The "other" film

[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?

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

"To say he should not be believed because

you don't like him is absurd."

Could not agree more!

And, since I never met the individual, then he must be judged primarily on the complete BS which he, himself, has written on/about.

Perhaps, it would be of benefit to you to research into the aspects of "informant reliability", and exactly how and why the various rating levels are awarded.

AAA is not only awarded to auto clubs and insurance companies.

NOW!

Somewhere, and no doubt in possession of "Dangerous Dan", exists a listing of those individuals/Officer's who graduated in his SFOC Class, which by the way would have carried a number designation based on the year he graduated and exactly which class this was. (IE: SFOC 64-1/ Being the first class to begin in 1964)

Now, of that class, there would have been NUMEROUS other officers, most of whom would have been actual Combat Arms Officers who had applied for SF assignment.

NOW!

Was "Dangerous Dan" selected as the only individual to view this "other film"??????????

If not? Then exactly where are all of these other Combat Arms Officer's who would have attended the course of instruction and also have seen the film.

Surely, even if "Dangerous Dan" does not have a "Class Roster"/Graduating Class Roster, then he should be able to recall several of those who attended the course of instruction with him, and thereafter find at least ONE other U.S. Army Officer who attended this course and could attest to having been giving the opportunity to view the film.

Tom

P.S. Just for your (& others as well) information, the CIA did not teach techniques! They presented the available equipment and how it operated, it's capabilities and limitations, etc;.

Techniques of application were taught by the "Covert Operations" section of the Course of Instruction, which was primarily taught by U.S. Army Officer's who had actually worked in such areas.

1. "Earmuff" Charges are not utilized to blow up earthen dams.

2. One does not "glide" during a MFF parachute jump, as not only may they "glide" into one of their other jumpers, they will also find themselves opening and landing a few miles away from the remainder of their team.

3. SADM Devices are handled ONLY by those persons who have received training in their operation.

4. ABSOLUTELY NO Nuclear Device is ever entered into a zone of operation without complete security in the zone prior to entry of the device.

5. The "Maytag" repairman and the PAL Device on a SADM, have nothing in common.

6. "Nuclear Security" is absolutely NO JOKE! The idea that someone rides around with a SADM in some 3/4 Army truck is completely asinine.

7. Other than UWO (Underwater Operations), entry into a denied area by HALO is extremely difficult and dangerous. Such an operation would only be attempted by a highly qualified HALO Team, of whom all had graduated from the basic course, and with other members as graduates of the HALO Jumpmaster Course.

This Team would have had to practice together (which is a part of their normal mission assignment), and would have had to "rehearse" the exact mission, multiple times, prior to an actual deployment.

8. Usage of a SADM device on a "hard target" requires specific knowledge, and one MOST ASSUREDLY would not deploy such a device in circumstances which would generate a cloud of radioactive dust (fallout) which could be carried to other friendly countries/populace/etc; by wind currents.

Someone should inform "Dangerous Dan" to speak out on things of which he has some knowledge, and those who fall for his BS should spend some time researching the individual before they sing his praise.

The Special Forces Decade Association "Team House" located at Ft. Bragg will no doubt be more than glad to enlighten anyone on the attributes of "Dangerous Dan Marvin", LTC, U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, (Retired)

And, for those who may have further interest, the JFK Historian can provide the names of each and every other Officer who graduated from the SFOC with Dan Marvin.

[Jack White]

The OTHER FILM is being discussed in the DellaRosa forum and

Rich has give me permission to excerpt some of it here:

QUOTE FROM THE JFKresearch FORUM with permission:

That photo Robin posted prompts me to interrupt and make some comments

about the 2 characters we call the Umbrella Man and the Cuban.  I really

don't like to veer a thread away from its primary purpose and for that I

apologize to Robin and the other posters in this thread.

Looking at that photo can anyone dispute that the Cuban is standing off the curb

and in the street??  In viewing the "other" film which I described in Apprendix E

off TGZFH and which is posted elsewhere on this forum, one of the things that

immediately caught my attention was the movement I noticed by the Cuban and

the Umbrella Man.  The photo Robin posted represents a still image captured

somewhere around 1/125 - 1/250 of a second.  In fact, the "other" film showed

the Cuban was not only in the street but that he was actually walking toward the

limo!  Of course, this is not evident when viewing the extant Zapruder film.

There was (and is) no doubt in my mind that the Cuban was trying to catch the

attention of William Greer, the driver of the limo.  I maintain that he was signalling

Greer to stop -- which Greer indeed did.  It was only when the limo was stopped

briefly that JFK received 2 shots to the head.  I have estimated the stop at 2 seconds.

I have also stated that the Umbrella Man was signalling the shooters.  This is evident

in the "other" film as well.  The limo stop and the head shots were choreographed

very precisely IMO.

Of course, this begs the question:  one single man stepping into the street, making

hand gestures, and approaching the Presidential limo -- why didn't the SS men

from the Queen Mary pounce on him and tackle him to the ground?? Even if he

turned out just to be a JFK admirer, what would have been lost if they had reacted

thusly??

We learned later that the Cuban had a communications device on him and that he

most likely was in contact with the spotter(s).

We also learned that the SS were prevented from taking the normal precautionary

measures as demonstrated in the film taken at Love Field earlier and from the

testimony of Clint Hill.

I have recently commented to Jim Fetzer that in all the inquiries I've had to describe

what I saw, I could not recall anyone asking what my initial reaction was to viewing

the "other" film.  Well, here it is: it felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach

with all their might!  What happened that day was just as so many of the closest

witnesses described.  In one quick instant I realized the scope of the dastardly

task of murdering a U.S. President and at the same time realized just how extensive

was the cover-up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as I am on the topic of the "other" film allow me to address a few items.  After

seeing the film I rather realized that I had seen something that the public was never

meant to see.  While in my 7 years in the USAF, I maintained an above Top Secret/

Crypto clearance and I knew how to safeguard sensitive information  Which is what

I did, never telling anyone what I had seen for years, decades even.

In the mid to late 1990s as we were gathering our presence on the internet, and I

so often read how the Zapruder film was an accurate depiction of what had occurred

in Dealy Plaza and that it could even be used as a time reference, I decided that

perhaps the time had come to share what I had seen. To my utter amazement I soon

was contacted by a small handful of other researchers, most believably William

Reymond and Milicent Cranor who reported seeing the same film.  Here we had at

least 3 people who never met each other, in 3 different parts of the world, who had

seen the same film. In my naivte I believed that I was doing the research community

a service by revealing what had really occurred.

Understand, I had no book to promote, no speaking engagements planned, I only

wished to maintain a relatively low profile, wasn't interested in appearing in the media

or on radio talk shows -- in short I had no ulterior motives in coming forward.

I never foresaw that shots would be fired outside my house in up-scale suburbia, or that

my mailbox would be burned to the ground or that I would receive a fake anthrax letter

in 2001.  But most disappointingly, I didn't think that my honesty and credibility would

be attacked so ruthlessly.  Some resonded that I was mistaken or confused about what

I had seen. Some tested me by repeatedly asking me for descriptions of what I saw.

One prominent researcher even accused me of hullicinating - - - 3 times. But still

others accused me of lying.  Freud said that we are most suspicious of those actions of

which we are most guilty of committing ourselves.  I think he was correct -- and that

accounts for people like Bill Miller, Craig Lamson, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack and

others.  I do not lie, especially about JFK-related issues.

A few stated that if I was telling the truth, why not just supply the film and everyone could

see it??  Well, if I could do that, why wouldn't I have done so??  Why would I have

subjected myself to all the abuse???   But more to the point, just ask yourself why did the

extant Zapruder film become so accessible with the release of the Medio CD-ROM at

about the same time that Oliver Stone's movie was in the works??  Then it could be

played and re-played and re-played; viewed frame-by-frame and in slo mo until you

didn't need the CD ot the video anymore -- you could play it  in your mind?? Why??

IMO the propaganda genious Josef Goebbels couldn't have produced anything better

than the Zapruder film to dupe the masses.

Rich DellaRosa

Forum Admin

Edited August 12, 2006 by Jack White

[Jack White]

The OTHER FILM is being discussed in the DellaRosa forum and

Rich has give me permission to excerpt some of it here:

QUOTE FROM THE JFKresearch FORUM with permission:

That photo Robin posted prompts me to interrupt and make some comments

about the 2 characters we call the Umbrella Man and the Cuban.  I really

don't like to veer a thread away from its primary purpose and for that I

apologize to Robin and the other posters in this thread.

Looking at that photo can anyone dispute that the Cuban is standing off the curb

and in the street??  In viewing the "other" film which I described in Apprendix E

off TGZFH and which is posted elsewhere on this forum, one of the things that

immediately caught my attention was the movement I noticed by the Cuban and

the Umbrella Man.  The photo Robin posted represents a still image captured

somewhere around 1/125 - 1/250 of a second.  In fact, the "other" film showed

the Cuban was not only in the street but that he was actually walking toward the

limo!  Of course, this is not evident when viewing the extant Zapruder film.

There was (and is) no doubt in my mind that the Cuban was trying to catch the

attention of William Greer, the driver of the limo.  I maintain that he was signalling

Greer to stop -- which Greer indeed did.  It was only when the limo was stopped

briefly that JFK received 2 shots to the head.  I have estimated the stop at 2 seconds.

I have also stated that the Umbrella Man was signalling the shooters.  This is evident

in the "other" film as well.  The limo stop and the head shots were choreographed

very precisely IMO.

Of course, this begs the question:  one single man stepping into the street, making

hand gestures, and approaching the Presidential limo -- why didn't the SS men

from the Queen Mary pounce on him and tackle him to the ground?? Even if he

turned out just to be a JFK admirer, what would have been lost if they had reacted

thusly??

We learned later that the Cuban had a communications device on him and that he

most likely was in contact with the spotter(s).

We also learned that the SS were prevented from taking the normal precautionary

measures as demonstrated in the film taken at Love Field earlier and from the

testimony of Clint Hill.

I have recently commented to Jim Fetzer that in all the inquiries I've had to describe

what I saw, I could not recall anyone asking what my initial reaction was to viewing

the "other" film.  Well, here it is: it felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach

with all their might!  What happened that day was just as so many of the closest

witnesses described.  In one quick instant I realized the scope of the dastardly

task of murdering a U.S. President and at the same time realized just how extensive

was the cover-up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as I am on the topic of the "other" film allow me to address a few items.  After

seeing the film I rather realized that I had seen something that the public was never

meant to see.  While in my 7 years in the USAF, I maintained an above Top Secret/

Crypto clearance and I knew how to safeguard sensitive information  Which is what

I did, never telling anyone what I had seen for years, decades even.

In the mid to late 1990s as we were gathering our presence on the internet, and I

so often read how the Zapruder film was an accurate depiction of what had occurred

in Dealy Plaza and that it could even be used as a time reference, I decided that

perhaps the time had come to share what I had seen. To my utter amazement I soon

was contacted by a small handful of other researchers, most believably William

Reymond and Milicent Cranor who reported seeing the same film.  Here we had at

least 3 people who never met each other, in 3 different parts of the world, who had

seen the same film. In my naivte I believed that I was doing the research community

a service by revealing what had really occurred.

Understand, I had no book to promote, no speaking engagements planned, I only

wished to maintain a relatively low profile, wasn't interested in appearing in the media

or on radio talk shows -- in short I had no ulterior motives in coming forward.

I never foresaw that shots would be fired outside my house in up-scale suburbia, or that

my mailbox would be burned to the ground or that I would receive a fake anthrax letter

in 2001.  But most disappointingly, I didn't think that my honesty and credibility would

be attacked so ruthlessly.  Some resonded that I was mistaken or confused about what

I had seen. Some tested me by repeatedly asking me for descriptions of what I saw.

One prominent researcher even accused me of hullicinating - - - 3 times. But still

others accused me of lying.  Freud said that we are most suspicious of those actions of

which we are most guilty of committing ourselves.  I think he was correct -- and that

accounts for people like Bill Miller, Craig Lamson, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack and

others.  I do not lie, especially about JFK-related issues.

A few stated that if I was telling the truth, why not just supply the film and everyone could

see it??  Well, if I could do that, why wouldn't I have done so??  Why would I have

subjected myself to all the abuse???   But more to the point, just ask yourself why did the

extant Zapruder film become so accessible with the release of the Medio CD-ROM at

about the same time that Oliver Stone's movie was in the works??  Then it could be

played and re-played and re-played; viewed frame-by-frame and in slo mo until you

didn't need the CD ot the video anymore -- you could play it  in your mind?? Why??

IMO the propaganda genious Josef Goebbels couldn't have produced anything better

than the Zapruder film to dupe the masses.

Rich DellaRosa

Forum Admin

Jack, could you (or someone else) outline the differences seen/reported in the Z-film and this purported 'other' and is there consent of those that claim to have seen it on these differences? I withhold judgement..but talk about 'wheels within wheels within wheels'...........perhaps it is best to focus on the need to wrestle back our country and polity as the 'details' are now getting so 'strange' one wonders if they are not designed to keep us all counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin or between the sprocket holes of a film....and thus not working on the bigger matters. I too work on small details...but we have already proven conspiracy a million times over.....and the country is slipping away FAST!.....and FASTER.... That having been said, still interested in the details - must be the masochist in me.

Quickly, from memory (may not be all):

1. Limo is seen turning corner and going downhill without stop in filming

2. Limo makes "wide" turn

3. "Cuban" runs into street and signals to Greer

4. Limo stops for two seconds while head shots occur

Jack

[Jack White]

The OTHER FILM is being discussed in the DellaRosa forum and

Rich has give me permission to excerpt some of it here:

QUOTE FROM THE JFKresearch FORUM with permission:

That photo Robin posted prompts me to interrupt and make some comments

about the 2 characters we call the Umbrella Man and the Cuban.  I really

don't like to veer a thread away from its primary purpose and for that I

apologize to Robin and the other posters in this thread.

Looking at that photo can anyone dispute that the Cuban is standing off the curb

and in the street??  In viewing the "other" film which I described in Apprendix E

off TGZFH and which is posted elsewhere on this forum, one of the things that

immediately caught my attention was the movement I noticed by the Cuban and

the Umbrella Man.  The photo Robin posted represents a still image captured

somewhere around 1/125 - 1/250 of a second.  In fact, the "other" film showed

the Cuban was not only in the street but that he was actually walking toward the

limo!  Of course, this is not evident when viewing the extant Zapruder film.

There was (and is) no doubt in my mind that the Cuban was trying to catch the

attention of William Greer, the driver of the limo.  I maintain that he was signalling

Greer to stop -- which Greer indeed did.  It was only when the limo was stopped

briefly that JFK received 2 shots to the head.  I have estimated the stop at 2 seconds.

I have also stated that the Umbrella Man was signalling the shooters.  This is evident

in the "other" film as well.  The limo stop and the head shots were choreographed

very precisely IMO.

Of course, this begs the question:  one single man stepping into the street, making

hand gestures, and approaching the Presidential limo -- why didn't the SS men

from the Queen Mary pounce on him and tackle him to the ground?? Even if he

turned out just to be a JFK admirer, what would have been lost if they had reacted

thusly??

We learned later that the Cuban had a communications device on him and that he

most likely was in contact with the spotter(s).

We also learned that the SS were prevented from taking the normal precautionary

measures as demonstrated in the film taken at Love Field earlier and from the

testimony of Clint Hill.

I have recently commented to Jim Fetzer that in all the inquiries I've had to describe

what I saw, I could not recall anyone asking what my initial reaction was to viewing

the "other" film.  Well, here it is: it felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach

with all their might!  What happened that day was just as so many of the closest

witnesses described.  In one quick instant I realized the scope of the dastardly

task of murdering a U.S. President and at the same time realized just how extensive

was the cover-up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as I am on the topic of the "other" film allow me to address a few items.  After

seeing the film I rather realized that I had seen something that the public was never

meant to see.  While in my 7 years in the USAF, I maintained an above Top Secret/

Crypto clearance and I knew how to safeguard sensitive information  Which is what

I did, never telling anyone what I had seen for years, decades even.

In the mid to late 1990s as we were gathering our presence on the internet, and I

so often read how the Zapruder film was an accurate depiction of what had occurred

in Dealy Plaza and that it could even be used as a time reference, I decided that

perhaps the time had come to share what I had seen. To my utter amazement I soon

was contacted by a small handful of other researchers, most believably William

Reymond and Milicent Cranor who reported seeing the same film.  Here we had at

least 3 people who never met each other, in 3 different parts of the world, who had

seen the same film. In my naivte I believed that I was doing the research community

a service by revealing what had really occurred.

Understand, I had no book to promote, no speaking engagements planned, I only

wished to maintain a relatively low profile, wasn't interested in appearing in the media

or on radio talk shows -- in short I had no ulterior motives in coming forward.

I never foresaw that shots would be fired outside my house in up-scale suburbia, or that

my mailbox would be burned to the ground or that I would receive a fake anthrax letter

in 2001.  But most disappointingly, I didn't think that my honesty and credibility would

be attacked so ruthlessly.  Some resonded that I was mistaken or confused about what

I had seen. Some tested me by repeatedly asking me for descriptions of what I saw.

One prominent researcher even accused me of hullicinating - - - 3 times. But still

others accused me of lying.  Freud said that we are most suspicious of those actions of

which we are most guilty of committing ourselves.  I think he was correct -- and that

accounts for people like Bill Miller, Craig Lamson, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack and

others.  I do not lie, especially about JFK-related issues.

A few stated that if I was telling the truth, why not just supply the film and everyone could

see it??  Well, if I could do that, why wouldn't I have done so??  Why would I have

subjected myself to all the abuse???   But more to the point, just ask yourself why did the

extant Zapruder film become so accessible with the release of the Medio CD-ROM at

about the same time that Oliver Stone's movie was in the works??  Then it could be

played and re-played and re-played; viewed frame-by-frame and in slo mo until you

didn't need the CD ot the video anymore -- you could play it  in your mind?? Why??

IMO the propaganda genious Josef Goebbels couldn't have produced anything better

than the Zapruder film to dupe the masses.

Rich DellaRosa

Forum Admin

Jack, could you (or someone else) outline the differences seen/reported in the Z-film and this purported 'other' and is there consent of those that claim to have seen it on these differences? I withhold judgement..but talk about 'wheels within wheels within wheels'...........perhaps it is best to focus on the need to wrestle back our country and polity as the 'details' are now getting so 'strange' one wonders if they are not designed to keep us all counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin or between the sprocket holes of a film....and thus not working on the bigger matters. I too work on small details...but we have already proven conspiracy a million times over.....and the country is slipping away FAST!.....and FASTER.... That having been said, still interested in the details - must be the masochist in me.

Quickly, from memory (may not be all):

1. Limo is seen turning corner and going downhill without stop in filming

2. Limo makes "wide" turn

3. "Cuban" runs into street and signals to Greer

4. Limo stops for two seconds while head shots occur

Jack

[Bill Miller]

1. Limo is seen turning corner and going downhill without stop in filming

2. Limo makes "wide" turn

3. "Cuban" runs into street and signals to Greer

4. Limo stops for two seconds while head shots occur

Jack

There can be no doubt IMO that you are talking about a reenactment film or you have been duped. Moorman's photograph, which was taken within 3.6/18ths of a second from the head shot, shows the limo's wheels to be moving, plus all the assassination films showing the head shot seem to support Mary's photo. Again, Mary's photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination and within the next 2.5 hours it was then broadcast on a major news network. This means of course, that because of the authenticity of Moorman's photo ... any film showing a limo stopped at the time of the head shot must be a reenacted film and cannot possibly be the real event that took place on 11/22/63.

Bill Miller

Edited August 13, 2006 by Bill Miller

[William Kelly]

Regarding the Moorman Photo.

I was shown an early - first or second copy of the Moorman photo by someone at Dealey Plaza during an anniversary observance.

It was pointed out and explained to me that the first and second generation copies show more detail than other copies, and some of the details that fade are significant.

Has anyone else studied this?

BK

[David G. Healy]

'William Kelly' wrote:

Regarding the Moorman Photo.

I was shown an early - first or second copy of the Moorman photo by someone at Dealey Plaza during an anniversary observance.

It was pointed out and explained to me that the first and second generation copies show more detail than other copies, and some of the details that fade are significant.

Has anyone else studied this?

BK

********

Bill,

Seems to me Jack W was involved with the "Zippo" (?) version of the Moorman5 Polaroid. I believe that generation photo of Moorman was pretty close to the original

'Bill Miller' wrote

Jack

There can be no doubt IMO that you are talking about a reenactment film or you have been duped. Moorman's photograph, which was taken within 3.6/18ths of a second from the head shot, shows the limo's wheels to be moving, plus all the assassination films showing the head shot seem to support Mary's photo. Again, Mary's photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination and within the next 2.5 hours it was then broadcast on a major news network. This means of course, that because of the authenticity of Moorman's photo ... any film showing a limo stopped at the time of the head shot must be a reenacted film and cannot possibly be the real event that took place on 11/22/63.

Bill Miller

**********

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Edited August 13, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ...

Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid.

But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film.

Bill Miller

Edited July 21, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ...

Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid.

But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film.

Bill Miller

Bill,

Your quote is "In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo."

If this is true, what cops cycle is reflective of the ghost image in 313/314?

And, what object is the ghost image cycle overlapping?

When I refer to "object", I mean the distinct dark appearance of what looks to be the side/rear of the limo.

Also, what is the protrusion coming from the limo?

chris

[David G. Healy]

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ...

Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid.

But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film.

Bill Miller

regarding the limo, I've heard of a] slowdown-only, 2] less than one second stop, 3] 2 second stop -- never heard the 4 second time before. Of course all this is meaningless if what we see in Moorman 5 was around the the 2nd shot, the final head shot taking place around Z-355-60. What supports that contention is the SS/FBI reenactment, DP surveyor data ....

Lying about seeing another film? Why? The point and rational of that? Its possible existence doesn't help the Z-film alteration crowd, and its definately a pain in the ass for the LNutter's... It's alleged existence advances the case not one inch....

[Jack White]

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ...

Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid.

But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film.

Bill Miller

WHAT REINACTMENT FILM? Who volunteered to play JFK and have

their brains blown out? Do you have knowlege of such a film or is

this just speculation? Those who have seen the film say the head

explosion is even more gruesome than in the Zfilm. Why would

anyone lie about such a film? Present evidence, not speculation!

Jack

Edited August 14, 2006 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

uh-uh-UH..... is that part of your, "There can be no doubt IMO"? You can prove the 3.6/18ths from the headshot, eh? If so, that IS new, you're now the only person in the world that claims the exact timing of the Moorman 5.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ...

Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid.

But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film.

Bill Miller

WHAT REINACTMENT FILM? Who volunteered to play JFK and have

their brains blown out? Do you have knowlege of such a film or is

this just speculation? Those who have seen the film say the head

explosion is even more gruesome than in the Zfilm. Why would

anyone lie about such a film? Present evidence, not speculation!

Jack

Present EVIDENCE of the other film rather the accounts of flaky indiviuals like DellaRosa. Perhap the actual FILM?

DellaRosa's stopry STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!

Lets see not, a film that shows something very different than the Zapruder film is shown not once but many times in a collage classroom! A film that if real would blow the entire case wide open, is shown nilly willy to a bunch of kids in a collage class....yea right....

Lets also consider that for the is film to exist then it MUST folow that every film and photograph taken in the plaza is also fake....yea right....

[David G. Healy]

'Craig Lamson'

Jack wrote:

WHAT REINACTMENT FILM? Who volunteered to play JFK and have

their brains blown out? Do you have knowlege of such a film or is

this just speculation? Those who have seen the film say the head

explosion is even more gruesome than in the Zfilm. Why would

anyone lie about such a film? Present evidence, not speculation!

Jack

Present EVIDENCE of the other film rather the accounts of flaky indiviuals like DellaRosa. Perhap the actual FILM?

Craig wrote:

DellaRosa's stopry STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!

Lets see not, a film that shows something very different than the Zapruder film is shown not once but many times in a collage classroom! A film that if real would blow the entire case wide open, is shown nilly willy to a bunch of kids in a collage class....yea right....

Lets also consider that for the is film to exist then it MUST folow that every film and photograph taken in the plaza is also fake....yea right....

Can't fathom how difficult it is for one to believe another DP film exists...? So tell us, how would a difficult limo turn from Houston to Elm *blow the case open*? How would the Limo slowing to a quick stop, *blow the case wide open*? How would a further down Elm St, fatal 'headshot' *blow the case wide open*? At this stage of the game would any of the above get us closer to a "conspiracy" resolution...? Simple fact: conspiracy theory exists, HSCA determined it was a conspiracy, that cat is out of the bag....

The rumor exists, that of, another DP film exists, others claim to have seen it... So, IF the other film exists, perhaps the proof you're so adept at calling for, might be right in front of your eyes, that being: the extant Zapruder Film

And yes, the rumor persists other films/photos are fake - problem is: your side can't close the Dealey Plaza seamless films/photos deal... with today's technology that should be a snap

btw, some of those nilly-willy college kids of the 60's helped turn this country away from an abyss [protestors-demonstrators included]. Also, during those same day's, some of those SAME willy-nilly college kids fought, led and died protecting and ensuring the good fortune some of us so cherish these days [especially on the way to the bank, eh?].

What do YOU or ANYONE else think would happen if "the" other film showed up tomorrow?

Edited August 14, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Lee Forman]

What do YOU or ANYONE else think would happen if "the" other film showed up tomorrow?

I believe it would be discredited as a 'sophisticated hoax, perpetuated by clever individuals with a deep seated need for attention/affection in their efforts to promote a 'conspiracy' - at complete odds with the official record - not worth paying $16M in tax payers dollars for -- a sham of gargantuan proportions.'

Perhaps Specter would even be called upon to provide his two cents, along with Gerald Ford, Dale Myers and Gerald Posner. Maybe even Ted Kennedy - something like, 'Why some senseless individuals would continue to promote this sort of damaging hoax after all of these years escapes me. The Warren Commission demonstrated that there was no conspiracy and I am quite satisfied as to the investigation that took place at that time and its findings. These types of slanderous activities, much like that Stone film, or that insidious game released on the web, do nothing but bring pain to my family and the memory of my Brother.'

- lee

[David G. Healy]

What do YOU or ANYONE else think would happen if "the" other film showed up tomorrow?

I believe it would be discredited as a 'sophisticated hoax, perpetuated by clever individuals with a deep seated need for attention/affection in their efforts to promote a 'conspiracy' - at complete odds with the official record - not worth paying $16M in tax payers dollars for -- a sham of gargantuan proportions.'

Perhaps Specter would even be called upon to provide his two cents, along with Gerald Ford, Dale Myers and Gerald Posner. Maybe even Ted Kennedy - something like, 'Why some senseless individuals would continue to promote this sort of damaging hoax after all of these years escapes me. The Warren Commission demonstrated that there was no conspiracy and I am quite satisfied as to the investigation that took place at that time and its findings. These types of slanderous activities, much like that Stone film, or that insidious game released on the web, do nothing but bring pain to my family and the memory of my Brother.'

- lee

thanks Lee, I agree....!

David