The "other" film

[Bill Miller]

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!

David, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". While you are correct that each assassination film may not cover the complete Houston to Elm Street turn of the limo ... combined, they do account for every second of that turn. So do YOUR homework, dufus!

Bill Miller

[Jason Vermeer]

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

Is it possible for you to expand on this Bill? I'm not a teacher imploring, I'm a student who's interested.

Jason Vermeer

[Bill Miller]

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.

BS, there are a few frames missing from the Towner film, but we are only talking about a few 1/18s of a second with the limo emerging unscaved without any disturbances inside the car. David surely knows this, but he has no other way to express his paranoia.

FWIW, Six or seven years ago, Gary Mack made William Reymond an offer, which he refused. The offer was to personally contact all the major news organizations to get a reporter to travel to France to view the "other" assassination film. Reymond, as you probably know, claims to know the identity of the man who has it. Gary said that he he has friends and acquaintances in many major news rooms, both nationally and locally. So far, not a peep out of Reymond, who will not tell anyone who the mystery man is.

Bill Miller

Edited August 4, 2006 by Bill Miller

[William Kelly]

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

Is it possible for you to expand on this Bill? I'm not a teacher imploring, I'm a student who's interested.

Jason Vermeer

Hi Jason,

Gary Mack has already corrected me, in that the Bray film is yet another film, shot from a different location, the assassin's lair, and is not the "other" film these guys are talking about.

Gary also wants to make it clear that Jean Hill was a xxxx, an observation from a man whose very name is a lie.

As for the Bray vs. Bendix trial, Bray was a former Bendix employee at the time they made the seals on USS Threasher, a sub that disapeared off the east coast in deep diving tests on April 10, 1963, the day LHO is said to have taken a pot shot at Gen. Walker. Bray testified that he was approached by some men who claimed to represent JFCOTT - Justice For Crew Of The Threasher, who threatened to assassinate JFK and former Nav Sec Connally. It appears they were establishing alternative motives for the assassination, much like the Odio incident, if the official investigation didn't by the lone nut scenario. There was a civil suit in the state of Washington, Bray vs. Bendix, and mention of a film of the assassination is part of the trial record. Ohio researcher Ken Formet told me he obtained a microfilm/fesh of the trail transcripts, and sent it to Gordon Winslow, though Gordon has no recollection of it. I recently found some contact numbers for KF and will see if I can get through to him.

I hope that helps clear things up Jason,

BK

[Jason Vermeer]

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

Is it possible for you to expand on this Bill? I'm not a teacher imploring, I'm a student who's interested.

Jason Vermeer

Hi Jason,

Gary Mack has already corrected me, in that the Bray film is yet another film, shot from a different location, the assassin's lair, and is not the "other" film these guys are talking about.

Gary also wants to make it clear that Jean Hill was a xxxx, an observation from a man whose very name is a lie.

As for the Bray vs. Bendix trial, Bray was a former Bendix employee at the time they made the seals on USS Threasher, a sub that disapeared off the east coast in deep diving tests on April 10, 1963, the day LHO is said to have taken a pot shot at Gen. Walker. Bray testified that he was approached by some men who claimed to represent JFCOTT - Justice For Crew Of The Threasher, who threatened to assassinate JFK and former Nav Sec Connally. It appears they were establishing alternative motives for the assassination, much like the Odio incident, if the official investigation didn't by the lone nut scenario. There was a civil suit in the state of Washington, Bray vs. Bendix, and mention of a film of the assassination is part of the trial record. Ohio researcher Ken Formet told me he obtained a microfilm/fesh of the trail transcripts, and sent it to Gordon Winslow, though Gordon has no recollection of it. I recently found some contact numbers for KF and will see if I can get through to him.

I hope that helps clear things up Jason,

BK

Yes it does Bill, thank you very much.

Jason

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Jack;

Personally, I would not utilize Dan Marvin, LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired) ,as a reference for anything.

It inherently begins to automatically diminish the integrity of the subject matter, as well as the integrity and reliability of anyone who has fallen for his stories and thereafter become one of his "disciples".

Tom

P.S. Ever wonder exacty why it is/was that of all of the Officer's who would have been in Dan Marvin's SFOC, (Special Forces Officer's Course), that ONLY Dangerous Dan has come forward and informed the world of the usage of a JFK assassination film in the Course of Instruction?

But then again, "Dangerous Dan" also apparantly walked away from this training with the complete mis-interpretation that "ear-muff" charges are effective on earthen dams.---------Which, they absolutely are not!

It's "Cratering Charges" for earthen dams Dan, NOT "ear-muff" charges!

"Ear-Muff" charges are utilized on concrete pilings, as any basic SF Engineering Student would know.

[Jack White]

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

Jack;

Personally, I would not utilize Dan Marvin, LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired) ,as a reference for anything.

It inherently begins to automatically diminish the integrity of the subject matter, as well as the integrity and reliability of anyone who has fallen for his stories and thereafter become one of his "disciples".

Tom

P.S. Ever wonder exacty why it is/was that of all of the Officer's who would have been in Dan Marvin's SFOC, (Special Forces Officer's Course), that ONLY Dangerous Dan has come forward and informed the world of the usage of a JFK assassination film in the Course of Instruction?

But then again, "Dangerous Dan" also apparantly walked away from this training with the complete mis-interpretation that "ear-muff" charges are effective on earthen dams.---------Which, they absolutely are not!

It's "Cratering Charges" for earthen dams Dan, NOT "ear-muff" charges!

"Ear-Muff" charges are utilized on concrete pilings, as any basic SF Engineering Student would know.

Blaming the messenger for the contents of the message goes back centuries.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Jack;

Personally, I would not utilize Dan Marvin, LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired) ,as a reference for anything.

It inherently begins to automatically diminish the integrity of the subject matter, as well as the integrity and reliability of anyone who has fallen for his stories and thereafter become one of his "disciples".

Tom

P.S. Ever wonder exacty why it is/was that of all of the Officer's who would have been in Dan Marvin's SFOC, (Special Forces Officer's Course), that ONLY Dangerous Dan has come forward and informed the world of the usage of a JFK assassination film in the Course of Instruction?

But then again, "Dangerous Dan" also apparantly walked away from this training with the complete mis-interpretation that "ear-muff" charges are effective on earthen dams.---------Which, they absolutely are not!

It's "Cratering Charges" for earthen dams Dan, NOT "ear-muff" charges!

"Ear-Muff" charges are utilized on concrete pilings, as any basic SF Engineering Student would know.

Blaming the messenger for the contents of the message goes back centuries.

Jack

Under the assumption that you refer to yourself as being the "messenger", then the blame would appear to lie in acceptance of, and/or repeating as if fact, the BS of someone who is full of same.

Were I to inform you that the craters in the moon were created by the little green mouses who run around eating the cheese, it is hoped that you would not, without some form of verification, accept and repeat it as if it had some basis in fact.

Therefore, were I to attempt to utilize the rants of "Dangerous" Dan Marvin, LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired), rest assured that I would place an * up beside the reference and thereafter qualify this with some form of explanation.

Probably such as the one made by Oscar Wyatt, which went something like:

"Wait right here, I am going home and get my dog and bring him back, and see if he believes this shi*".

Tom

P.S. Wanna talk about the "Maytag" repairman and the PAL device on a SADM?

[David G. Healy]

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!

David, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". While you are correct that each assassination film may not cover the complete Houston to Elm Street turn of the limo ... combined, they do account for every second of that turn. So do YOUR homework, dufus!

Bill Miller

dgh: Save you're Jesus comments for the unsaved -- which leads us tooooooo..... why was ANY "filming" stopped by the camera operators (and I suspect there may be 1 realistic excuse) at the corner making the turn? They all do show a break in the action. Including the Zapruder Film, which picked up the limo what, 30 yards down Elm? After all two of those cameras were in position to see the "entire" turn, including **Zapruders**...

If camera operators positioned to see the complete turn HALTED filming "during" the turn on to Elm St., WHY? Perhaps, to re-wind? I can buy a little of that -- If that's the case, then it was great luck Zapruder had his false start, if not the false start, I suspect Abe wouldn't had enough wind to capture the entire limo run down Elm St.

Didn't Zapruder say, no filming stop downs, [to paraphrase:] one continuous pass down Elm St., no rewinding -- that he captured the entire ride down Elm St.? He clearly was in position to see the Limo turn from Huston onto Elm. Why not film it? If he had plenty of wind (after the false start), it makes absolutely no sense why we don't see the entire Elm St. portion including the turn in the Zapruder film. He would of had plenty of *wind* to get the entire run down Elm including the false start.

All you guys need is one single witness/Kodak/Jamieson/LIFE/US media employee that viewed unsplit in-camera original-#0183 verifying Zapruders false start is/was indeed seen in #0183, as we see it today -- a few Z-film alteration problems will disappear. Not ALL DP photo/film alteration problems mind you, but some of them...

Did LIFE magazine rep's while in Dallas Nov 23rd/24th view the unsplit #0183 film?

If #0183 got to Life (Chicagop/NYC) SPLIT [as well as a first generation Jamieson film dupe] you have a uphill battle when it comes to posible Z-film alteration issues. Maybe they'll comment?

Edited August 4, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

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

Jack;

Personally, I would not utilize Dan Marvin, LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired) ,as a reference for anything.

It inherently begins to automatically diminish the integrity of the subject matter, as well as the integrity and reliability of anyone who has fallen for his stories and thereafter become one of his "disciples".

Tom

P.S. Ever wonder exacty why it is/was that of all of the Officer's who would have been in Dan Marvin's SFOC, (Special Forces Officer's Course), that ONLY Dangerous Dan has come forward and informed the world of the usage of a JFK assassination film in the Course of Instruction?

But then again, "Dangerous Dan" also apparantly walked away from this training with the complete mis-interpretation that "ear-muff" charges are effective on earthen dams.---------Which, they absolutely are not!

It's "Cratering Charges" for earthen dams Dan, NOT "ear-muff" charges!

"Ear-Muff" charges are utilized on concrete pilings, as any basic SF Engineering Student would know.

Blaming the messenger for the contents of the message goes back centuries.

Jack

Under the assumption that you refer to yourself as being the "messenger", then the blame would appear to lie in acceptance of, and/or repeating as if fact, the BS of someone who is full of same.

Were I to inform you that the craters in the moon were created by the little green mouses who run around eating the cheese, it is hoped that you would not, without some form of verification, accept and repeat it as if it had some basis in fact.

Therefore, were I to attempt to utilize the rants of "Dangerous" Dan Marvin, LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired), rest assured that I would place an * up beside the reference and thereafter qualify this with some form of explanation.

Probably such as the one made by Oscar Wyatt, which went something like:

"Wait right here, I am going home and get my dog and bring him back, and see if he believes this shi*".

Tom

P.S. Wanna talk about the "Maytag" repairman and the PAL device on a SADM?

You were BLAMING DANGEROUS DAN for reporting what he had seen. He was one

of the first to report seeing THE OTHER FILM many years ago in THE FOURTH DECADE,

long before there was a Zfilm controversy. To say he should not be believed because

you don't like him is absurd.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

dgh: Save you're Jesus comments for the unsaved -- which leads us tooooooo..... why was ANY "filming" stopped by the camera operators (and I suspect there may be 1 realistic excuse) at the corner making the turn? They all do show a break in the action. Including the Zapruder Film, which picked up the limo what, 30 yards down Elm? After all two of those cameras were in position to see the "entire" turn, including **Zapruders**...

I'll leave your salvation to the creator. However, I can respond to your paranoia and lack of knowledge concerning the timing of those films you mentioned although it will be nothing that hasn't been said to you several times before. First of all, one might ask Tina Towner (a young teenager at the time of the assassination) why she stopped filming. The same can be said for Hughes, Bell, and Martin. To question why ordinary people do the things they did under extraordinary circumstances as if there is a set standard to filming a presidential motorcade is a bit over the top for most people and could be considered a poor attempt at trying to find fault with something where no fault ever existed. And while it is true that some Dealey Plaza films had breaks in them of a few 18ths of a second and others only recorded segments of the limo's turn onto Elm Street - there is no point at which the President's car was never being captured and filmed on Elm Street by someones camera. Now having said this once again .... it seems that a sensible person would see that there is nothing suspicious about the films concerning JFK's turn from Houston onto Elm, while on the other hand - a paranoid non-educated indivdual who hasn't bothered to piece together the available evidence pertaining to the overlapping of these various films just might see things differently.

If camera operators positioned to see the complete turn HALTED filming "during" the turn on to Elm St., WHY? Perhaps, to re-wind? I can buy a little of that -- If that's the case, then it was great luck Zapruder had his false start, if not the false start, I suspect Abe wouldn't had enough wind to capture the entire limo run down Elm St.

Didn't Zapruder say, no filming stop downs, [to paraphrase:] one continuous pass down Elm St., no rewinding -- that he captured the entire ride down Elm St.? He clearly was in position to see the Limo turn from Huston onto Elm. Why not film it? If he had plenty of wind (after the false start), it makes absolutely no sense why we don't see the entire Elm St. portion including the turn in the Zapruder film. He would of had plenty of *wind* to get the entire run down Elm including the false start.

A Zapruder type camera (Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera) runs anywhere from 50 to 66 seconds on a full wind, less if the camera is not wound tightly. Winding it too tightly means running the risk of breaking it and in that event ... no film of the President's arrival would not be obtained by Zapruder. I know this because I have owned several of them and tested each one.

I believe that Zapruder filmed the lead cycles so to get a feel of the tracking speed of the motorcade ... a type of test if you will. Had he not stopped filming, then he surely would have run the possibility of running out of filming capability when the President finally arrived. Common sense tells me that Zapruder stopped his camera. One reason for saying this is because there is a 'start-up' frame at Z133. A start-up frame as you know is brighter than the following frames. The second thing is that Zapruder from his earlier test pans of the cycles would be aware that until the President was visible west of the lamppost - he would be obsecured by the tree foilage. Zapruder did what I would have expected and that was to wait until he saw the President come into full view so to utilize his cameras remaining running time to the fullest. With the limo advancing at just under 1' per film frame, it appears that Zapruder was off and filming within one second of him seeing the President emerging from behind the lamppost. That's roughly 4 seconds before the first shot was fired. While someone looking to find fault with Zapruder and/or his film may see it differently, I feel as though I have looked at his actions in an unbiased way that is both logical in hindsight and the most plausible explanation when considering the evidence as a whole. Below is Z25 with a crop of the limo from Z133 inserted into the image.

All you guys need is one single witness/Kodak/Jamieson/LIFE/US media employee that viewed unsplit in-camera original-#0183 verifying Zapruders false start is/was indeed seen in #0183, as we see it today -- a few Z-film alteration problems will disappear. Not ALL DP photo/film alteration problems mind you, but some of them...

To date, all of the alteration concerns I have witnessed has been the result of paranoia, poor research, and a lack of knowledge of the facts. For those individuals there will never be any closure concerning Zfilm alteration. The biggest reason for this is because those who have been making such claims have not shown any signs of being able to understand their mistakes.

Did LIFE magazine rep's while in Dallas Nov 23rd/24th view the unsplit #0183 film?

On pages 83 and 84 of Trask's book (POTP) it is said that Richard Stolley (Life) was present on the morning of the 23rd when Zapruder took out his film and projected it for the SS and others who were there wanting to see it. Zapruder had kept the original film and a 1st generation copy. So unless someone broke into Zapruder's safe and altered the film and the copy - the opportunity was never there IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited July 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

dgh: Save you're Jesus comments for the unsaved -- which leads us tooooooo..... why was ANY "filming" stopped by the camera operators (and I suspect there may be 1 realistic excuse) at the corner making the turn? They all do show a break in the action. Including the Zapruder Film, which picked up the limo what, 30 yards down Elm? After all two of those cameras were in position to see the "entire" turn, including **Zapruders**...

I'll leave your salvation to the creator.

dgh01: thank you, thank you very much -- I'm sure my creator will accept your benevolence, like I said; save you're Jesus comments for the unsaved...

However, I can respond to your paranoia and lack of knowledge concerning the timing of those films you mentioned although it will be nothing that hasn't been said to you several times before. First of all, one might ask Tina Towner (a young teenager at the time of the assassination) why she stopped filming. The same can be said for Hughes, Bell, and Martin. To question why ordinary people do the things they did under extraordinary circumstances as if there is a set standard to filming a presidential motorcade is a bit over the top for most people and could be considered a poor attempt at trying to find fault with something where no fault ever existed. And while it is true that some Dealey Plaza films had breaks in them of a few 18ths of a second and others only recorded segments of the limo's turn onto Elm Street - there is no point at which the President's car was never being captured and filmed on Elm Street by someones camera. Now having said this once again .... it seems that a sensible person would see that there is nothing suspicious about the films concerning JFK's turn from Houston onto Elm, while on the other hand - a paranoid non-educated indivdual who hasn't bothered to piece together the available evidence pertaining to the overlapping of these various films just might see things differently.

dgh01: "a paranoid non-educated individual" that's not very nice, Bill -- only problem with your sensible bullxxxx Bill is: its still BULLxxxx! None of it P R O V A B L E, just more Lone Neuter "unbiased" opinion...

If camera operators positioned to see the complete turn HALTED filming "during" the turn on to Elm St., WHY? Perhaps, to re-wind? I can buy a little of that -- If that's the case, then it was great luck Zapruder had his false start, if not the false start, I suspect Abe wouldn't had enough wind to capture the entire limo run down Elm St.

Didn't Zapruder say, no filming stop downs, [to paraphrase:] one continuous pass down Elm St., no rewinding -- that he captured the entire ride down Elm St.? He clearly was in position to see the Limo turn from Huston onto Elm. Why not film it? If he had plenty of wind (after the false start), it makes absolutely no sense why we don't see the entire Elm St. portion including the turn in the Zapruder film. He would of had plenty of *wind* to get the entire run down Elm including the false start.

A Zapruder type camera (Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera) runs anywhere from 50 to 66 seconds on a full wind, less if the camera is not wound tightly. Winding it too tightly means running the risk of breaking it and in that event ... no film of the President's arrival would not be obtained by Zapruder. I know this because I have owned several of them and tested each one.

dgh: "winding too tightly"? Care to tell me where I can find that in the camera operating manual, got one right here?

Where do you find this nonesense? Pure and simple, unmitigated bullxxxx -- LMAO that in the Zavada report? Oh lord!

I believe that Zapruder filmed the lead cycles so to get a feel of the tracking speed of the motorcade ... a type of test if you will.

dgh: Bill read my words, where did Zapruder say that?

Had he not stopped filming, then he surely would have run the possibility of running out of filming capability when the President finally arrived. Common sense tells me that Zapruder stopped his camera. One reason for saying this is because there is a 'start-up' frame at Z133. A start-up frame as you know is brighter than the following frames. The second thing is that Zapruder from his earlier test pans of the cycles would be aware that until the President was visible west of the lamppost

dgh: there's those "test" pans again, **cite** please

- he would be obsecured by the tree foilage. Zapruder did what I would have expected and that was to wait until he saw the President come into full view so to utilize his cameras remaining running time to the fullest. With the limo advancing at just under 1' per film frame, it appears that Zapruder was off and filming within one second of him seeing the President emerging from behind the lamppost. That's roughly 4 seconds before the first shot was fired. While someone looking to find fault with Zapruder and/or his film may see it differently, I feel as though I have looked at his actions in an unbiased way that is both logical in hindsight and the most plausible explanation when considering the evidence as a whole. Below is Z25 with a crop of the limo from Z133 inserted into the image.

dgh: you have "looked at his actions in a unbiased..."? Oh brother, come on, will'ya --- we're talking evidence Bill Miller, Zapruder's testimony, you forget that? Did he say he interrupted his pan down Elm Street.

What you *would* of expected Zapruder to do? How in the hell can you achive that? LMAO...

What did Zapruder say he did?

Zapruder "TEST" pans? When did he say he did TEST pans? *Cite* please!

All you guys need is one single witness/Kodak/Jamieson/LIFE/US media employee that viewed unsplit in-camera original-#0183 verifying Zapruders false start is/was indeed seen in #0183, as we see it today -- a few Z-film alteration problems will disappear. Not ALL DP photo/film alteration problems mind you, but some of them...

To date, all of the alteration concerns I have witnessed has been the result of paranoia, poor research, and a lack of knowledge of the facts. For those individuals there will never be any closure concerning Zfilm alteration. The biggest reason for this is because those who have been making such claims have not shown any signs of being able to understand their mistakes.

dgh: is that a fact, so, you've spent 5 years following the paranoids around, eh? Who are you Bill Miller? Correcting film/photo professionals about issues you have zero expertise in....? Absolutely sure your not paid to follow us around? Tough to believe the level of committment some Lone Neuter's display is protecting something that was deceided and declared 40+ years ago. Especiallty those Neuter's who stand to gain NOTHING for 12-18 hours a day work... tsk-tsk

Did LIFE magazine rep's while in Dallas Nov 23rd/24th view the unsplit #0183 film?

On pages 83 and 84 of Trask's book (POTP) it is said that Richard Stolley (Life) was present on the morning of the 23rd when Zapruder took out his film and projected it for the SS and others who were there wanting to see it. Zapruder had kept the original film and a 1st generation copy. So unless someone broke into Zapruder's safe and altered the film and the copy - the opportunity was never there IMO.

dgh: wow Bill, as for the immediate above nonsense - save it for the uninitiated, will ya. If you don't know what was projected by Zapruder the morning of the 23rd, say so -- can't you read? SPLIT or UNSPLIT Z-film? Your ego is getting in the way of your eyesight.. What was projected by Zapruder, SPLIT or UNSPLIT film --

All you need is one, ONE witness who was at the screening who can tell us he/she saw a Zapruder film false start at the films headend, the same false start we see these day's. Truck on guy!

Bill Miller

Edited August 13, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: is that a fact, so, you've spent 5 years following the paranoids around, eh? Who are you Bill Miller? Correcting film/photo professionals about issues you have zero expertise in....? Absolutely sure your not paid to follow us around? Tough to believe the level of committment some Lone Neuter's display is protecting something that was deceided and declared 40+ years ago. Especiallty those Neuter's who stand to gain NOTHING for 12-18 hours a day work... tsk-tsk

David, your response showed most of the signs of Schizophrenia. I can't help you. The inability to reason intelligently was the first sign. (Poor Concentration or Attention). Continually calling people LNRs just because they do not agree with you falls under the symptoms (Reckless or Impulsive Behavior

Obsessive Thinking or Compulsive Rituals). Like I said earlier - I pity you.

One can tell that Zapruder turned his camera off by finding out how much time elapsed between the time the lead cycles rounded onto Elm Street to the point Kennedy's limo did ... the time frame cannot exceed the capabilities of the cameras running running time. Then there is that 'start-up' frame that I told you about. If you do not understand what a start-up frame is or why it appears brighter than the rest, then nothing I can tell you will make you understand what happened.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Searching for "sitzman" in my coumputer files, I came across

this interesting speculation by Duncan McRae.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Searching for "sitzman" in my coumputer files, I came across

this interesting speculation by Duncan McRae.

Jack

Let's think about Duncan's image. Number 2 is Zapruder and he could not shoot two films at the same time. Sitzman (#3) in Bronsons's slide has one hand on Zapruder's back and the other on her left hip, so unless Marilyn had three hands - it cannot be her. The 'connect the dot' figure (#1) behind Zapruder and Sitzman could not have shot the other film because Zapruder and Sitzman would have blocked out much of his view, not to mention that anyone back in the shelter would be seen in the same door in Willis's photo that was taken less than one second later. A great enlargement of the Willis photo can be seen in Groden's book "TKOAP". Cross referencing photos and films was not one of Duncan's strong points.

Bill Miller