Jack White Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 >From former Secret Service agent Marty Venker's book "Confessions of An Ex-Secret Service Agent" , pages 24-25: " [in Secret Service school] We'd also watch films of real-life assassinations. Naturally, the featured attraction was the home movie Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963. THEY SHOWED YOU THE GRUESOME VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC USUALLY DIDN'T SEE, WHERE PARTS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BRAIN SPRAYED ALL OVER JACKIE. Again and again, I watched that film. The instructors didn't want us to ever forget it [Emphasis added]." And, yet, Jackie is clean in appearance in the Z film we know of...? vince palamara ...another piece to fit into the puzzle! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 My guess is that he's describing the explosion in Z313, right in front of Jackie's face, and not a different film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 " [in Secret Service school] We'd also watch films of real-lifeassassinations. Naturally, the featured attraction was the home movie Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963. THEY SHOWED YOU THE GRUESOME VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC USUALLY DIDN'T SEE, WHERE PARTS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BRAIN SPRAYED ALL OVER JACKIE. Again and again, I watched that film. The instructors didn't want us to ever forget it [Emphasis added]." And, yet, Jackie is clean in appearance in the Z film we know of...? vince palamara Maybe someone should show Vince how motion blur erases such details from a film ... better yet, let him know about MPI's use of filters to remove the grain on their version and how that too, would make fine details like blood droplets hard (if not impossible) to see. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 My guess is that he's describing the explosion in Z313, right in front of Jackie's face, and not a different film. Ron...WHY GUESS? Read page 463 and following in TGZFH. I know at least four persons who HAVE SEEN THE OTHER FILM. Why speculate? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 My guess is that he's describing the explosion in Z313, right in front of Jackie's face, and not a different film. Ron...WHY GUESS? Read page 463 and following in TGZFH. I know at least four persons who HAVE SEEN THE OTHER FILM. Why speculate? Jack Yes, it appears that a number of people saw a ZAPRUDER film markedly different from the one we are familiar with ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 My guess is that he's describing the explosion in Z313, right in front of Jackie's face, and not a different film. The quote includes a statement that the film shown is a version NOT SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC. Not hard to understand that he means a different version of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Not hard to understand that he means a different version of the film. Then does he explain or speculate in the book why there are at least two versions? If not, why not? Does he simply assume that it's common knowledge that there is more than one version, so it doesn't warrant comment? IMO the fact that he's an ex-Secret Service agent doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about. It's my impression from the quote that he doesn't. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know he was making an explosive statement that called for more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I think at the time Marty Venker was in Secret Service school, only grainy, black and white bootleg copies of the Zapruder film were available to the general public. It was not until 1975 that the public actually saw Groden's color version. In that context, Venker's statement might make a little more sense. Mike Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) My guess is that he's describing the explosion in Z313, right in front of Jackie's face, and not a different film. Ron...WHY GUESS? Read page 463 and following in TGZFH. I know at least four persons who HAVE SEEN THE OTHER FILM. Why speculate? Jack Jack is right ... the looney forum had a long list of people all claiming to have seen this so-called "other film". The problem that surfaced however is that when these people started breaking down what their alleged "other film" showed ... their descriptions started varying from one another. One guy says his showed a limo stop of around 3 to 4 seconds while another guy says his showed a .5 second limo stop. One guy went as far as to say that his other film showed Connally and Kennedy reacting to being shot as the limo was rounding the corner, but witnesses like Betzner and Phil Willis said the first shot hadn't sounded before Z186 and no later than Z202. Mary Woodard said that JFK was smiling and waving to her and some other women when the first shot was fired, which also supports what Betzner and Willis had said. So how reliable are these "other film" testimonials? The implications are that some, if not all, of these people were not telling the truth about really seeing this "other film", or there were numerous "other films" showing various versions of how the assassination occurred. But what the heck ... it sounds better to some to just lump them all together. Bill Miller Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 According to Publishers Weekly, Venter was in the SS from 1971 to 1981, before coming a male stripper. The book was published in 1988. If there was a difference other than in quality in the version he saw in SS school and the public color version of 1975, did it not call for some explanation or comment? Also, is there a single eyewitness account, from Hill, all the people at Parkland or anywhere else, that Jackie had anything on her besides the blood on her dress? Would not bits of brain on her face or elsewhere be noticeable? Did Jackie even hint in her own testimony or her Theodore White interview that she was hit by anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Cormier Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 >From former Secret Service agent Marty Venker's book "Confessions of AnEx-Secret Service Agent" , pages 24-25: " [in Secret Service school] We'd also watch films of real-life assassinations. Naturally, the featured attraction was the home movie Abraham Zapruder shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963. THEY SHOWED YOU THE GRUESOME VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC USUALLY DIDN'T SEE, WHERE PARTS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BRAIN SPRAYED ALL OVER JACKIE. Again and again, I watched that film. The instructors didn't want us to ever forget it [Emphasis added]." And, yet, Jackie is clean in appearance in the Z film we know of...? vince palamara ...another piece to fit into the puzzle! Jack Let's test this assertion with common sense. You would agree, wouldn't you, that if there is indeed an unalterated Z-film different from what the public has been shown the past 31 years, then it is a very sensitive state secret, at the very least. Indeed, you regard this "genuine" article as one of the conspiracy's smoking guns. Fine -- and I would concur with that conclusion if I accepted the premise. According to the Secret Service website, there are now 2100 special agents, not to be confused with 1200 uniformed personnel. Let's be very conservative and assume that ONLY those agents assigned to the protective service are shown this "genuine article" in Secret Service school (though it's probably all 2100) -- and let's estimate that number at 1000. Let's further assume that 75 agents leave the service each year through retirement or resignation, which is probably also conservative. To balance these very conservative assumptions and keep things simple, let's finally assume that the protective service has remained at 1000 since 1975 even though it has probablyh grown. By my count, this would mean that approximately 3250 men and women in Secret Service training have been shown this genuine article -- this smoking gun of the conspiracy -- during the 30 years the American public have had the fraudulently altered version foisted upon them. Now why would the keepers of this super state secret take this risk -- particularly after they supposedly offed hundreds of witnesses to the assassination? For pedagogical reasons? It seems to me that the risk/reward on this is more than slightly skewed, and that the supposedly altered version would be pedagogically sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) According to Publishers Weekly, Venter was in the SS from 1971 to 1981, before coming a male stripper. The book was published in 1988. If there was a difference other than in quality in the version he saw in SS school and the public color version of 1975, did it not call for some explanation or comment? Also, is there a single eyewitness account, from Hill, all the people at Parkland or anywhere else, that Jackie had anything on her besides the blood on her dress? Would not bits of brain on her face or elsewhere be noticeable? Did Jackie even hint in her own testimony or her Theodore White interview that she was hit by anything? What ever spatter that Jackie did or did not get on her in Dealey Plaza would not necessarily be captured on a film full of motion blur. Also, I think that the President's head on his left side worked as a shield and protected at least some of Jackie's face from some flying debris. But keep in mind that the MPI frames are not the cleanest images ... but even at that Jackie's face looks to have some sort of visible blemishes. Bill Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have always wondered why we cannot see the skull material which was blown back over the rear hood - and which Jackie then lunged for ...... Since this piece of debris was shot back toward the TBSD, I believe that the large bone fragment was removed from the Z-film because it was such clear evidence of a forward shooter ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have always wondered why we cannot see the skull material which was blown back over the rear hood - and which Jackie then lunged for ...... Since this piece of debris was shot back toward the TBSD, I believe that the large bone fragment was removed from the Z-film because it was such clear evidence of a forward shooter ............... Why on earth would you think that debris traveling at nearly the same speed of the bullet would be seen on a blurry film running at only 18fps. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have always wondered why we cannot see the skull material which was blown back over the rear hood - and which Jackie then lunged for ...... Since this piece of debris was shot back toward the TBSD, I believe that the large bone fragment was removed from the Z-film because it was such clear evidence of a forward shooter ............... Why on earth would you think that debris traveling at nearly the same speed of the bullet would be seen on a blurry film running at only 18fps. Bill Miller It was traveling slow enough for Jackie to track it and capture it ......... 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