Jason Vermeer Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I freely admit that I hijacked this topic from another thread but I thought it an important part of the ongoing evolution of the historical record. For those that are unaware, the "other" film was a topic of multiple discussions on the JFKresearch forum. In a nutshell, a small number of researchers intimated that they had seen a film of the Kennedy assassination that was filmed roughly in the same area as the Zapruder film but at a different angle. I can remember some work was being done to discover the location of the hidden camera that was responsible for the footage. I do not remember any specific resolution to the mystery and that is exactly what it remained. I am NO photo expert by any means but I can share my impressions at the time... I thought that it appeared that Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, Rich Dellarosa and perhaps a couple more individuals who alleged they had seen the film where unwilling or unable to discuss it in depth. To me, it seemed that there was the likelyhood that one or two of the individuals making the claim had seen some type of re-enactment film and that others merely said they believed they saw the film in order to belong to an "inner sanctum of importance". I specifically remember Rich saying he thought it was either "bloodier" or the head shot was more pronounced in the version he saw. The descriptions varied and the amount of silence on the topic after questions could be deafening...I came to believe that the promoters of the existance of the film weren't sure what they saw in the end or were afraid that 4-5 stories about the film were not consistent and that may have been embarrassing. My own opinion was that there were likely later films made of assassination replications in "roughly" the same area as the Z-film but no "other" film was shot were it purportedly was on 11-22-63. It would be interesting if the initial individuals were able to discuss their opinions on the "other" film today on this board. Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) I freely admit that I hijacked this topic from another thread but I thought it an important part of the ongoing evolution of the historical record. For those that are unaware, the "other" film was a topic of multiple discussions on the JFKresearch forum. In a nutshell, a small number of researchers intimated that they had seen a film of the Kennedy assassination that was filmed roughly in the same area as the Zapruder film but at a different angle. I can remember some work was being done to discover the location of the hidden camera that was responsible for the footage. I do not remember any specific resolution to the mystery and that is exactly what it remained. I am NO photo expert by any means but I can share my impressions at the time...I thought that it appeared that Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, Rich Dellarosa and perhaps a couple more individuals who alleged they had seen the film where unwilling or unable to discuss it in depth. To me, it seemed that there was the likelyhood that one or two of the individuals making the claim had seen some type of re-enactment film and that others merely said they believed they saw the film in order to belong to an "inner sanctum of importance". I specifically remember Rich saying he thought it was either "bloodier" or the head shot was more pronounced in the version he saw. The descriptions varied and the amount of silence on the topic after questions could be deafening...I came to believe that the promoters of the existance of the film weren't sure what they saw in the end or were afraid that 4-5 stories about the film were not consistent and that may have been embarrassing. My own opinion was that there were likely later films made of assassination replications in "roughly" the same area as the Z-film but no "other" film was shot were it purportedly was on 11-22-63. It would be interesting if the initial individuals were able to discuss their opinions on the "other" film today on this board. Jason Vermeer Jason... your memory is not reliable on this. The people who saw THE OTHER FILM are very willing to talk about it. Some who saw it were in military circumstances. Some were in college settings. Some were in intelligence connections. But all described the exact same film. Those I can remember who saw the film are: 1. Rich DellaRosa, 3 occasions, excellent description 2. Dan Marvin, saw it in CIA training, wrote in Fourth Decade, excellent description 3. William Reymond, was shown many times by former French intel guy 4. Greg Burnham, will not reveal details; father was military in JFK White House 5. Scott Myers, discusses it freely...may be on his website, saw it twice I think ...plus two or three more whose names do not come immediately to mind. For the complete DellaRosa account, go to pages 463-65 in TGZFH. For the complete Reymond account see his book or my video TGZGH. (now free on the internet, near the end of the video) Marvin's account was published in The Fourth Decade. I think Myers account is on his website. I do not understand skepticism when six strangers to each other all describe the same events on a film they saw years ago. It is completely understandable that at the time of viewing none thought that what they saw would become important; they are doubted because they did not take notes or remember others who saw it with them or the date of the showing. Some, like Reymond, are specific, but cannot name the source who fears for his life if it is known he has a copy (which by the way he refers to as the HL Hunt film). You have started a worthwhile thread. Maybe you and others will learn from it. Jack Edited August 3, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) On the JFKresearch forum Jason remembers correctly that members speculated on where another cameraman could have been located. One theory focused on an "apparatus" "seen" inside the pergola in the Betzner photo. My contribution was also in Betzner, but on what appears "could be" a photographer on the wall behind Zapruder. See attachment. Jack Edited August 3, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I do not understand skepticism when six strangers to each other all describethe same events on a film they saw years ago. It is completely understandable that at the time of viewing none thought that what they saw would become important; they are doubted because they did not take notes or remember others who saw it with them or the date of the showing. Some, like Reymond, are specific, but cannot name the source who fears for his life if it is known he has a copy (which by the way he refers to as the HL Hunt film). Jack There are lots of things that you do not understand, Jack, so what's your point! These guys saw what they claimed to be the murder of a US President and thats about it. Myers said on the looney forum that the version he saw showed JFK being shot up as the limo was turning off of Houston and onto Elm Street, which means the film he saw could not be connected with the reality of the events of 11/22/63 because the Betzner photo shows the location of the limo in relation to Elm Street and not a single shot had been fired at that poiint. I called Myers on his point time and time again and unless he has changed his position on his web site - he either has lied or he saw a recreation film which he thought years later, when he saw the real Zapruder film, that they were one in the same. It's like saying that one guy saw a film of JFK in an open car in his other film and the other alleged witness says the film he saw showed JFK in a horse drawn carriage with someone like yourself proclaiming that you fail to see the difference ... and thats the part that man y of us do not understand. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 On the JFKresearch forum Jason remembers correctly that membersspeculated on where another cameraman could have been located. One theory focused on an "apparatus" "seen" inside the pergola in the Betzner photo. My contribution was also in Betzner, but on what appears "could be" a photographer on the wall behind Zapruder. See attachment. Jack Yes, I remember this photo now. Duncan Mcrae (sp) I think was looking at a tripod in one location as well. Jack, would you be willing to email some of the members of the group who say they've witnessed the "other" film in order to get some perspective on where they are at today? I don't know how Rich D's health is lately but I'd bet the other members would come here and provide some statements... Jason vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) On the JFKresearch forum Jason remembers correctly that membersspeculated on where another cameraman could have been located. One theory focused on an "apparatus" "seen" inside the pergola in the Betzner photo. My contribution was also in Betzner, but on what appears "could be" a photographer on the wall behind Zapruder. See attachment. Jack Jack, please allow me to explain why your illustration cannot possibly be reliable. First of all, this alleged 'other film 'was said to show the same event as the Zapruder film with some obvious differences and so to be used to edit the existing Zapruder film. That would mean that this alleged elevated photographer would be visible in Moorman's photograph and yet you and Mack pored over the best quality Moorman print which showed Arnold, Badge Man, and a RR worker, and no such photographer existed. So what do you do - you ignore the evidence from the best Moorman print and use a poor quality and somewhat blurred Betzner photo in order to come up with an image that can account for an 'other film' claim that you wish to embrace. The second thing you didn't consider is that the illusion that you see as an elevated photographer is the same size as Zapruder. For someone to be back behind the fence, they would appear much smaller than someone much closer to the camera. What this means is that the scaling of your proposed subject is too large to be a real person. The third thing that makes your observation unreliable is that you could not shoot the assassination from two different locations and then start splicing the films together and not have someone pick up on the differences in perspective within the same image. To shoot a dummy film - one needs to at least be in the same camera location as the original photographer was filming from. And before you start complaining how you are being attacked ... let me remind you that you attempted to show that Moorman was in the street by using the same premise that I just described. In other words, you correctly believed that Moorman's location could be determined by following the alignment of certain landmarks within her field of view. The same would apply to aspects of a film of the assassination. To avoid a perspective change from becoming noticed - one has to film (the other film) from the same location as the target film (Zapruder's film) that one is planning on dubbing onto. Bill Miller Jack, would you be willing to email some of the members of the group who say they've witnessed the "other" film in order to get some perspective on where they are at today? I don't know how Rich D's health is lately but I'd bet the other members would come here and provide some statements...Jason vermeer Why go to the trouble and risk of them tweeking their original remarks ... let someone copy and paste their original post from DellaRosa's archives. Bill Miller Edited August 3, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 There are legal referenes to the "Other" film in the trial transcripts of Bray v. Defense Contractor on the Thresher O rings, and JFCOTT. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) Rich reminded me that others who saw the film were Milicent Cranor and Rick Janowitz. Here is Rich's writeup from TGZFH. Jack Edited August 3, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 On the JFKresearch forum Jason remembers correctly that members speculated on where another cameraman could have been located. One theory focused on an "apparatus" "seen" inside the pergola in the Betzner photo. My contribution was also in Betzner, but on what appears "could be" a photographer on the wall behind Zapruder. See attachment. Jack Yes, I remember this photo now. Duncan Mcrae (sp) I think was looking at a tripod in one location as well. Jack, would you be willing to email some of the members of the group who say they've witnessed the "other" film in order to get some perspective on where they are at today? I don't know how Rich D's health is lately but I'd bet the other members would come here and provide some statements... Jason vermeer Duncan saw in Betzner a "tripod device", which stands out when enhanced. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 So now an honorable man like Zapruder--who loved Kennedy--is smeared as a paid co-conspirator. Just when I think this place can't sink any lower. Castro? Benevolent dictator! Zapruder? Traitorous Jew! P.S. The Towner film shows Greer making that turn quite smoothly. Was that faked too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Rich reminded me that others who saw the film were Milicent Cranorand Rick Janowitz. Here is Rich's writeup from TGZFH. Jack DellaRosa merely says he saw this alleged 'other film' at the University - no mention to what month or even what season of the year so to narrow the time frame down. DellaRosa also fails to pinpoint where at the Univerity was the alleged film shown. Was it in the theater, the gym, the science class, the history class - WHERE? It is these little things that would help someone go back into the school records to look for what guest were scheduled to come and speak to the students. It would allow researchers to seek out the people in charge of a particular area of the school who could then offer more information pertaining to this alleged 'other film' showing. It would allow researches to look for a registery that may contain the names of those who attended this alleged event. As late as 1990 or so, DellaRosa said he had seen the alleged 'other film' again and yet no further information has been forthcoming, which only prevents anyone from either validating the event or exposing it as a hoax. When I see a continuous pattern of deniability or memory loss among these so-called witnesses to the 'other film' - I tend to find the witnesses a bit suspect. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 So now an honorable man like Zapruder--who loved Kennedy--is smeared as a paid co-conspirator. Just when I think this place can't sink any lower. Castro? Benevolent dictator! Zapruder? Traitorous Jew!P.S. The Towner film shows Greer making that turn quite smoothly. Was that faked too? Listen up, PR dude -- there's not one film that covers that corner without a break in the action (read: stop down, splice) - do your homework dufus! Zapruder lied about what he was paid for the film he alledgedly shot -- deal with it! You on a "traitorus" Jew kick these day's ?-- there's forums on the internet that covers those issues, you won't find it here -- move on little doggie, move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 (edited) Listen up, PR dude -- there's not one film that covers that corner without a break in the action (read: stop down, splice) - do your homework dufus! Moron, the Towner film covers the entire turn and part of its procession up Elm. Greer was incompetent, but he didn't come close to clipping the curb. Nor did any eyewitness on that corner testify to that effect. Zapruder lied about what he was paid for the film he alledgedly shot -- deal with it! David, can you f*cking READ? Assuming you can, go read Appendix E again. Do you not realize what that's implying? Profiting from a film after the fact (i.e. Time-Life) is not the same thing as ACTING AS A WILLING, PAID, CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT. F*cking RETARD. P.S. Regarding "homework," Time-Life came to him, not the other way around. Somewhere, a remedial history class awaits you. Edited August 4, 2006 by Brendan Slattery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 'Brendan Slattery' dronned on: Listen up, PR dude -- there's not one film that covers that corner without a break in the action (read: stop down, splice) - do your homework dufus! Moron, the Towner film covers the entire turn and part of its procession up Elm. Greer was incompetent, but he didn't come close to clipping the curb. Nor did any eyewitness on that corner testify to that effect. Slattery or whatever the hell your name is, listen up real close, pal....? Frame-by-frame on the towner film little guy, when you find the point let me know, I'm not doing anymore ground work for *stumps* ... Zapruder lied about what he was paid for the film he alledgedly shot -- deal with it! David, can you f*cking READ? Assuming you can, go read Appendix E again. Do you not realize what that's implying? Profiting from a film after the fact (i.e. Time-Life) is not the same thing as ACTING AS A WILLING, PAID, CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT. F*cking RETARD. dgh: Of course I can't read you inside-the-beltway leech... I'm responding through the 'mobius thought connection'. Implying? Appendix E is "implying"? You're "implying", something, anything regarding the JFK assassination? Either it is or it isn't laddie, no gray for you Lone Neuter's. You are a newbie aren't you.... such a potty mouth too! I don't recall saying Zapruder was a conspirator or CO-conspirator you idiot-stick. What Zap did was cut himself a great deal. And the family/trust continued his great tradition as witnessed a few years back (16 million and the American taxpayer [who paid the 16 million, not to mention alledged tax write-offs] was not afforded the films copyright) a joke... P.S. Regarding "homework," Time-Life came to him, not the other way around. Somewhere, a remedial history class awaits you. dgh: ah, and what does that have to do with his lying about what he was paid? Keep swinging slugger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Zapruder lied about what he was paid for the film he alledgedly shot -- deal with it! Younger than his buddy Jack, but just as crazy. 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