Jump to content
The Education Forum

Yet another Zapruder question


Recommended Posts

This may be a bit convoluted, but what isn't when it comes to JFK/Dallas.

A good friend of mine from NYC who has been in the projection/editing biz since the early '60's recently advised me that he has a copy of the Zap film that he's had since '67 or so...buried in his warehouse....you can imagine my interest...so naturally, I asked him how he got it....he said to the best of his recollection, he got it from R.Greenberg, a NYC editing firm of some repute...a quick google on R.Greenberg brought up a 2-D graphics firm that works in the motion picture biz...but only since '77.....hmmmmm, eh?....

3 questions, if you will...

1. anyone heard of this company?

2. why would they have a Zap copy?

3. is it worth my time to go through what amounts to a medium size warehouse of tape stock to find it?

my friend doesn't really care about all the assassination stuff....he's just a tapehound with lots of cool tape and film, mostly rock-n-roll boots from the '60's and early '70's...

basically told me if I can find it, I can have it.

any one that can comment or add some info before I spend what could amount to days going through boxes of tape?

thanks, t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. is it worth my time to go through what amounts to a medium size warehouse of tape stock to find it?

Tom:

Without a doubt.

A number of researchers claim to have seen a film taken from a similar point of view as Zapruder's, but which shows significant differences from the extant movie. On the face of it, there is a small chance that the movie owned by your friend is the "other" one. If so, its importance cannot be overestimated.

Even if your friend's film is a copy of Zapruder movie, given the controversy over whether it has been altered, it would be extremely important if key aspects differ.

However, if the warehouse has been subject to forty years of extremes of temperature and humidity, it is possible that the movie -- whatever its provenance -- may be so degraded as to be worthless.

Until you know what you've got, I would keep mum about this.

Good luck.

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you for your time, Mr. Eaglesham.

yes, the 'other" film......

working around my schedule and my buddy's to find the "magic box", so to speak, could take awhile.

If there is something notable about his copy, I'll be sure to advise this "community"...

btw, great board...been reading the posts here for quite some time....fascinating subjects and people.

thanks, t.

Edited by Tom Kutzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good friend of mine from NYC who has been in the projection/editing biz since the early '60's recently advised me that he has a copy of the Zap film that he's had since '67 or so...buried in his warehouse....you can imagine my interest...so naturally, I asked him how he got it....he said to the best of his recollection, he got it from R.Greenberg, a NYC editing firm of some repute...a quick google on R.Greenberg brought up a 2-D graphics firm that works in the motion picture biz...but only since '77.....hmmmmm, eh?....

I am guessing that if your information is correct, then your friend is mistaken as to where he obtained a copy of the film. Before Jim Garrison went to trial against Clay Shaw, Garrison was said to have had bootleg copies of the Zapruder film sent out to various people. It is possible that your friend may have one of those copies. You might start by asking your friend if he recalls whether the film was B&W or color?

As far as the "other film" goes ... that story stinks to high heaven. Not only are there numerous versions of this 'other film' being alleged, but not one person who claims to have seen the showing of this shocking piece of footage can cite even the month it was seen or anyone else who was present when they saw it. I am not even aware of anyone that these people may have discussed this amazing and shocking piece of film with following its alleged viewing. It's funny that when someone see's a blurry distant photo of the assassination showing a poor quality image of a woman who is thought to be black when she is actually white - the Zfilm seems suspicious to them. Yet the lack of detail surrounding the alleged other film isn't considered suspicious. One thing about all this is that the alleged 'other film' witnesses have locked themselves into a it being very sharp and clear. So if you find your friend's copy to be of poor quality, then you do not have the alleged 'other film". If it is little more than mud, then it most likely is a bootleg copy of Zapruder's film.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Tom Kutzer' wrote:

This may be a bit convoluted, but what isn't when it comes to JFK/Dallas.

A good friend of mine from NYC who has been in the projection/editing biz since the early '60's recently advised me that he has a copy of the Zap film that he's had since '67 or so...buried in his warehouse....you can imagine my interest...so naturally, I asked him how he got it....he said to the best of his recollection, he got it from R.Greenberg, a NYC editing firm of some repute...a quick google on R.Greenberg brought up a 2-D graphics firm that works in the motion picture biz...but only since '77.....hmmmmm, eh?....

*****************

Quite a few bootleg copies were created during the New Orleans Garrison-Shaw trial. Additional copies of the Z-film were reproduced in NYC, for the FBI. In 2000 Roland Zavada made a presentation to the NYC branch of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) Present with him was Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics, NYC. Hall commented during the 2000 SMPTE conference; his firm in 1963 made 16mm copies (they had to adapt a film printer for the job, same a Moe Weitzman firm had to do) of the Zapruder film. As for 8mm copies, who knows... It should be noted that Cine Magnetics became one of the worldwide industry leaders in providing 8mm SOF versions of commercial released Hollywood feature-films amongst other places. The film industry terminology: IN-flight films, provided to/for every commercial airline.

A summary [link] of the SMPTE conference: Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film, hosted by Roalnd Zavada is located below

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm

any further questions, Bill can help you - he's the expert!

DHealy

*******************

3 questions, if you will...

1. anyone heard of this company?

2. why would they have a Zap copy?

3. is it worth my time to go through what amounts to a medium size warehouse of tape stock to find it?

my friend doesn't really care about all the assassination stuff....he's just a tapehound with lots of cool tape and film, mostly rock-n-roll boots from the '60's and early '70's...

basically told me if I can find it, I can have it.

any one that can comment or add some info before I spend what could amount to days going through boxes of tape?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few bootleg copies were created during the New Orleans Garrison-Shaw trial. Additional copies of the Z-film were reproduced in NYC, for the FBI. In 2000 Roland Zavada made a presentation to the NYC branch of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) Present with him was Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics, NYC. Hall commented during the 2000 SMPTE conference; his firm in 1963 made 16mm copies (they had to adapt a film printer for the job, same a Moe Weitzman firm had to do) of the Zapruder film. As for 8mm copies, who knows... It should be noted that Cine Magnetics became one of the worldwide industry leaders in providing 8mm SOF versions of commercial released Hollywood feature-films amongst other places. The film industry terminology: IN-flight films, provided to/for every commercial airline.

A summary [link] of the SMPTE conference: Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film, hosted by Roalnd Zavada is located below

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm

any further questions, Bill can help you - he's the expert!

DHealy

Thanks for citing some actual data pertaining to the subject ... I hope that you not suffer any ill-side effects as a result of this.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good friend of mine from NYC who has been in the projection/editing biz since the early '60's recently advised me that he has a copy of the Zap film that he's had since '67 or so...buried in his warehouse....you can imagine my interest...so naturally, I asked him how he got it....he said to the best of his recollection, he got it from R.Greenberg, a NYC editing firm of some repute...a quick google on R.Greenberg brought up a 2-D graphics firm that works in the motion picture biz...but only since '77.....hmmmmm, eh?....

I am guessing that if your information is correct, then your friend is mistaken as to where he obtained a copy of the film. Before Jim Garrison went to trial against Clay Shaw, Garrison was said to have had bootleg copies of the Zapruder film sent out to various people. It is possible that your friend may have one of those copies. You might start by asking your friend if he recalls whether the film was B&W or color?

As far as the "other film" goes ... that story stinks to high heaven. Not only are there numerous versions of this 'other film' being alleged, but not one person who claims to have seen the showing of this shocking piece of footage can cite even the month it was seen or anyone else who was present when they saw it. I am not even aware of anyone that these people may have discussed this amazing and shocking piece of film with following its alleged viewing. It's funny that when someone see's a blurry distant photo of the assassination showing a poor quality image of a woman who is thought to be black when she is actually white - the Zfilm seems suspicious to them. Yet the lack of detail surrounding the alleged other film isn't considered suspicious. One thing about all this is that the alleged 'other film' witnesses have locked themselves into a it being very sharp and clear. So if you find your friend's copy to be of poor quality, then you do not have the alleged 'other film". If it is little more than mud, then it most likely is a bootleg copy of Zapruder's film.

Bill Miller

"Miller's" lack of knowledge about the OTHER FILM is apparent.

Rich DellaRosa has written often and in detail about it. He saw it

on three occasions, one of which he cannot mention because

of a "security oath". see attachment. TGZFH

At least five others have seen it. William Reymond has seen it

on many occasions and knows where a copy is is in the possession

of a former French intelligence agent. Scott Myers saw the film

twice as I recall. Gregory Burnham saw it. Two others whose

names escape me at the moment. The important thing is that

ALL SIX DESCRIBE THE SAME EVENTS ON THE FILM.

Wake up, Miller.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

You seem to have been presented a unique and special opportunity. If you care about the case, you should follow up on it. Sure, it could be a great deal of work for naught - but, on the other hand, it could turn out to be something truly important. We do so much other work in our lives which never seems to have a real "pay-off". Just think about the level of satisfaction you would enjoy if your efforts produced something valuable to many others in an arena such as this. My personal view of this case is, that - if you have explored and examined a certain area sufficiently to believe that, circumstantially - continued research might provide you with precisely what you are suspecting and looking for - the thing you seek will very likely be there waiting for you at the end of it all. The "kicker" is that you find yourself thinking more and more like the bottom-dwelling conspirators... a filthy job... which, apparently, some of us have to do... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

French investigative journalist William Reymond was shown the OTHER FILM many

times by a former French intelligence agent who said it was used as a training film.

William tells about it in his book, but I cannot cite a reference page because I don't

parleyvous the language.

Jack

William is on my video THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX )which will soon be available

free online)...describing to Jim Marrs in detail what the OTHER FILM shows.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few bootleg copies were created during the New Orleans Garrison-Shaw trial. Additional copies of the Z-film were reproduced in NYC, for the FBI. In 2000 Roland Zavada made a presentation to the NYC branch of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) Present with him was Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics, NYC. Hall commented during the 2000 SMPTE conference; his firm in 1963 made 16mm copies (they had to adapt a film printer for the job, same a Moe Weitzman firm had to do) of the Zapruder film. As for 8mm copies, who knows... It should be noted that Cine Magnetics became one of the worldwide industry leaders in providing 8mm SOF versions of commercial released Hollywood feature-films amongst other places. The film industry terminology: IN-flight films, provided to/for every commercial airline.

A summary [link] of the SMPTE conference: Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film, hosted by Roalnd Zavada is located below

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm

any further questions, Bill can help you - he's the expert!

DHealy

Thanks for citing some actual data pertaining to the subject ... I hope that you not suffer any ill-side effects as a result of this.

Bill Miller

All discussed upteen times -- SMPTE, I suspect some of this may be escaping you...?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller's" lack of knowledge about the OTHER FILM is apparent.

Rich DellaRosa has written often and in detail about it. He saw it

on three occasions, one of which he cannot mention because

of a "security oath". see attachment. TGZFH

At least five others have seen it. William Reymond has seen it

on many occasions and knows where a copy is is in the possession

of a former French intelligence agent. Scott Myers saw the film

twice as I recall. Gregory Burnham saw it. Two others whose

names escape me at the moment. The important thing is that

ALL SIX DESCRIBE THE SAME EVENTS ON THE FILM.

Wake up, Miller.

Jack

Jack, the people you are citing about seeing this other film cannot be talking about the same film ... because the events they describe from within the film the saw has varied from testimonial to the another. I have been through this before with you-you cannot see the problem with there being so many different versions and how that applies here, then there is nothing more to discuss. Burnham's version saw a 1/4 to a 1/2 second limo stop. Another witness (Myers) to this 'other film' says he saw a 4 second limo stop. Scott Myers posted on the looney forum that the version he saw showed JFK getting shot up as he was rounding the corner onto Elm Street. Not one witness has ever claimed that they heard any shots at this time, nor did they describe seeing the President and Connally shot this early in the Elm Street ride. In fact, Betzner said he had already taken his photo when the first shot rang out. Willis said it was the first shot sounding off that caused him to take his photo, thus Myers was either lying or there are different films out there that are being lumped together as one film called "the other film". If the latter is true, then at least some of these people saw a staged film for whatever reason that it was created.

Now you can tell this forum that all these alleged witnesses have described the same events, but I was on that forum when all this came out and I am telling you flat out that you are mistaken. Furthermore, DellaRosa could not name one person he was with when he saw this alleged "other film". DellaRosa was so vague that there was no way to even pinpoint the month and year at his school so to go back in their records and find out what events that took place there so to see who it was who was responsible for bringing the film to the school in theo first place. I remember this because I wanted to help locate this other film, but was frustrated by the severe lack of detail that was forthcoming over this so-called shocking event. So spin it any way that you like, but you are either lying to these forum members or you are so delusional that you no longer have a grasp on reality of what transpired over this so-called "other film" business.

Bill Miller

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, the people you are citing about seeing this other film cannot be talking about the same film ...

dgh: the post where they have communicated to you the same or is this more unsupportable BS from you?

because the events they describe from within the film the saw has varied from testimonial to the another. I have been through this before with you and if your mind is so far gone that you cannot see the problem with there being so many different versions and how that applies here, then there is nothing more to discuss. Burnham's version saw a 1/4 to a 1/2 second limo stop. Another witness (Myers) to this 'other film' says he saw a 4 second limo stop. Scott Myers posted on the looney forum that the version he saw showed JFK getting his ass shot up as he was rounding the corner onto Elm Street. Not one witness has ever claimed that they heard any shots at this time, nor did they describe seeing the President and Connally shot this early in the Elm Street ride. In fact, Betzner said he had already taken his photo when the first shot rang out. Willis said it was the first shot sounding off that caused him to take his photo, thus Myers was either lying or there are different films out there that are being lumped together as one film called "the other film". If the latter is true, then at least some of these people saw a staged film for whatever reason that it was created.

Now you can tell this forum that all these alleged witnesses have described the same events,

dgh: I believe the alledged witnesses, I prefer to call them *film-viewers* describe film coverage of the JFK assassination, Nov 22nd 1963

but I was on that forum when all this came out and I am telling you flat out that you are mistaken.

dgh: I believe you should be stating you were on the JFK Assassination Forum when YOU, Bill Miller, first heard of another film....

Furthermore, DellaRosa could not name one person he was with when he saw this alleged "other film".

dgh: name to YOU? rofl, roflmfao! Why YOU?

DellaRosa was so vague that there was no way to even pinpoint the month and year at his school so to go back in their records and find out what events that took place there so to see who it was who was responsible for bringing the film to the school in theo first place.

dgh: perhaps your game was uncovered early on...

I remember this because I wanted to help locate this other film,

dgh: of that I'm sure, tsk-tsk

but was frustrated by the severe lack of detail that was forthcoming over this so-called shocking event. So spin it any way that you like, but you are either lying to these forum members or you are so delusional that you no longer have a grasp on reality of what transpired over this so-called "other film" business.

dgh: then why do you run around in circles when these issues prop up every now and then? If the topic is so unimportant, ignore it! It should be painfully evident to the lurkers, your not here to search for solutions and answers [where it be the photographic record or not] AGAIN, perhaps your game was uncovered early on...?

Bill Miller

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: the post where they have communicated to you the same or is this more unsupportable BS from you?

dgh: I believe the alledged witnesses, I prefer to call them *film-viewers* describe film coverage of the JFK assassination, Nov 22nd 1963

dgh: I believe you should be stating you were on the JFK Assassination Forum when YOU, Bill Miller, first heard of another film....

dgh: name to YOU? rofl, roflmfao! Why YOU?

dgh: perhaps your game was uncovered early on...

dgh: of that I'm sure, tsk-tsk

dgh: then why do you run around in circles when these issues prop up every now and then? If the topic is so unimportant, ignore it! It should be painfully evident to the lurkers, your not here to search for solutions and answers [where it be the photographic record or not] AGAIN, perhaps your game was uncovered early on...?

Was there another slow day on the job, David ... so you thought you'd XXXXXX on the ol' JFK forum again? Let's see if I can address all the say-nothing trolling remarks you made above in one sweep ...

The first stupid thing you said is answered by the third stupid thing you said. (see above) The topic was discussed in detail on the looney forum (aka: JFKResearch) Those threads should still be archived, unless like some post made there that was damaging to the theme of alteration .. they may have been removed and are no longer obtainable.

The second stupid remark in the list is typical for you and I expected little else. Only someone with an agenda or lacking the basic skills of comprehension would not see the descrepencies I mentioned in an earlier post concerning what these various alleged witnesses had seen on the particular films they saw.

Stupid remark #4 refers to why they would answer any questions I had asked. One might assume that a forum that is claiming to be searching for the truth would not mind answering questions put forth by other members there. In fact, there were several people there who were wanting to know more about the circustances surrounding the alleged witnessing of this 'other film'. Burnham and Myers both had responded to my inquiries and that is how I know about the particulars concerning the alleged films they had seen. About the only thing these alleged witnesses had in common was that none of them could verify the month and year they saw this 'other film'. Keep in mind that ths was supposed to be some of the most vivid images of JFK's assassination and before anyone had really seen the Zapruder film and certainly not a good clean image of it. Yet no one could offer any names of people who were present at these showings so someone could seek independent collaboration.

The 5th and 6th stupid remark you made goes to what has becaome common knowledge and that is that anyone challenging the alteration crowd on the looney forum soon had their memberships revoked. In my case it wasn't until DellaRosa had cashed my check for my fees. And if anyone thinks that the attitude of that forum is not like that I have stated here, then just let them read the many sorry responses that you give instead of taking the time to rebut what has been said with actual data.

Bill Miller

edit: removal of offensive phrase

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: the post where they have communicated to you the same or is this more unsupportable BS from you?

dgh: I believe the alledged witnesses, I prefer to call them *film-viewers* describe film coverage of the JFK assassination, Nov 22nd 1963

dgh: I believe you should be stating you were on the JFK Assassination Forum when YOU, Bill Miller, first heard of another film....

dgh: name to YOU? rofl, roflmfao! Why YOU?

dgh: perhaps your game was uncovered early on...

dgh: of that I'm sure, tsk-tsk

dgh: then why do you run around in circles when these issues prop up every now and then? If the topic is so unimportant, ignore it! It should be painfully evident to the lurkers, your not here to search for solutions and answers [where it be the photographic record or not] AGAIN, perhaps your game was uncovered early on...?

Was there another slow day on the job, David ... so you thought you'd XXXXXX on the ol' JFK forum again? Let's see if I can address all the say-nothing trolling remarks you made above in one sweep ...

The first stupid thing you said is answered by the third stupid thing you said. (see above) The topic was discussed in detail on the looney forum (aka: JFKResearch) Those threads should still be archived, unless like some post made there that was damaging to the theme of alteration .. they may have been removed and are no longer obtainable.

The second stupid remark in the list is typical for you and I expected little else. Only someone with an agenda or lacking the basic skills of comprehension would not see the descrepencies I mentioned in an earlier post concerning what these various alleged witnesses had seen on the particular films they saw.

Stupid remark #4 refers to why they would answer any questions I had asked. One might assume that a forum that is claiming to be searching for the truth would not mind answering questions put forth by other members there. In fact, there were several people there who were wanting to know more about the circustances surrounding the alleged witnessing of this 'other film'. Burnham and Myers both had responded to my inquiries and that is how I know about the particulars concerning the alleged films they had seen. About the only thing these alleged witnesses had in common was that none of them could verify the month and year they saw this 'other film'. Keep in mind that ths was supposed to be some of the most vivid images of JFK's assassination and before anyone had really seen the Zapruder film and certainly not a good clean image of it. Yet no one could offer any names of people who were present at these showings so someone could seek independent collaboration.

The 5th and 6th stupid remark you made goes to what has becaome common knowledge and that is that anyone challenging the alteration crowd on the looney forum soon had their memberships revoked. In my case it wasn't until DellaRosa had cashed my check for my fees. And if anyone thinks that the attitude of that forum is not like that I have stated here, then just let them read the many sorry responses that you give instead of taking the time to rebut what has been said with actual data.

Bill Miller

(edit:removal of offensive phrase quoted from previous post)

looks like you're the one having a slow day, actually, a R E A L slow day. I could start 100+ threads on this forum (I'll save the lurkers that pain, of course they already know) discussing the nonesense you've posted. Especially concerning those that have more knowledge about photos and film than you'll ever have much let alone able to demonstrate -- I think you have a real serious self-image problem, not to mention a sever need for undivided attention...

How many years ago were you, Bill Miller thrown of the JFKResearch forum?... 4-5 years ago -- and you're STILL crying about it -- you got caught - live with it. Your nonsense was seen through then, as it is, NOW! So show us some REAL stuff, I and other lurkers want to be wooed and dazzled by your brilliance. Your 300 word postings about how someone responds to you on this board and boards long ago is B O R I N G, where's the B E E F...

The state of Lone Nutterism is on the way out...

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...