Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film.

[Greg Burnham]

Yep. I was truly unaware of the broader circumstances - you just answered the questions from my first post, and I appreciate it. You must not have known this. Your interview mentioned only 'inner circle' and something about 'I wont talk about conditions and circumstances of the viewing ' (i'm paraphrasing.) It's possible I missed something as I was interrupted several times. Now that you know this, you might see how I felt like I was in a twilight zone / conspiracy cult nowhere land. Being called an operative for disinformation only heightened this feeling. That post is one of my favorite internet things ever.

Hmmm. Please forgive me for saying this, but, under the circumstances, I perhaps have the "right" to put your feet to the fire in turn. You really, REALLY, REALLY--do not strike me as a newbie.

So - thanks for answering my question.

Your welcome.

One last thing before I wander away, likely to return occasionally to read or peruse pictures - I maintain that film would blow it open. I read 11/22/63 over the holidays, and loved the story. I'm as non-researcher as they get.

Why do you believe it would blow it open, then? I am experiencing a disconnect.

I didn't know De-Moren*something* was real when i was reading the book, then after I finished the book I googled around, read about that guy, became interested in all the CIA connections, Tosh Plumlee's story was fascinating. When I saw some youtube, the story of this 'other film' popped up. I googled Rich's name and wound up here.

That sounds like you were, in fact, researching, does it not?

I seriously doubt I would have ever bothered registering and discussing this if not for mention of this film.

Why?

Zapruder becoming public spawned a new government investigation.

If you are suggesting that Geraldo's 1975 showing of the film spawned the Church Committee or the House Select Committee on Assassinations, you should stick around here and learn the truth, at least as far as we know it.

Don't underestimate the power of images. If the purpose of your hard worked research is to reveal something, this film should be on the forefront of all efforts. I'll never attend a conference, buy any books, or research on my own. But the mention of a film contradicting Zapruder sparked interest.

Yet, if the Zapruder film appears to support a shot from the front, why was it used by both official government bodies, the WC and the HSCA, to conclude that the shots all came from the rear by a lone gunman? How is it that, only at the 11th hour, did the HSCA embrace the very specious acoustic evidence, which lead to their having concluded there was a probable conspiracy in Dallas? But, based on the Zapruder film, they were unconvinced of a shot from the front? We've all viewed the extant Zapruder film and we can see that there certainly appears to be compelling evidence of a frontal head shot--without any doubt. How is it that these "official bodies" did not see this evidence in the same way, especially considering the fact that they viewed the same, what you called, "power of images" in the Z-film as the rest of us did?

And - although my opinion doesn't matter - I also stand by my assertion that anyone in possession of such a film is as guilty as anyone else who covered things up.

Opinions are just that, opinions. Some hold water and others leak it. However, I agree with your opinion in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to a newbie know nothing about the case.

You are not a "know-nothing" by any stretch. I do not know what you are, but that is not it. Stick around.

[JC Mahoney]

Sometimes I let my dog sleep on the couch - code for the elephant is in the helicopter - code for jim brown was the third shooter - code for there was no second shooter - jfk was actually venutian.

[JC Mahoney]

It would actually be fun to be part of an assisin squad. Kinda like sneaking out and egging the idiot neighbors, except with bullets.

[Greg Burnham]

Now that I know who you are, you can leave. Say goodbye.

[Greg Burnham]

Magda, Charles, Jan, Dawn--et al...

My apologies for my most recent post. Perhaps I over stepped my bounds. Your indulgence is appreciated...

[JC Mahoney]

Now that I know who you are, you can leave. Say goodbye.

This is my second favorite post.

[Greg Burnham]

Now that I know who you are, you can leave. Say goodbye.

This is my second favorite post.

So, the two posts from which you elicited a "suspicious" self-image are your favorites? Yet, you claim to be a newbie? Yet, as a "newbie" with enough INTEREST to register here and post several fairly well thought out messages you did not find ANY of the "information rich" intervening posts to be among your favorites? As a newbie, you learned nothing of value from this at all? What a crock.

You guys are really losing your touch. Too easily drawn out.

[JC Mahoney]

Now that I know who you are, you can leave. Say goodbye.

This is my second favorite post.

So, the two posts from which you elicited a "suspicious" self-image are your favorites? Yet, you claim to be a newbie? Yet, as a "newbie" with enough INTEREST to register here and post several fairly well thought out messages you did not find ANY of the "information rich" intervening posts to be among your favorites? As a newbie, you learned nothing of value from this at all? What a crock.

You guys are really losing your touch. Too easily drawn out.

Wow - I thought you thought I was callous. You think I'm spreading misinformation - that I'm a spook!

Awesome. This is my all time favorite internet post. On top of it, you've saved me alot of time perusing. You're nuts.

[Magda Hassan]

[Greg Burnham]

I love you, Magda!