+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. (/Thread-Rich-DellaRosa-talks-about-the-Other-Zapruder-film)
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Gordon Gray - 23-02-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:I've read and listened to accounts of the other film. They are not detailed enough IMO, to be evidence of a different film. There is no evidence of another camera in the same or similar psoition to Zapruder. Of course there could be and perhaps there is indeed another film, but a simpler explaination would be an unedited Z film. The people who have seen this describe three main differences. The car is seen turning on Elm, the car is seen comimng to a complete stop, and the two head shots seem separated. If these frames are rmoved you have essentially the Z film. As someone who has seen the other film, do you recall how it was framed at the momet of the head shots? How much of the car was in frame when you observed the full stop? I don't recall in your account, you being adamant that it was a different film.Gordon Gray Wrote:I doubt it. IMO it is an unedited version of the Z film. What it shows would make clear what has been excised and why.
Didn't you mean to say: "In my grossly uninformed opinion it is an unedited version of the Z-film?"-- How can you have an informed opinion about
what something actually is if you haven't even seen it?
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 23-02-2012
Gordon Gray Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:I've read and listened to accounts of the other film. They are not detailed enough IMO, to be evidence of a different film. There is no evidence of another camera in the same or similar psoition to Zapruder. Of course there could be and perhaps there is indeed another film, but a simpler explaination would be an unedited Z film. The people who have seen this describe three main differences. The car is seen turning on Elm, the car is seen comimng to a complete stop, and the two head shots seem separated. If these frames are rmoved you have essentially the Z film. As someone who has seen the other film, do you recall how it was framed at the momet of the head shots? How much of the car was in frame when you observed the full stop? I don't recall in your account, you being adamant that it was a different film.Gordon Gray Wrote:I doubt it. IMO it is an unedited version of the Z film. What it shows would make clear what has been excised and why.
Didn't you mean to say: "In my grossly uninformed opinion it is an unedited version of the Z-film?"-- How can you have an informed opinion about
what something actually is if you haven't even seen it?
I am not adamant, however, there are some differences that do seem to negate the possibility that it was the same unedited version of the film. For instance, in the extant Z-film the limo is framed extremely low in the view finder. In the film I saw the limo was not framed that way.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Gordon Gray - 24-02-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:That is interesting. If the film was framed differently it would seem to be a different film. Was the entire limo in the frame? In the Z film it is difficult to see whether the limo comes to a stop because you can't see the whole car in relation to the street. Were you able to see this clearly? Also were there two distinct reactions to the shots from front and behind, or were they almost simultaneous, seperated by a single frame as in the Z film?Gordon Gray Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:I've read and listened to accounts of the other film. They are not detailed enough IMO, to be evidence of a different film. There is no evidence of another camera in the same or similar psoition to Zapruder. Of course there could be and perhaps there is indeed another film, but a simpler explaination would be an unedited Z film. The people who have seen this describe three main differences. The car is seen turning on Elm, the car is seen comimng to a complete stop, and the two head shots seem separated. If these frames are rmoved you have essentially the Z film. As someone who has seen the other film, do you recall how it was framed at the momet of the head shots? How much of the car was in frame when you observed the full stop? I don't recall in your account, you being adamant that it was a different film.Gordon Gray Wrote:I doubt it. IMO it is an unedited version of the Z film. What it shows would make clear what has been excised and why.
Didn't you mean to say: "In my grossly uninformed opinion it is an unedited version of the Z-film?"-- How can you have an informed opinion about
what something actually is if you haven't even seen it?
I am not adamant, however, there are some differences that do seem to negate the possibility that it was the same unedited version of the film. For instance, in the extant Z-film the limo is framed extremely low in the view finder. In the film I saw the limo was not framed that way.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 24-02-2012
Gordon Gray Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Gordon Gray Wrote:[quote=Greg Burnham]I've read and listened to accounts of the other film. They are not detailed enough IMO, to be evidence of a different film. There is no evidence of another camera in the same or similar psoition to Zapruder. Of course there could be and perhaps there is indeed another film, but a simpler explaination would be an unedited Z film. The people who have seen this describe three main differences. The car is seen turning on Elm, the car is seen comimng to a complete stop, and the two head shots seem separated. If these frames are rmoved you have essentially the Z film. As someone who has seen the other film, do you recall how it was framed at the momet of the head shots? How much of the car was in frame when you observed the full stop? I don't recall in your account, you being adamant that it was a different film.
Didn't you mean to say: "In my grossly uninformed opinion it is an unedited version of the Z-film?"-- How can you have an informed opinion about
what something actually is if you haven't even seen it?
I am not adamant, however, there are some differences that do seem to negate the possibility that it was the same unedited version of the film. For instance, in the extant Z-film the limo is framed extremely low in the view finder. In the film I saw the limo was not framed that way.
Quote:That is interesting. If the film was framed differently it would seem to be a different film. Was the entire limo in the frame?
Yes, it was.
Quote:In the Z film it is difficult to see whether the limo comes to a stop because you can't see the whole car in relation to the street. Were you able to see this clearly?
Yes.
Quote:Also were there two distinct reactions to the shots from front and behind, or were they almost simultaneous, seperated by a single frame as in the Z film?
I don't know. I do not recall two shots to the head, but that is not indicative of their presence or their absence. I was not impressed one way or the other.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Gordon Gray - 24-02-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:In this case it would seem to be a different film. I am not an expert on film alteration. Perhaps it is possible to change the way an image is positioned in a frame. If these differences are evident, why are you hesitant about asserting that it is a different film?Gordon Gray Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:[quote=Gordon Gray]I've read and listened to accounts of the other film. They are not detailed enough IMO, to be evidence of a different film. There is no evidence of another camera in the same or similar psoition to Zapruder. Of course there could be and perhaps there is indeed another film, but a simpler explaination would be an unedited Z film. The people who have seen this describe three main differences. The car is seen turning on Elm, the car is seen comimng to a complete stop, and the two head shots seem separated. If these frames are rmoved you have essentially the Z film. As someone who has seen the other film, do you recall how it was framed at the momet of the head shots? How much of the car was in frame when you observed the full stop? I don't recall in your account, you being adamant that it was a different film.
I am not adamant, however, there are some differences that do seem to negate the possibility that it was the same unedited version of the film. For instance, in the extant Z-film the limo is framed extremely low in the view finder. In the film I saw the limo was not framed that way.
Yes, it was.
Quote:In the Z film it is difficult to see whether the limo comes to a stop because you can't see the whole car in relation to the street. Were you able to see this clearly?
Yes.
Quote:Also were there two distinct reactions to the shots from front and behind, or were they almost simultaneous, seperated by a single frame as in the Z film?
I don't know. I do not recall two shots to the head, but that is not indicative of their presence or their absence. I was not impressed one way or the other.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 24-02-2012
Gordon Gray Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:In this case it would seem to be a different film. I am not an expert on film alteration. Perhaps it is possible to change the way an image is positioned in a frame. If these differences are evident, why are you hesitant about asserting that it is a different film?Gordon Gray Wrote:[quote=Greg Burnham]
I am not adamant, however, there are some differences that do seem to negate the possibility that it was the same unedited version of the film. For instance, in the extant Z-film the limo is framed extremely low in the view finder. In the film I saw the limo was not framed that way.
Yes, it was.
Yes.
Quote:Also were there two distinct reactions to the shots from front and behind, or were they almost simultaneous, seperated by a single frame as in the Z film?
I don't know. I do not recall two shots to the head, but that is not indicative of their presence or their absence. I was not impressed one way or the other.
The answer to your question is bigger than your question.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Charles Drago - 24-02-2012
Gordon Gray Wrote:If these differences are evident, why are you hesitant about asserting that it is a different film?
Here's a Deep Political Science 101 assignment for you:
Think about your question. Deeply.
And then suggest a reasonable answer.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Jan Klimkowski - 24-02-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:The answer to your question is bigger than your question.
Greg - thank you.
There are surface proofs and shifting shadows...
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 24-02-2012
You're welcome, Jan--
Just last night, Scott Myers called to let me know that he was going on a radio program to discuss his recollection of "an other film" of the assassination.
This is the first time he has ever spoken about it on a live show. See the links below.
Part one:
[video]http://www.1310kfka.com/audio/scooter022312hr2.mp3[/video]
Part two:
[video]http://www.1310kfka.com/audio/scooter022312hr3.mp3[/video]
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Bernice Moore - 17-03-2012
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]* Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film during this time (Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, Rancho Santa Fe, CA: Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (BLOODY TREASON, p. 165)
Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his father's discovery (BLOODY TREASON, p. 159).
In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/zfilmalt.htm
Another thought on why was it faked, or why they thought perhaps they could get away with doing such, could possibly be that they never thought that the research movement would grow, as it did, that perhaps they were the only who would be in possession of all forever ...Perhaps like Dulles ( so it is said ) they thought no one would read the WC, other than some academics and that the public didn't read, and that they certainly would never study the Zapruder film, why would they?? they were not very intelligent according to the Governments seeming attitude...
I do not think they realized that John Kennedy's assassination would have the lasting effect it did on the people, nor that they would have the wherewithal, nor intelligence to really see that many areas were, simply put,wrong and did not add up..they simply would not accept the pat story of a lone assassin.....they had too many questions, in other wards......
Perhaps they thought he was regarded as just another President, and that it would all slip away into history, and if and when the public ever saw the frames, like we did in Life, we would be shocked, and say isn't that horrible and buy the presentation, and I guess at that time we did.......Well after all it was Life Magazine, that was to be trusted, then....
That they ,the people ,would put it eventually all away, in the back of their minds, and get on with their lives, and all would eventually die down, and he would belong to history and the ages and put in his rightful place in such, and eventually just be a memory..They did not realize the gift he had with the people, that of communication, the touch of class, and how he made them feel, about themselves.....they thought he was just another President and neglected to see, that when he was replaced by an LBJ...only made that all the more apparent, what they had lost.....and after all, whether as some have stated they did not agree with his politics and did not vote for him, he was still their President..
Perhaps some people have missed or neglected the important areas of the statements and given information, by the Doctors and Nurses at Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, which could be perhaps one of the most overall important areas within the research..... as it does relate to the information seen within the head shot area of the Zapruder film..this could be the most serious material forgotten by many--of the whole medical case .
I don't call the Docs or nurses at Parkland, just eyewitnesses, they were a well trained medical emergency team..
PARKLAND Memorial Hospital, Dallas, treated an average of 272 emergency cases a day, and saw many gunshot wounds..( The Doctors referred to the trauma team as "the knife and gun club." ).......
It was adjacent to and was the major teaching hospital for the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.
It was staffed by the faculty of the medical school and had 150 interns and residents in all medical specialties...(info varies, some describe the numbers higher) one of the few within the US at the time, that had these groups arranged for this type of emergency, they saw on a daily basis, gun shot wounds, knifings,beatings etc..
The statements they made were not of a ordinary citizen witness, who were feet away from the auto...their view was up close and in contact,......and when they spoke they gave their medical opinion, therefore it is a part of the medical evidence, they gave their findings on the immediate condition of his body when received in the Trauma room 1..and some their observations of the wounds...if not there would have not been a phone call the next day from a Bethesda Doc to Parkland...
we cannot ignore what they said and or the reports they made, it is medical evidence...it has become well known through the years that Southwestern and the Government have not been what you could call subtle about their need for the Doctors, who were in attendance, to keep quiet and to not divulge what they saw,and heard that weekend in November...1963.
A list of some of the Doctors who treated JFK follows...
From Dr.Crenshaw's:"JFK Conspiracy of Silence" and his updated version "Trauma Room One."..great books, in this specific area...
Dr.G Shires, who became chief of surgery of Cornell Univ. Med school...and then chief of surgery at Texas Tech Medical ,
Dr. Malcolm Perry, who became professor of surgery and chief of vascular services at Vanderbilt University.Med.School, Nashville..and then professor and chief of vascular surgery at Texas Tech University .Med school..
Dr.Charles R.Baxter and Dr.Robert N McClelland professors of surgery at Southwestern Med school.
Dr.Charles J.Carrico chairman of the dept of surgery at Parkland and Southwestern Med school.
Dr.Ronald Jones chief of general surgery at Baylor Med Center.
Dr.Charles Crenshaw clinical professor of surgery at Southwestern Med. school...and director and chairman of Dept of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
Some of this staff did research in a fellowship under Dr.Shires...in which they eventually made medical history by discovering that death from hemorrhagic shock ( blood loss) can be due primarily to the body's adjunctive depletin of internal salt water into the cells....Almost 30 years later ,Drs. Joseph L.Goldsetin and Michael S.Brown at Southwestern Med School, gained and made medical history by winning the Nobel Prize for their research into cholesterol metabolism...I am posting this information, to show that this medical staff was not some run of the mill, everyday Doctor as some may believe..and some ahve said.....nor was the Hospital by any means..and ordinary one..........the medical information and statements made by them on the wounds of the President must be taken seriously, by any given study within the medical area..
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]