The OTHER film.

[David G. Healy]

>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

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.

Best kept secrets are hidden in *broad daylight*, state or otherwise...

offed? What SS agent OFFED who?

Are you aware of how many SS Agents (% per year of the entire Agency less uniforms) are assigned to the Presidential/White House Detail ....?

State secrets can't be kept? How many folks do you know of that actively participated [and went public with their admission] in say, the Manhattan Project?

[Trent Adams]

Perhaps its not an alternate version of the same film, but maybe an "enhanced" version of the film. This could be done for effect.

Obviously, it could be frames that have been enlarged and manipulated to "show close up" the effects of what can happen when one in their position fails to remain focused on their duty.

What better way to illustrate this or drive home the point, than to show Jackie Kennedy close up, with her husband head next to her, when all of a sudden she witnesses the horrifying sight of her husband's head "exploding" right in front of her face.

This type of version of the film would not surprise me in the least.

[Jack White]

Perhaps its not an alternate version of the same film, but maybe an "enhanced" version of the film. This could be done for effect.

Obviously, it could be frames that have been enlarged and manipulated to "show close up" the effects of what can happen when one in their position fails to remain focused on their duty.

What better way to illustrate this or drive home the point, than to show Jackie Kennedy close up, with her husband head next to her, when all of a sudden she witnesses the horrifying sight of her husband's head "exploding" right in front of her face.

This type of version of the film would not surprise me in the least.

Of the five persons I know who have viewed the other film, ALL:

1. Had not seen the Zapruder film at the time they saw the OTHER film

2. Had no reason to know that they were not looking at the Z film.

3. Only years later when seeing the extant film did they realize IT was different.

4. Saw the limousine turn the corner.

5. Saw the limousine come to a stop before the head shot.

All of the people saw the film at different times and places.

None of them was aware of the others, but described the same film.

One of them saw it on two different occasions.

One of them saw it on several occasions; it was shown to him by a retired French

intelligence agent. He is a respected French journalist. He attempted to buy the

film, but the man feared for his life, since he was not supposed to have the copy.

All of these people are honest, reputable people. Why suggest they are lying?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

It was traveling slow enough for Jackie to track it and capture it .........

Jackie could not have seen squat for the Zapruder film shows her looking right into her husbands face from only inches away and when the head exploded she turned away from the imapct in a normal reaction.

If Jackie saw anything ... it had to of been a piece of shredded brain matter that flew onto the trunk when JFK's head was flung backwards.

Bill

Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Trent Adams]

Perhaps its not an alternate version of the same film, but maybe an "enhanced" version of the film. This could be done for effect.

Obviously, it could be frames that have been enlarged and manipulated to "show close up" the effects of what can happen when one in their position fails to remain focused on their duty.

What better way to illustrate this or drive home the point, than to show Jackie Kennedy close up, with her husband head next to her, when all of a sudden she witnesses the horrifying sight of her husband's head "exploding" right in front of her face.

This type of version of the film would not surprise me in the least.

Of the five persons I know who have viewed the other film, ALL:

1. Had not seen the Zapruder film at the time they saw the OTHER film

2. Had no reason to know that they were not looking at the Z film.

3. Only years later when seeing the extant film did they realize IT was different.

4. Saw the limousine turn the corner.

5. Saw the limousine come to a stop before the head shot.

All of the people saw the film at different times and places.

None of them was aware of the others, but described the same film.

One of them saw it on two different occasions.

One of them saw it on several occasions; it was shown to him by a retired French

intelligence agent. He is a respected French journalist. He attempted to buy the

film, but the man feared for his life, since he was not supposed to have the copy.

All of these people are honest, reputable people. Why suggest they are lying?

Jack

Huh?

I didn't think I suggested anybody was lying. However, I re-read what I wrote to make sure and again, I didn't see where I suggested they were lying.

To make sure that I am clear on what I wrote, I began with the word "Perhaps". This was suggesting that they weren't lying when they said they were shown a different version of the Zapruder Film, but that the different version of the film could have been an enhanced version as I related in what I wrote.

Basically, I was offering another alternative to what they were shown. I don't know these people and will probably never talk to them. It was just a way to say that they may have been telling the truth, but what the version of the film they saw may not be anything more than a version enhanced for effect.

However, I do not know. Although, I feel comfortable in stating that I did not suggest they were liars.

I guess the question would now be: "What did they see in the other version that could be of benefit to analyzing the assassination any differently?" That is the key to all of this.

Anyway, I just thought I needed to make sure that I was clear, and made myself clear.

[Bill Miller]

These guys while seeing some things that were similar - they often described other areas of their alleged "other film" as showing something different from each other, thus they were only similar films and not the same one. There is also the possibility that they were watching recreations and didn't know it.

Bill

[Chuck Robbins]

These guys while seeing some things that were similar - they often described other areas of their alleged "other film" as showing something different from each other, thus they were only similar films and not the same one. There is also the possibility that they were watching recreations and didn't know it.

Bill

Then there is the possibility that they saw exactly what they say they saw.

Slight variations in the descriptions does not automatically mean different films were seen.

Ask any 5 people to describe the z-film (after seeing it for the first time) and see how they vary in their descriptions of the film.

Just because you have not seen it does not render it a figment of someone's imagination.

Personally, I would like for it to be found in order for it to be shown to the rest of us who have not seen it.

I do not presume to naysay anyone who has seen it.

Bill, I understand you not believing in the other film.

I do not understand you stating that it must be an enhanced version.

Isn't an enhanced (different) version exactly what the SS agent said existed?

Chuck

[Bill Miller]

Then there is the possibility that they saw exactly what they say they saw.

Slight variations in the descriptions does not automatically mean different films were seen.

Ask any 5 people to describe the z-film (after seeing it for the first time) and see how they vary in their descriptions of the film.

Just because you have not seen it does not render it a figment of someone's imagination.

Personally, I would like for it to be found in order for it to be shown to the rest of us who have not seen it.

I do not presume to naysay anyone who has seen it.

Bill, I understand you not believing in the other film.

I do not understand you stating that it must be an enhanced version.

Isn't an enhanced (different) version exactly what the SS agent said existed?

Chuck

Chuck, Scott Myers (one of the alleged "other film" witnesses) said that Kennedy and Connally were being shot all to hell as the limo was rounding the corner from Houston Street to Elm ... now I don't consider that a "slight variation", especially when not one witness in Dealey Plaza said that the shooting started as the President was pssing through the intersection in front of the TSBD. There is also a big diference IMO between a .5 second limo stop and a 4 second limo stop where everything was alleged to come to a halt. And oh yes, those who claim to have seen this alleged "other film" and who saw the limo run up onto the north curb as it came around the corner ... the Towner Film shows that to be false, as well as the notion that Connally and JFK were being shot up during the turn onto Elm. So maybe it is those types of things that you can feel comfortable with in lumping them all together as the same film, but not I. Either someone is lying their ass off or these people who claimed to have seen this alleged "other film" had seen a dramazation. I personally do not believe they saw an "enhanced version" as you suggested.

I'll leave you to ponder something else ... these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them. One fellow claimed he saw it in college, so how could one not know the names of anyone who was present. They don't even mention the names of anyone who they discussed this tramatic event with right after they saw it. This is something that had it been seen as they claimed, then people would have ben kicking it back and forth for the longest time - thats human nature, so something about their story deserves to leave some doubt in any investigators mind IMO.

Bill

Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Mike Perez]

As far as the spray of blood or brain matter on Jackie,

I believe I remember reading either in Lifton's book or Manchester's

book that Parklane Nurse Doris Nelson gave Jackie a towel to

wipe her face with... I may be wrong but that idea is

stuck in my head for some reason..

Mike

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

Chuck, Scott Myers (one of the alleged "other film" witnesses) said that Kennedy and Connally were being shot all to hell as the limo was rounding the corner from Houston Street to Elm ... now I don't consider that a "slight variation", especially when not one witness in Dealey Plaza said that the shooting started as the President was pssing through the intersection in front of the TSBD. There is also a big diference IMO between a .5 second limo stop and a 4 second limo stop where everything was alleged to come to a halt. And oh yes, those who claim to have seen this alleged "other film" and who saw the limo run up onto the north curb as it came around the corner ...

dgh: whoa, whoa, whoa....run UP on the curb? Or a difficult time negotiating the beyond 90 degree lefthand turn onto Elm St.?

the Towner Film shows that to be false,

dgh: the Towner film as well as EVERY other motion picture film covering the Limo negotiating that corner, has a edit/splice/break/or stop down...WHY is THAT?

filmas well as the notion that Connally and JFK were being shot up during the turn onto Elm. So maybe it is those types of things that you can feel comfortable with in lumping them all together as the same film, but not I. Either someone is lying their ass off or these people who claimed to have seen this alleged "other film" had seen a dramazation. I personally do not believe they saw an "enhanced version" as you suggested.

dgh: what you personally believe makes not one iota of difference regarding independent research concerning matters, and/or the photographic record of JFK's assassination. Nor do my personal beliefs.

I'll leave you to ponder something else ... these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them. One fellow claimed he saw it in college, so how could one not know the names of anyone who was present. They don't even mention the names of anyone who they discussed this tramatic event with right after they saw it. This is something that had it been seen as they claimed, then people would have ben kicking it back and forth for the longest time - thats human nature, so something about their story deserves to leave some doubt in any investigators mind IMO.

dgh: "their other' film was..." are you suggesting those people may have ownership of the *other* film...?

maybe fear has something to do with that -- after all it's not unknown whacko's are out there, looking for ANY opportunity. Demonstrated on numerous occasions, which you may or may not be aware...

btw, "people" have been kicking the *other* film around for years", this isn't one of your; "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist renditions is it?

I don't recall, was Ms. Sitzman a photographer? You do know what a Filmo is don't you? EYEMO? Great Bell&Howell cameras, FILMO 70xx 16mm, EYEMO 35mm motion picture cameras (still in PRO use today) -- each out of the box camera load is 100' feet of film [certain models will accept a 400' magazine], stock models run pretty close to 25 seconds on a full wind, variable speeds; 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64fps. Come to think of it.... Dave Wiegman used one, ALL the time... years ago I used both in school, much heavier than a B&H414 Director series double 8mm rig, about the same size though... then of course there's Bell & Howell Sportster [of the same era], the 8mm rig, small, light, fit right in the palm of your hand... only one's imagination limits...

David

Bill

Edited May 17, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: whoa, whoa, whoa....run UP on the curb? Or a difficult time negotiating the beyond 90 degree lefthand turn onto Elm St.?

dgh: the Towner film as well as EVERY other motion picture film covering the Limo negotiating that corner, has a edit/splice/break/or stop down...WHY is THAT?

David, as someone who's research stops with paranoia, you obviously haven't cross referenced the Bell and Martin films ... as well as the full sprocket Doorman film against Towner's film. The splice that you speak of in Towner's film covers possibly two frames ... you aren't suggesting that the limo ran over the curb and got back on track in 2/18s of a second are you?

Next, the Doorman full frame film shows the limo in the center lane halfway through its turn. The Bell and Martin films are not spliced and they pick up the limo during the time Towner's film is missing its two frames and the limo is seen in the middle of the street. So if we can get past the unecessary paranoid assertions and actually compare the evidence ... the limo made a correct turn and remained in the center lane the entire time. If the "other film" shows something different, then it is a fabricated film.

dgh: what you personally believe makes not one iota of difference regarding independent research concerning matters, and/or the photographic record of JFK's assassination. Nor do my personal beliefs.

We are not talking about personal beliefs, but rather a systematic viable way of cross checking the evidence ... I just mentioned above how that was done concerning the allegation that the limo left the center lane of traffic and ran over the curb.

dgh: "their other' film was..." are you suggesting those people may have ownership of the *other* film...?

maybe fear has something to do with that -- after all it's not unknown whacko's are out there, looking for ANY opportunity. Demonstrated on numerous occasions, which you may or may not be aware...

btw, "people" have been kicking the *other* film around for years", this isn't one of your; "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist renditions is it?

I don't know how to address something that does not accurately reflect what I said, but I will try. No one said that these alleged witnesses to this other film had ownership of it ... I am puzzled how you even made that connection. Maybe you should read my remark again ... "these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them." Everything I said was in past tense. And it doesn't matter if I saw it or not ... what I have been saying is that their descriptions of what their "other film" depicts do not even match what the other alleged "other film" witness says.

I don't recall, was Ms. Sitzman a photographer? You do know what a Filmo is don't you? EYEMO? Great Bell&Howell cameras, FILMO 70xx 16mm, EYEMO 35mm motion picture cameras (still in PRO use today) -- each out of the box camera load is 100' feet of film [certain models will accept a 400' magazine], stock models run pretty close to 25 seconds on a full wind, variable speeds; 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64fps. Come to think of it.... Dave Wiegman used one, ALL the time... years ago I used both in school, much heavier than a B&H414 Director series double 8mm rig, about the same size though... then of course there's Bell & Howell Sportster [of the same era], the 8mm rig, small, light, fit right in the palm of your hand... only one's imagination limits...

OK, you can name cameras ... what does that have to do with the information I have provided here?

Bill Miller

Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Bill Miller' drones on and on and ON

dgh: whoa, whoa, whoa....run UP on the curb? Or a difficult time negotiating the beyond 90 degree lefthand turn onto Elm St.? ... the Towner film as well as EVERY other motion picture film covering the Limo negotiating that corner, has a edit/splice/break/or stop down...WHY is THAT?

David, as someone who's research stops with paranoia, you obviously haven't cross referenced the Bell and Martin films ... as well as the full sprocket Doorman film against Towner's film. The splice that you speak of in Towner's film covers possibly two frames ... you aren't suggesting that the limo ran over the curb and got back on track in 2/18s of a second are you

dgh01: nice dance, pal. How do you know that splice covers 2 frames? And, you haven't addressed the question, where'd the "run up on the curb" come from?

Next, the Doorman full frame film shows the limo in the center lane halfway through its turn. The Bell and Martin films are not spliced and they pick up the limo during the time Towner's film is missing its two frames and the limo is seen in the middle of the street.

dgh01: imagine that, just so happens to cover 2 'unverified' frames -- that's a red flag... but don't let me hold up your parade here

So if we can get past the unecessary paranoid assertions and actually compare the evidence ... the limo made a correct turn and remained in the center lane the entire time. If the "other film" shows something different, then it is a fabricated film.

dgh01: well first you've got to assure all the lurkers and me, Towner is missing only 2 frames, far as I'm concerned it could be 40 frames -- read my words "why does every film that covers that corner have a splice, cut, camera stop down during sames footage?

dgh: what you personally believe makes not one iota of difference regarding independent research concerning matters, and/or the photographic record of JFK's assassination. Nor do my personal beliefs.

We are not talking about personal beliefs, but rather a systematic viable way of cross checking the evidence ... I just mentioned above how that was done concerning the allegation that the limo left the center lane of traffic and ran over the curb

dgh01: I believe the point here is the 'limo ran up on the curb' -- you're quote, where did that come from, who stated it and when? Pretty simple question for any DP film/photo researcher

dgh: "their other' film was..." are you suggesting those people may have ownership of the *other* film...?

maybe fear has something to do with that -- after all it's not unknown whacko's are out there, looking for ANY opportunity. Demonstrated on numerous occasions, which you may or may not be aware...

btw, "people" have been kicking the *other* film around for years", this isn't one of your; "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist renditions is it?

I don't know how to address something that does not accurately reflect what I said, but I will try. No one said that these alleged witnesses to this other film had ownership of it ... I am puzzled how you even made that connection. Maybe you should read my remark again ... "these people who claimed how vivid and shocking their "other film" was ... cannot seem to pinpoint the date that they saw this film or give the names of anyone who saw it with them." Everything I said was in past tense. And it doesn't matter if I saw it or not ... what I have been saying is that their descriptions of what their "other film" depicts do not even match what the other alleged "other film" witness says.

dgh01: rofl! gheesh --- that response was a waste of bandwidth...

dgh: I don't recall, was Ms. Sitzman a photographer? You do know what a Filmo is don't you? EYEMO? Great Bell&Howell cameras, FILMO 70xx 16mm, EYEMO 35mm motion picture cameras (still in PRO use today) -- each out of the box camera load is 100' feet of film [certain models will accept a 400' magazine], stock models run pretty close to 25 seconds on a full wind, variable speeds; 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64fps. Come to think of it.... Dave Wiegman used one, ALL the time... years ago I used both in school, much heavier than a B&H414 Director series double 8mm rig, about the same size though... then of course there's Bell & Howell Sportster [of the same era], the 8mm rig, small, light, fit right in the palm of your hand... only one's imagination limits...

OK, you can name cameras ... what does that have to do with the information I have provided here?

dgh01: not just name guy. Which opens up all sorts of avenues and questions

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

[Shanet Clark]

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

Jack and DGH:

If the films omit the wide turn, what does that suggest?

In other words, what is the significance of the missing film and / or wide turn?

[Bill Miller]

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

Jack, it appears to me by looking at the test frame that the FBI just had their object car sitting on the street and started from a certain point. The line of cars in the background suggest to me that they didn't do a turn off of Houston in their recreation test .... would you not agree? If that is the case, then what difference does it matter where they started from ... what would seem important is where their car was positioned when the shooting started. However, if their scope photo is a match to where they have the car sitting on the street, then it may suggest that they needed to place the test car there to get an unobstructed view through the trees. Either way it doesn't mean a lot for Tina Towner said she had stopped filming and was about to walk away when she heard the first shot. Betzner and Willis have that shot trapped between their photos (Z186 to Z202).

Bill

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller