. But the thought occurs that this may be because some people viewing the current film may have mis-remembered what they saw and that those people have been lumped in with people who yessiree saw a different film entirely. 

So it might prove worthwhile for someone to go though all these claims and separate them out by the different descriptions along with the timing and circumstance of the descriptions. Some, like Dan Rather, and William Manchester, have been arbitrarily thrown in with those claiming they saw a different film, simply because their descriptions of the film they saw was bit different than one might assume they would have claimed, should they have been shown the current film. But they never said the current film was not what they saw, and the circumstances of their viewing the film indicate that they did in fact view the current film. So maybe someone should try to remove those shall we say "reluctant" witnesses, and make an accounting of only those witnesses claiming what they saw was absolutely positively not the current film, and see what can be made of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

The small group that was mentioned in DellaRosa's forum was Rich, Greg Burnham and 3 other guys as I recall. None of the guys in that small group was Rather, DeLoach or names that would normally be familiar to us. There was even discussion as to where that other film could have been taken...within the pergola or even on top of the pergola. There was discussion that maybe even the slight reflection of a camera lens could be detected on one of still photos known to us that had a view of Zapruder, Sitzman and the area on both sides of them. 
If anyone has contact info for Greg Burnham, pls let me know and I'll ask him. Otherwise I don't think any old forums exist like Rich's or Duncan MacCrae where we could do a search and come up with those names. That was all 15+ years ago and my memory isn't quite that good. 

Nick, Greg is still an active member in good standing here on the forum.  He last visited in March, last posted in February (Researchers We've Lost thread).  We have a personal e-mail on file which I don't think I'm supposed to give out.  But, by clicking on his name/image anyone here can view his profile from which anyone here can send him a Personal Message.  His message file is not full, but I didn't check to see if he's accepting PM's or not.  

Greg Burnham - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

It looks like his website is still active too.

Assassination of JFK - A Study in the Assassination of JFK

[Nick Bartetzko]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

NB! The current incarnation of Duncan's site doesn't go further back than January of 2018.

Thanks, Mark. I wasn't aware Duncan's site was back up again.

[Nick Bartetzko]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Greg Burnham's site is AssassinationofJFK.net. I believe it is still active and that you can contact him there.

I don't think you've mentioned Pamela McElwain-Brown, a still-active member of this of forum. She has long-insisted she saw an alternate version of the film in the 60's at a movie theater. 

Now, you can probably tell from my previous post that I am a bit skeptical of the "other film." This is in part because to my recollection those claiming to have seen it have given vastly different descriptions of what it contains. But the thought occurs that this may be because some people viewing the current film may have mis-remembered what they saw and that those people have been lumped in with people who yessiree saw a different film entirely. 

So it might prove worthwhile for someone to go though all these claims and separate them out by the different descriptions along with the timing and circumstance of the descriptions. Some, like Dan Rather, and William Manchester, have been arbitrarily thrown in with those claiming they saw a different film, simply because their descriptions of the film they saw was bit different than one might assume they would have claimed, should they have been shown the current film. But they never said the current film was not what they saw, and the circumstances of their viewing the film indicate that they did in fact view the current film. So maybe someone should try to remove those shall we say "reluctant" witnesses, and make an accounting of only those witnesses claiming what they saw was absolutely positively not the current film, and see what can be made of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider me quite skeptical as well. I don't doubt at all that the group saw a complete film, that it was the Z film and I don't think the "other" film exists. Now that you mention it, I have a recollection of Pamela claiming that. A common denominator in the viewing of the "other" film is at least 2 or 3 of the guys were members of the armed forces. They gave clear descriptions and seemed quite sincere and straightforward. 

[Nick Bartetzko]

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Nick, Greg is still an active member in good standing here on the forum.  He last visited in March, last posted in February (Researchers We've Lost thread).  We have a personal e-mail on file which I don't think I'm supposed to give out.  But, by clicking on his name/image anyone here can view his profile from which anyone here can send him a Personal Message.  His message file is not full, but I didn't check to see if he's accepting PM's or not.  

Greg Burnham - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

It looks like his website is still active too.

Assassination of JFK - A Study in the Assassination of JFK

Ron, I did a search earlier today and could't find him. So I must have misspelled his name. Was on his website and no contact info was listed. But I just sent him an email via this site. 

[Mike Aitken]

Thanks for all the replies…so much information here.

While digging into the forum archives I came across this post by Jack White:

 

“I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or 

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick 

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has 

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it.

Jack”

From this thread:

 

 

[Mike Aitken]

That said, I can’t think of any reason why anyone in intelligence or law enforcement would show a bunch of college kids or random strangers a secret film of the assassination of the president.  In my opinion, at best, maybe a researcher had an early copy of the Zapruder film and showed it on college campuses in the same way that Groden did.  With all the reenactments, etc. over the years, who knows what might have affected people’s memories.  Whether the film that was shown was the same that we have available now or an unedited film is beyond me.  If it was the the “other film” or the Zapruder film, in unedited condition, where is that film now?

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 5/18/2024 at 4:35 PM, Nick Bartetzko said:

I'm certain Greg Burnham did

Burnham said that the (obvious) head shot occurred when the limo was further down Elm Street than in the extant film, closer to the stairs of (about where the FBI “Visual Aid”model puts its “3rd” shot). I believe that the shot about concurrent with Z313 is the one that struck Connally, altered to make it look like it hit JFK.