+- 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. - Charles Drago - 14-01-2012
JC,
It is not at all melodramatic to acknowledge that life and/or personal honor may be at stake for those who violate ground rules.
To the degree that I "know" Greg through this and other JFK-related venues, I respect his silence. On many levels.
My imagination runs wild ... but certain speculative scenarios related to this particular matter are best left unspoken.
For now.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 14-01-2012
Charles Drago Wrote:JC,
It is not at all melodramatic to acknowledge that life and/or personal honor may be at stake for those who violate ground rules.
To the degree that I "know" Greg through this and other JFK-related venues, I respect his silence. On many levels.
My imagination runs wild ... but certain speculative scenarios related to this particular matter are best left unspoken.
For now.
I appreciate that empathy, Charles, even as I understand the inquisitor's suspicions. For now, it is all I can offer.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Peter Lemkin - 14-01-2012
A few thoughts on the subject.
I myself have not seen the 'other film', but I know a person not mentioned here in this thread who has and I trust that they have. They choose to remain nameless, as many of those who have seen the 'other film' likewise choose.
As Rich described and as I have elsewhere posted [as have others] to my knowledge EVERYONE who has seen the 'other film' has seen the same features in it - or missing [from the Z-film] (word it anyway you like). I find that most interesting and many of the people who saw the 'other film' reported to friends what they saw before they heard or read the descriptions of what the few others who have seen 'the other film' saw. The descriptions match GREATLY. [i.e. I think they all were seeing the same 'other film']
I have always believed the Z-film was once [!] a real film, but the version we now 'have' has been greatly altered to adhere to the official fiction of the events in Dallas - altered in many ways - too numerous to mention here.
As for other cameras in the Plaza, we know of Arnold's and don't know what happened to it - even if he says it was destroyed. Jack White and others have hunted for other cameras and at times thought they had seen what might be one or some. Tom Wilson [a much overlooked and misunderstood researcher IMHO] found three operational persons in the plaza with identical optical devices in front of their faces. Exactly what they were [rangefinders, monoculars, cameras] can not at this point be said. Certainly a camera was NOT a suspicious item in a crowd of people watching the President - whether in the hands of real 'watchers' or conspirator 'watchers'. It is also not hard to secrete a camera in a hidden location and recover it later. Unconfirmed, but highly likely is that by 1963 there was an equivalent movie camera to the minox [i.e. very small and easy to hide as other object].
Lastly, I know on a few occasions there have been meetings [or communication exchanges] between those who saw the 'other' film together or separately [saw it together or at different times and places] and when comparing notes, again, they all seem to report the same features - which conform to what most unimbedded researchers now believe were the real events of the day.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Charles Drago - 14-01-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:JC,
It is not at all melodramatic to acknowledge that life and/or personal honor may be at stake for those who violate ground rules.
To the degree that I "know" Greg through this and other JFK-related venues, I respect his silence. On many levels.
My imagination runs wild ... but certain speculative scenarios related to this particular matter are best left unspoken.
For now.
I appreciate that empathy, Charles, even as I understand the inquisitor's suspicions. For now, it is all I can offer.
Greg,
I'm not hunting for data you cannot provide, but rather asking for your comments on another interpretation of alleged interaction between The Cuban (aka White Windbreaker Man) and Greer/Kellerman.
Might the activity that Rich interpreted as conspiratorial choreography be explained by Greer/Kellerman attempting to do his/their job by not driving up to and past a man standing in the street and making what easily could be interpreted as a threatening gesture?
Might the conspiratorial role of The Cuban have been to do just that: take what easily could have been a suicidal step into the street to try to get the car to stop?
Please know that I'm not attempting to deny the likelihood of complicity of certain Secret Service agents in the assassination plot. I'm simply performing due diligence.
Thanks,
CD
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Bernice Moore - 14-01-2012
HERE IS a part of a thread from i believe Aug 2006, when Rich imo and some others like Greg were being pushed so very hard on the subject of ''the other film some of Rich's comments follow........IMO I KNOW , OR I SHOULD SAY WE, KNOW THERE IS, ARE . WERE OTHER FILMS TAKEN THAT DAY AS MY Hubby, Dad and I Saw ANOTHER ON Canadian telly, not the other film but one taken from the South side,filming towards the fence.taken from down towards the underpass, from the other side of Elm, the view that we caught was of the limo taking off, speeding away ......we did not see it again, and really there was no time for us to zero in on any specifics, but what i am relating is, there was one taken from the south side so i have no doubt there was another film of all taken...and probably others as well...the film we saw was verified some time later on Rich's forum, a man on the alts logged in and spoke of the same or very similar film he had seen from the south side, we tried to get ahold of him, but his email address was no longer in use, and though Rich did try to trace him, we never were able to , but the point being that it had been seen by others.....thanks b....
is predictably calling you and the others who saw it
LIARS.
Could you post a digital copy of your appendix in =
TGZFH
and give me permission to post it on Simkin? (Plus any
additional thoughts)
I am trying to remember all the researchers who saw =
it,
the times and circumstances:
1. DellaRosa
2. Burnham
3. Myers
4. Reymond
5. Marvin
6. Janowitz?
7. others?
Please refresh my memory. Are any of the postings =
still
on the "old forum"?
"Miller" is such a jerk!
Jack=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #1 on: August 03, 2006, 06:07 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yes he is!!
For the record I only recall matching my recollections =
with William Reymond.
I know the others have said they also saw it but I do =
not recall their=20
descriptions if they offered any.
Milicent Cranor also saw the film -- on the premises =
of NBC in NYC.
I will have a scan of mu Appendix E shortly.=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #2 on: August 03, 2006, 06:22 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
jack white=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 404
The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #3 on: August 03, 2006, 06:33 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Rich. Do you remember all those who said=20
they saw it?
jack=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #4 on: August 03, 2006, 06:56 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
I can't add any except for Mili.=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
lee forman=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 164
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #5 on: August 17, 2006, 10:47 AM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich,
How much time elapsed between the first shot to the =
head and the second? Do you recall any other details with respect to =
the foreground? For instance, in the z-footage, it appears that the =
camera 'hops' over the area of the stairs and retaining wall. Does this =
area appear in the other film at all?
- lee=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #6 on: August 17, 2006, 11:28 AM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee,
The first thing to realize about analyzing the "other" =
film is that while I
viewed it on 3 occasions, I never had possession of it =
and unlike the Z film
I could not watch it in slo-mo or frame-by-frame. =
Certain things stand out and=20
are etched in my mind, but it has been at least 10 =
years since I last saw it.
The 2 head shots were nearly, but not exactly, =
simultaneous. First the
shot to the rear and then the tangential shot to the =
temple.
I do not recall much about the background as I was =
focused on the main
characters.=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
lee forman=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 164
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #7 on: August 17, 2006, 10:11 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Rich.
I don't suppose that it appeared to you that the front =
shot may have come from a bit lower than the camera? Just curious. =
Maybe that's another impossible question. Just trying to work something =
out.
- lee
=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
John Delane Williams=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 45
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #8 on: August 21, 2006, 10:59 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
I notice an anomaly here. What we have is a few people =
saying they say an alternative Z-like film. I have no reason to oppose =
such a film, but where is the evidence? If you saw the film, it must =
exist (or existed). Seems like there would be good money in releasing =
it. I'll buy a copy. But no information on where the film came from, who =
showed it, and who might have copies today. For those of us who are =
pretty sure we never saw the film, it's haed to say much, except where =
is the evidence?=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #9 on: August 21, 2006, 11:39 PM =BB =
--------------------------------------------------------------
Try not to be naive. You should ask why the extant Z =
film became
so readily available through numerous outlets and on =
various media.
I would gladly show the film -- but I never possessed =
it. Collectively we
know that at least 2 of the major TV networks have the =
film: CBS and=20
NBC. =20
But don't under-estimate just how dangerous a property =
it is. It is
one piece of evidence which lays the cover-up bare. =
It shows
triangulation of fire; surgically accurate shooting; =
participation of
various co-conspirators; complicity of the Secret =
Service; and
proof positive that the government has been lying =
about the
events for 43 years and counting.
One individual living in Europe allowed a researcher =
the opportunity to
view the film on multiple occasions. That researcher =
set out to
convince that person to allow a copy to be made of it. =
That person
felt his life was in jeopardy over that film. But the =
researcher began
to wear the guy down and he was considering making a =
copy.
A short time later while the researcher was travelling =
abroad the guy
with the film was found murdered. The guy was retired =
from French
Intelligence.
As I stated previously, if you haven't seen the film =
you are well within
your right to reserve judgement until such time that =
you can. But
try not to question its existence. A fair number of =
people have seen
it, some more than once, and no two ever saw it at the =
same time
in the same place.
Everything isn't about money. Sure that film could =
bring a lot of money
but would you risk your life to market it??
You see an anomoly here -- I don't.
=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
John Delane Williams=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 45
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #10 on: August 22, 2006, 12:20 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich,
I'm not going to call you naive. What you don't seem =
to get is that there is an uneven playing field. In effect, you say you =
have seen the film. Yet we get no particulars on who showed the film, =
where it came from what was the camera angle, etc. You imply that giving =
out that information can br too dangerous. Perhaps so. Yet others who =
have brought up evidence that didn't seem to be well enough documented =
have not fared well. Let me give you an innocent example that I would =
guess neither of us gets to involved with. I don't recall her name right =
now, (I'm sure someone, probably you, will know her name, but she wrote =
"The Last Dissenting Witness." She initially reported seeing a toy dog, =
(or something similar) in Jackie's hands in the motorcade, when in fact, =
it was a bouquet of roses. For this misstep, she received a lot of =
wrath, for a simple little mistake. Now, I'm not suggesting that you =
criticised her about this, but many person's, mainly Warren defenders, =
did. In any event, I'm sure you saw something. I'd like to see it too. =
Perhaps that's not presently possible. However for those of us on the =
Forum without this experience, we are kind of expected to either accept =
it, or. I am taking the "or" position. From this perspective, several =
persons claim to have seen such a film, but little documentation thus =
far has been revealed. I don't have any beliefs one way or another about =
the film. It surely could have existed, and may still exist. The anomaly =
is the level of evidence shown thus far, and the treatment that level of =
evidence gets in other topics on this Forum.
John
=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
wstewart=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 13
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #11 on: August 22, 2006, 12:33 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: admin on August 21, 2006, 11:39 PM
Try not to be naive. You should ask why the extant Z =
film became
so readily available through numerous outlets and on =
various media.
I would gladly show the film -- but I never possessed =
it. Collectively we
know that at least 2 of the major TV networks have the =
film: CBS and=20
NBC. =20
But don't under-estimate just how dangerous a property =
it is. It is
one piece of evidence which lays the cover-up bare. =
It shows
triangulation of fire; surgically accurate shooting; =
participation of
various co-conspirators; complicity of the Secret =
Service; and
proof positive that the government has been lying =
about the
events for 43 years and counting.
One individual living in Europe allowed a researcher =
the opportunity to
view the film on multiple occasions. That researcher =
set out to
convince that person to allow a copy to be made of it. =
That person
felt his life was in jeopardy over that film. But the =
researcher began
to wear the guy down and he was considering making a =
copy.
A short time later while the researcher was travelling =
abroad the guy
with the film was found murdered. The guy was retired =
from French
Intelligence.
As I stated previously, if you haven't seen the film =
you are well within
your right to reserve judgement until such time that =
you can. But
try not to question its existence. A fair number of =
people have seen
it, some more than once, and no two ever saw it at the =
same time
in the same place.
Everything isn't about money. Sure that film could =
bring a lot of money
but would you risk your life to market it??
You see an anomoly here -- I don't.
I agree completely, Rich. I would also point out to =
John that this "other film" (as it has come
to be known) is certainly not the only missing =
evidence in the case. What about Beverly Oliver's
or Gordon Arnold's films? What about the Harper =
fragment? Where is that evidence, John?
Did it never exist, because we don't know more about =
it or can't see it? C'mon now! Are
you studying the same case that we are? There's also =
plenty of disappeared evidence in the
RFK case. Why has none of it surfaced? Because it =
was either destroyed, or because it is
being held as souveneirs by very wealthy individuals =
involved either directly or tagentially in those
crimes. Did you ever get to tour H.L.Hunt's mansions =
and view his private collections?
I didn't think so. The sicko's that still possess =
whatever missing evidence still exists don't need
the money. Why would they, when they're running the =
friggin world?!
----
Wayne=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
----
Wayne=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #12 on: August 22, 2006, 12:35 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
That was Jean Hill. The LNers and provocateurs were =
the ones who
gave her grief.
When I and several others described what we saw, I =
gave lots of details --
including the POV and how it differed from the Z film. =
Back in 2002 I had
archived 3 separate posts in which I described all =
that I remembered about
the film. The third one was published by Jim Fetzer =
in his book TGZFH --
it is in every printing of the book as Appendix E and =
it is posted on this
forum.
So how in the world can you write:
Quote
Yet we get no particulars on who showed the film, =
where it came from what was the camera angle, etc.
As for who showed the film, just curious when you go =
to the movies, do you
insist on getting the projectionist's name before you =
watch the film??
Over a number of years I have answered lots of =
questions asked of me
about the film.=20
=20
=AB Last Edit: August 22, 2006, 12:38 AM by =
admin =BB Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
wstewart=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 13
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #13 on: August 22, 2006, 12:40 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: admin on August 22, 2006, 12:35 AM
That was Jean Hill. The LNers and provocateurs were =
the ones who
gave her grief.
When I and several others described what we saw, I =
gave lots of details --
including the POV and how it differed from the Z film. =
Back in 2002 I had
archived 3 separate posts in which I described all =
that I remembered about
the film. The third one was published by Jim Fetzer =
in his book TGZFH --
it is in every printing of the book as Appendix E and =
it is posted on this
forum.
So how in the world can you write:
As for who showed the film, just curious when you go =
to the movies, do you
insist on getting the projectionist's name before you =
watch the film??
Over a number of years I have answered lots of =
questions asked of me
Perhaps in another thread we can start listing all the =
evidence that has
disappeared, but for which we have strong evidence =
that it once existed
in the JFK, MLK, and/or RFK cases. I would start off =
with those items that
I listed earlier, but I would not be suprised it we =
could collectively grow that
list to some 50-100 items. So what is the purpose of =
singling out
this other film as being questionable as to its past =
or present existence?
----
Wayne
=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
----
Wayne=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1350
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #14 on: August 22, 2006, 12:47 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not a bad idea Wayne.=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever =
remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)=20
=20
=20
lee forman=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 164
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #15 on: August 22, 2006, 01:08 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich is right - from my experience. I tried to =
acquire 2 films. It got scary. The idea was that I would publish these =
films. I couldn't even figure out how to go about it. It got even =
weirder and I bailed. I am glad I bailed.
- lee=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
rick janowitz=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 41
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #16 on: August 22, 2006, 07:16 PM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Jack,=20
I have been away from the forum for a while but let me =
respond to your thread and to say hello again. I have not seen the =
other film that i'm aware of. Also, there was a thread on the last =
incarnation of JFK Research that had to do with images in the sproket =
hole (ghost image) area of the Z film. Something about the green tree =
and the image of what looks like a man. As soon as I can get my =
materials back in order i'll post what I think is going on in that =
frame. I hope to be spending some more time in the forum now that I have =
some time.=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
jack white=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 404
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #17 on: August 22, 2006, 10:16 PM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Rick. I think you and I discussed THE OTHER =
FILM with
Scott Myers, who had seen it. Maybe that is why I was =
confused
about whether you had seen it.
Jack=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
Nick Bartetzko=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 26
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #18 on: August 23, 2006, 12:49 AM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: lee forman on August 22, 2006, 01:08 AM
Rich is right - from my experience. I tried to =
acquire 2 films. It got scary. The idea was that I would publish these =
films. I couldn't even figure out how to go about it. It got even =
weirder and I bailed. I am glad I bailed.
- lee
Just curious, Lee. If you are able to say, which films =
did you try to purchase?
Nick=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
David Healy=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 236
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #19 on: August 23, 2006, 12:29 PM =BB =
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: rick janowitz on August 22, 2006, 07:16 PM
Hello Jack,=20
I have been away from the forum for a while but let me =
respond to your thread and to say hello again. I have not seen the =
other film that i'm aware of. Also, there was a thread on the last =
incarnation of JFK Research that had to do with images in the sproket =
hole (ghost image) area of the Z film. Something about the green tree =
and the image of what looks like a man. As soon as I can get my =
materials back in order i'll post what I think is going on in that =
frame. I hope to be spending some more time in the forum now that I have =
some time.
there he is! Welcome back Rick, great seeing you =
here...
David=20
=20
=20
--------------------------------------------------
John:
No one is expected as you put it, or asked =
to believe in, or that there is another film......
As no one is expected to believe in =
Judyth's information that there is no documentation for, but you do =
believe in.
People make up their own minds...
There are no rules stating otherwise...
The only people I have seen that do post =
such, are the Bill Miller and Gang team, and they do so repeatedly and =
at every opportunity
on the other boards...
No one on this board says you or anyone =
has to believe anything.........
So ?? No problem...
B.. =20
=20
=20
72.140.157.183 =20
=20
=20
=20
rick janowitz=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 41
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #21 on: August 24, 2006, 06:43 =
PM =BB =20
--------------------------------------------------
Hi Dave,
I'ts good to talk to everyone again. =
Hopefully I'll have something useful to contribute once I get back up to =
speed on what's been happening these last few months (years). I have to =
get used to the new forum now. I'm still fumbling through it now but I'm =
sure it will get easier with time.=20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
rick janowitz=20
Members
Offline
Posts: 41
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #22 on: August 24, 2006, 06:58 =
PM =BB =20
--------------------------------------------------
Quote from: jack white on August 22, 2006, =
10:16 PM
Thanks, Rick. I think you and I discussed =
THE OTHER FILM with
Scott Myers, who had seen it. Maybe that =
is why I was confused
about whether you had seen it.
Jack
I remember that too. Scott definitely =
remembers seeing the other film and I was trying to remember if I had =
seen any other footage other than what is now known. The only thing I =
could think of was something Walter Cronkite had shown on TV but that =
must have been after the Geraldo showing. The odd thing is I remember =
seeing it in black and white and I'm pretty sure we had a color TV by =
1970 when Good Night America showed the film we still see today. I'm =
curious if anyone remembers a Walter Cronkite special about the Z film? =
I'm stumped on the year I saw it though. =20
=20
Logged =20
=20
=20
=20
admin=20
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 1382
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #23 on: August 24, 2006, 07:04 =
PM =BB =20
--------------------------------------------------
Rick writ:
Quote
I'm pretty sure we had a color TV by 1970 =
when Good Night America=20
showed the film we still see today
Goodnight America aired the Z film in =
1975.=20
=20
Logged =20
--------------------------------------------------
.
__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
"When you have eliminated the impossible, =
whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" =
(1887)=20
=20
=20
rick janowitz=20
Members
Offline
Re: The OTHER film...=20
=AB Reply #24 on: August 24, 2006, 08:30 =
PM =BB =20
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks Rich, I stand corrected. I should =
have checked the date a little closer before posting. =20
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Bernice Moore - 14-01-2012
Title: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: admin on March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Since I appeared recently on Len Osanic's "Black Op" radio
program, I have been receiving several questions, I'll try and
answer them here:
1. Where can this film be viewed?
I really don't know. I believe that copies exist in various =
places around the world.
However I have no knowledge where it can be viewed. I never at any =
time possessed=20
a copy myself. When I saw it, the film was shown by a person =
unknown to me along
with some others in a suburb of Washington DC (College Park, MD).
2. Do you believe it is an unedited version of the Zapruder Film?
Personally, I do not believe the film is in any way a version of =
the Zapruder
film. The Z film appears amateurish to me and unrealistic in the =
sense that it
seems like an animated "cartoon". The "other" film seemed to be =
professionally
done with great color rendition and smooth panning. Additionally, =
I am unsure as=20
to whether Zapruder shot the film attributed to him. A French =
photo journalist
who saw the film on several occasions does refer to it as an =
unedited version
of the Z film FWIW.
3. What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films? =
The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto =
Elm.
The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming =
when=20
the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the =
limo left
the Plaza,
The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, =
nearly going=20
up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service =
road in front
of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the =
center of Elm.
The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm =
St.
In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen.
In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella =
up and down,
not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may =
have been signaling
the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In =
the Z film the open
umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be =
detected.
The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The =
Accomplice)
and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an =
upraised arm while
he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed =
his up-raised
hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I =
have concluded
that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo =
exactly at
his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 =
seconds. The Z=20
film shows no stop.
The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A =
portion of this
forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.
With the limo stopped, Greer turned to face JFK. At that moment =
JFK received=20
2 shots to the head: one from the rear causing his head to move =
forward slightly
and one to the right temple, fired from the front, resulting in a =
violent explosion
out the rear of JFK's head and sending a huge spray of blood and =
brain matter
toward DPD Officer Hargis hitting his helmet with what William =
Manchester
termed a "red sheet" and with such force that Hargis later said he =
thought he
himself was hit. This most gory explosion of matter is not =
accurately=20
portrayed in the extant Z Film.
Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung =
around and=20
accelerated the limo leaving Dealey Plaza and passing the lead car =
to entrance
the Stemmons freeway.
4. If the Zapruder film is altered, why did "they" leave in the =
explosive
head shot?
The first thing to keep in mind is that "they" never believed the =
Z film would
be viewed by the public. Members of the WC stated that they =
believed only
a few college professors would even read their report. With Time, =
Inc. and
the FBI controlling access to the Z film they could control who =
could view it=20
or even selected frames from it. If questioned, they could always =
say it was
being withheld due to concern over the Kennedy family's right to =
privacy.
In 1975, the extant Z film was shown on national TV on Geraldo =
Rivera's
"Goodnight America" program by Robert Groden. That segment
can be found on MPI's DVD Image Of An Assassination." The public
was shocked to see the head shot. To many, the Z film was proof =
of a
second gunman, one firing from the front. To counter those =
beliefs a
Nobel winning physicist (Luis Alvarez) concocted a "jet effect" =
theory to
explain how a shot from the TSBD could cause the violent "back and =
to the
left" reaction defying Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's second =
law of
motion can be formally stated as follows:
The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is =
directly proportional=20
to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the =
net force, and=20
inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
=
(http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l3a.html).
The alterationists IMO HAD to leave in the fatal head shot. They =
couldn't
very well claim that JFK was a victim of whiplash. At the =
necessary time
Dr Alvarez was dragged out to produce a total canard.
5. Why was the Zapruder film fabricated/altered?
IMO, and simply stated, the purposes of altering the Z film, in =
order of
priority, were:
a.. To remove all evidence of multiple shooters=20
b.. To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear =
if possible=20
c.. To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity
6. On 11/23, Dan Rather claimed to have viewed the Z film, the =
first
reporter to do so. He claimed that JFK's head was throw violently
forward not backward. How can that be?
IMO, he may have been shown an early attempt of an altered film =
in which
the frames were reversed. But it is possible that he saw NO film =
at all --
and he was instructed what to say. Keep in mind that on 11/22, =
Rather was
simply a TV reporter for the local Dallas CBS affiliate -- but =
virtually overnight
he was promoted to CBS's official White House Correspondent. Quid =
pro quo??
7. Will the "other" film ever become accessible to the public?
I truly doubt it. It is a dangerous property because that one =
film proves that
JFK was murdered as a part of a well planned and executed =
conspiracy. It
lays the WCR bare as an intentionally written pack of lies and =
proves the
complicity of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the highest levels =
of the
U.S government.
I have known of ~ a half dozen people who have seen the film in =
the distant,=20
past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. =
I truly
wish that someone would come foreward and report a more recent =
viewing.
I truly do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: Walt Rollins on March 15, 2009, 11:52 AM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did =
someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the =
film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance =
to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where =
this film might have come from.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: Dean Hagerman on March 15, 2009, 12:26 PM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Rich you have already talked to me about the POV (Inside the =
Pergola)=20
Just a thought that you might want to add that into your post for =
members who have not heard your opinion on where the "other" films =
camera (i.e. Tri-pod in Betzner) or camera man was standing in Dealey =
Plaza.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: Rich DellaRosa on March 15, 2009, 01:59 PM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Quote from: Walt Rollins on Today at 11:52 AM
Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did =
someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the =
film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance =
to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where =
this film might have come from.......
Walt,
I mentioned that on the program.
In 1974-76, I was stationed at Andrews AFB outside DC. I was
working on a B.S. in Political Science part time. I used to =
attend
classes at the U of Maryland's main campus in College Park on
weekends. On Saturdays and Sundays classes were 3 hours each.
One each morning and one each afternoon. There was a break for
lunch in between. Some people studied, some went off campus
to eat, some brown-bagged it. Most of us just hung around.
On 2 occasions while I was there, word got around that if anyone
was interested, a film of the JFK assassination would be shown
at lunch in an empty classroom. I went, once before the Z film=20
was shown on TV, once again after. I had heard of this happening=20
at other colleges in that time period. So I went and a guy, =
unknown
to me, waited until a fair number of people arrived, and used a =
16mm
projector to show the film. I recall him running it twice each =
time.
Some of us joined in spontaneous discussions afterward. The first =
time
I assumed it was the Z film but no one said it was. The second =
time
I knew immediately that it wasn't the Z film. I remained silent =
about
these viewings for over 20 years.
I don't know where the film came from but recall that College Park
is only a short drive around the Beltway from both DC and NSA.
The guy with the film didn't identify himself and I don't recall =
anyone
asking him. At that time, I held a Top Secret/Crypto security =
clearance
and I was very accustomed to not asking questions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: bfilmster on March 15, 2009, 03:45 PM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Rich,
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Keith Millea - 14-01-2012
From Rich:
Quote:On 2 occasions while I was there, word got around that if anyone
was interested, a film of the JFK assassination would be shown
at lunch in an empty classroom.
That's the same way some people were able to watch the banned film,"Punishment Park",by Peter Watkins.I viewed it in a classroom at Santa Rosa Junior College,after regular school hours.This was back in the seventies.And hey,I recently scored the DVD,although I can't watch it because it is from England(Region 2).Now I just need a region free DVD player.:captain:
Watch Trailor Below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suh2r2ojP3I&feature=player_detailpage
More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF_WR...eature=related
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 14-01-2012
Charles Drago Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:JC,
It is not at all melodramatic to acknowledge that life and/or personal honor may be at stake for those who violate ground rules.
To the degree that I "know" Greg through this and other JFK-related venues, I respect his silence. On many levels.
My imagination runs wild ... but certain speculative scenarios related to this particular matter are best left unspoken.
For now.
I appreciate that empathy, Charles, even as I understand the inquisitor's suspicions. For now, it is all I can offer.
Greg,
I'm not hunting for data you cannot provide, but rather asking for your comments on another interpretation of alleged interaction between The Cuban (aka White Windbreaker Man) and Greer/Kellerman.
Might the activity that Rich interpreted as conspiratorial choreography be explained by Greer/Kellerman attempting to do his/their job by not driving up to and past a man standing in the street and making what easily could be interpreted as a threatening gesture?
Might the conspiratorial role of The Cuban have been to do just that: take what easily could have been a suicidal step into the street to try to get the car to stop?
Please know that I'm not attempting to deny the likelihood of complicity of certain Secret Service agents in the assassination plot. I'm simply performing due diligence.
Thanks,
CD
Chalres,
I think that interpretation is possible, but improbable. However, even if we were to assume that Greer/Kellerman were doing what you suggest, the obvious question becomes why in the world was no protection on the street to begin with? Why were there potential threats allowed to be in a proximity enabling them to interfere with the client's escape route thus preventing it from being exploited? IOW: There is no innocent explanation for the "sequence" of events notwithstanding the potentially innocuous nature of some of its parts. I do not subscribe to any particular theory regarding those two on the street (TUM & TA), except to say they were not innocents. Having said that, their exact role is not something I care to speculate on at this juncture. I will say this, using either Rich's scenario or your's, their actions did effect the rate of travel of the client vehicle while in the kill zone, ergo, they were involved in some capacity by design.
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Charles Drago - 14-01-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles,
I think that interpretation is possible, but improbable. However, even if we were to assume that Greer/Kellerman were doing what you suggest, the obvious question becomes why in the world was no protection on the street to begin with? Why were there potential threats allowed to be in a proximity enabling them to interfere with the client's escape route thus preventing it from being exploited? IOW: There is no innocent explanation for the "sequence" of events notwithstanding the potentially innocuous nature of some of its parts. I do not subscribe to any particular theory regarding those two on the street (TUM & TA), except to say they were not innocents. Having said that, their exact role is not something I care to speculate on at this juncture. I will say this, using either Rich's scenario or your's, their actions did effect the rate of travel of the client vehicle while in the kill zone, ergo, they were involved in some capacity by design.
We agree on the "no innocent explanation" argument.
We agree on the involvement "in some capacity" of Umbrella Man and The Cuban/White Windbreaker Man.
We agree that their actions resulted in the slowing down (and, I am convinced, stopping) of the limousine.
So we're clear, the scenario is "mine" only to the extent that I offered it here. It was not my intention to endorse it. My purpose in bringing it to our readers' attention is to illustrate that the submissions of interpretations of important aspects of this case that go against the conventional wisdom are important components of larger deep political studies of the meta-event.
Imagine what we could learn about the conspiracy if we could subject the film(s) viewed by you, Rich, and others to analyses using today's available technology and the expertise of the best minds in our community ...
Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film. - Greg Burnham - 14-01-2012
Charles Drago Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles,
I think that interpretation is possible, but improbable. However, even if we were to assume that Greer/Kellerman were doing what you suggest, the obvious question becomes why in the world was no protection on the street to begin with? Why were there potential threats allowed to be in a proximity enabling them to interfere with the client's escape route thus preventing it from being exploited? IOW: There is no innocent explanation for the "sequence" of events notwithstanding the potentially innocuous nature of some of its parts. I do not subscribe to any particular theory regarding those two on the street (TUM & TA), except to say they were not innocents. Having said that, their exact role is not something I care to speculate on at this juncture. I will say this, using either Rich's scenario or your's, their actions did effect the rate of travel of the client vehicle while in the kill zone, ergo, they were involved in some capacity by design.
We agree on the "no innocent explanation" argument.
We agree on the involvement "in some capacity" of Umbrella Man and The Cuban/White Windbreaker Man.
We agree that their actions resulted in the slowing down (and, I am convinced, stopping) of the limousine.
So we're clear, the scenario is "mine" only to the extent that I offered it here. It was not my intention to endorse it. My purpose in bringing it to our readers' attention is to illustrate that the submissions of interpretations of important aspects of this case that go against the conventional wisdom are important components of larger deep political studies of the meta-event.
Imagine what we could learn about the conspiracy if we could subject the film(s) viewed by you, Rich, and others to analyses using today's available technology and the expertise of the best minds in our community ...
I love the way your mind works, Charles. While we don't always agree on everything, I respect "how you got there from here" tremendously. In this case, however, I too agree with what you have written.