Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film.

[David Josephs]

Peter,
I was afraid that I might have been vague in what I wrote. Sorry.

I'm not asserting that studying the Z film is a waste of time. I spent this past weekend at my in-law's in a small rural town. Doing so afforded me some time to think about the "other" film, and what its existence means. As such, the one definitive conclusion I reached is that in the presence of this accurate or more accurate film, the argument about whether or not the Zapruder film has been altered would be over. Zapruder, if this other film exists, has been altered. Therefore, I'm not sure debating alteration with those that defend the Z film is worth the time - especially in light of the amount of disinformation purveyors that lurk about. Is that more clear?

As for my "on faith" comment, I hold no delusion that I will ever get to see this "other" film. I must rely on the accounts of those that have seen it and their reputations to reach my conclusion about the veracity of the film's existence.

I apologize for being vague in my first post. I understand your concern for the integrity of DPF and do not consider your response to have been pithy.

Meditating on the existence of this other film has "rocked my world".
M.

Michael - thank you for your considered and thoughtful post.

Meditating on the existence of the "other film" does indeed rock worlds....

I have to add that the description I received about this other film comes from a source I feel is extremely reliable... Add to that Rich D. and the others and it gets even stronger...

One has to ask though.. WHY allow anyone to see this film and live to tell about it... other than to cause problems for "our" community?
As Michael so clearly states... I[B]F this exists, THEN this "original" created the COPY in the Archives... and is most likely the film from which Dino created boards for the "customer" - the SS - and for McCone[/B]

HOW, WHEN and WHERE is the minutia our friend Salandria reminds us about...


The choices are limited:
1 - they DIDN'T see this film and made up the entire thing to independently appear as if they were corroborating each other
2 - they DID see the film but it was made FROM the extant one (IDK, but possible)
3 - they DID see the film and it was a copy of the out-of-camera original
4 - they DID see the film and it was made entirely independent of the extant Zfilm
5 - they DIDN'T see the film yet were all made to believe they had


There are difference is the memories of these films between viewers... which may simply be what was focused upon when seen... OR evidence of multiple versions from the in-camera original STAGES of alteration if you will.

That the film called 0183 in the Archives has been altered is without question... we do NOT have a complete side B with about 33 feet of exposed film..

There is a physical splice after 2'7" of BLACK film following the 75" of assassination footage.
There is another physical splice after 19'3" of BLACK film and
there are two strips of BLACK film joined by splices between and after them for a total of 11'10"
with yet another 6'9" of "light struck leader"...

ALL of thes pieces could not have come from 0183 out of the camera... so WITHOUT A DOUBT what we have in the Archives does not resemble what KODAK wound as a 16mm film..
So the question becomes,

WHAT evidence is there that the 75" of film was the same film developed as 0183 on 11/22 at KODAK in Dallas?

There is NONE.

There is NO processing labratory edge print on this 75" section
There is no 0183 attached to this 75" section
As Horne tells us when viewing the SS copies emulsion side up the "processed by" and "date codes" read backwards


In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite and requires excuses and non standard procedures to be explained away...
the more one rereads the Zavada Report, the more one is struck with the observation that the report REINFORCES that the 75" of film and 0183 had little if anything to do with each other.

DJ