Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film.

[Greg Burnham]

I appreciate the text, and it's compelling, like most things in this case.

Well, that is just about the most understated comment I have ever read on this forum!

Still - it does not even remotely compare to a high quality video that differs from the Zapruder film in every way that disproves a lone gunman.

Gimme a break. Even the extant Zapruder film appears to disprove a lone gunman shooting from the rear... "back and to the left...back and to the left...back and to the left" --

Another film would prove that Zapruder was tampered with, that multiple arms of government were involved, and it would be directly in the face. A quote from 2 dead people doesn't compare.

This quote from "two dead people" (as you put it) isn't a quote from "just ANY 2 dead people" -- it is from the President of the United States and from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation--the latter upon whose investigation the Warren Commission based its ill conceived Lone Nut and Single [magic] Bullet Theory conclusions! So, yes THIS SHOULD HAVE MADE THE HEADLINES, without question! Now, I would be naive if I actually believed that this evidence would have seen the main stream media's "light of day" -- but, it SHOULD have. I can assure you, this evidence (gleaned from the oval office tapes) lends itself to a much more compelling argument for perfidy and complicity within the highest levels of government, including obstruction of justice, than ANY film ever could! The fact that the populace is "visual" does not hold water here. The legal system is not visual. In fact, Justice is Blind.

I gave a presentation on this [LBJ Oval Office Tapes] at the 2000 NID JFK-LANCER Conference in Dallas. I think Charles was also a presenter that year. I was on the Intelligence Connections Panel with Larry Hancock. Much to my surprise, although this was the first time this information had been presented in Dallas, even JFK researchers did not seem to understand its significance!

Now - you certainly have the ability to prove me wrong. Out it. Let's see if it's viewed with the same indifference.

What makes you think that I have that ability? You are perhaps drawing pseudo-inferences even in the absence of supporting evidence. In case you truly are unaware of the broad circumstances, let me be clear:

1) Other than for the stated purpose [training] for which it was displayed, I was unaware of the significance of what I was viewing until many years after I had viewed it. I do not know who was in possession of it at the time(s) of viewing nor who ordered it as a part of the training. All I knew was: "This is an example of what NOT to do when protecting a client."

2) At the time, I was not aware that this was an item of evidence beyond what had already been publicly known.

3) Even if I had known it was "special" (which I did not) I would have been in no way capable of absconding with the film. It would have been literally IMPOSSIBLE, even if I had understood its importance.

Having said that, I believe that IF it becomes available at some point, it will not be for the right reasons. Re-read what Jan posted earlier. It is spot on, in my view. If the details that I have publicly left out of my account (specific circumstances) were to be revealed it would not shed even a scintilla of light on the big picture.