Rich DellaRosa talks about the Other Zapruder film.

[Peter Lemkin]

Tosh Plumlee has seen all the films and claims to have been about a hundred yards from DCM that day. I think that many, including extensive work by Wilson show the bulge under the jacket is a communications device and not a weapon. Mr. Trotter you seem rather new to all this....though no harm in that.

[Charles Drago]

It still doesn't make sense that a film of the shooting was freely shown on a campus is not on youtube today. Not sure where else it was shown, though. Maybe the headquarters of 'The Man'? hutup:

It makes perfect sense.

[JC Mahoney]

It still doesn't make sense that a film of the shooting was freely shown on a campus is not on youtube today. Not sure where else it was shown, though. Maybe the headquarters of 'The Man'? hutup:

It makes perfect sense.

Operation 'these people are nuts' suspended due to lack of lulz.

[Charles Drago]

The "other" film (or films?) of the assassination was shown for reasons postulated previously on this thread -- reasons that make perfect sense.

Your disagreement is most welcome here. Out of argument (as opposed to quarrel) there often emerges truth. I'm eager to learn, and thus perhaps learn from, the roots of your problems with the aforementioned reasons.

[JC Mahoney]

The "other" film (or films?) of the assassination was shown for reasons postulated previously on this thread -- reasons that make perfect sense.

Your disagreement is most welcome here. Out of argument (as opposed to quarrel) there often emerges truth. I'm eager to learn, and thus perhaps learn from, the roots of your problems with the aforementioned reasons.

​I hate the Patriots. I like Raspberry Krispy Kreme. I am a secret agent.

[Greg Burnham]

The "other" film (or films?) of the assassination was shown for reasons postulated previously on this thread -- reasons that make perfect sense.

Your disagreement is most welcome here. Out of argument (as opposed to quarrel) there often emerges truth. I'm eager to learn, and thus perhaps learn from, the roots of your problems with the aforementioned reasons.

A film that was viewed, in public and private by at least six individuals on multiple occasions proves (not indicates, but proves) that the warren commission lied, and that all sorts of organizations within the government conspired to murder the president. Had this been true, that at least six ( and probably hundreds, based on the statement by Rich's viewings ) viewed the film, and viewed it in different situations, demonstrates that many copies of this film existed, and many hundreds of people viewed it (the vast majority of whom have no idea that it was significant). Long before that point, in my opinion, the genie has left the bottle. It's not going back in. The copies of this film are not going to be contained. People with 'Trophy Room' films would not show them in theaters in manhattan and classrooms at a college. This isn't a 'banned movie'. This is evidence of a covert revolution. Possession of this film provides possessor with tremendous power. If there were that many copies, which it seems there were, and they were viewed by that many people, somebody would have leaked it by now - or much more likely - it would never have been paraded around and shown to people.

Putting the lid on that, again imo, would be exponentially harder than murdering some politicians, which seems pretty par for the course. People who were stupid enough to let that film be viewed publicly, apparent for about a decade, would not be competent enough to clean that mess up and get the genie back into the bottle.

So what is your alternative solution to this conundrum?

[JC Mahoney]

The "other" film (or films?) of the assassination was shown for reasons postulated previously on this thread -- reasons that make perfect sense.

Your disagreement is most welcome here. Out of argument (as opposed to quarrel) there often emerges truth. I'm eager to learn, and thus perhaps learn from, the roots of your problems with the aforementioned reasons.

A film that was viewed, in public and private by at least six individuals on multiple occasions proves (not indicates, but proves) that the warren commission lied, and that all sorts of organizations within the government conspired to murder the president. Had this been true, that at least six ( and probably hundreds, based on the statement by Rich's viewings ) viewed the film, and viewed it in different situations, demonstrates that many copies of this film existed, and many hundreds of people viewed it (the vast majority of whom have no idea that it was significant). Long before that point, in my opinion, the genie has left the bottle. It's not going back in. The copies of this film are not going to be contained. People with 'Trophy Room' films would not show them in theaters in manhattan and classrooms at a college. This isn't a 'banned movie'. This is evidence of a covert revolution. Possession of this film provides possessor with tremendous power. If there were that many copies, which it seems there were, and they were viewed by that many people, somebody would have leaked it by now - or much more likely - it would never have been paraded around and shown to people.

Putting the lid on that, again imo, would be exponentially harder than murdering some politicians, which seems pretty par for the course. People who were stupid enough to let that film be viewed publicly, apparent for about a decade, would not be competent enough to clean that mess up and get the genie back into the bottle.

So what is your alternative solution to this conundrum?

He said 'conundrum'

[Dawn Meredith]

The "other" film (or films?) of the assassination was shown for reasons postulated previously on this thread -- reasons that make perfect sense.

Your disagreement is most welcome here. Out of argument (as opposed to quarrel) there often emerges truth. I'm eager to learn, and thus perhaps learn from, the roots of your problems with the aforementioned reasons.

A film that was viewed, in public and private by at least six individuals on multiple occasions proves (not indicates, but proves) that the warren commission lied, and that all sorts of organizations within the government conspired to murder the president. Had this been true, that at least six ( and probably hundreds, based on the statement by Rich's viewings ) viewed the film, and viewed it in different situations, demonstrates that many copies of this film existed, and many hundreds of people viewed it (the vast majority of whom have no idea that it was significant). Long before that point, in my opinion, the genie has left the bottle. It's not going back in. The copies of this film are not going to be contained. People with 'Trophy Room' films would not show them in theaters in manhattan and classrooms at a college. This isn't a 'banned movie'. This is evidence of a covert revolution. Possession of this film provides possessor with tremendous power. If there were that many copies, which it seems there were, and they were viewed by that many people, somebody would have leaked it by now - or much more likely - it would never have been paraded around and shown to people.

Putting the lid on that, again imo, would be exponentially harder than murdering some politicians, which seems pretty par for the course. People who were stupid enough to let that film be viewed publicly, apparent for about a decade, would not be competent enough to clean that mess up and get the genie back into the bottle.

So what is your alternative solution to this conundrum?

The people who claim to have viewed this document of unparalleled historical significance should be the ones to prove its existence, not me. Short of that, there is no solution.

In this case - there isn't any evidence - only whispers of 'inner circles' and 'secret conditions and circumstances'. Sounds a lot like a sales pitch for a bogus hedge fund or pyramid scheme - all of which are more common than a document possessed by many and viewed by hundreds that would change the political landscape of the world in 60 seconds, but whose origins and circumstances cannot be uttered, even in a format where 50 year old polaroids are analyzed like the photos and strings in the office of John Nash (A Beautiful Mind).

I'm amazed I'm the only one who feels this way. Maybe I'm the nutball.

Regards,

JC

The one person I know who viewed it- Millie Cranor- did so at someone's office, I believe a television station, so she was not in a position to grab it and make a copy. She told me about seeing it when I was visiting her home last May in Lancaster PA, where my daughter resides. It was brought up again during a dinner attended by myself, my husband Erick, Milie, Steve Jones -(the JFK researcher not the 9-11 one), his wife Linda, and Jerry Policoff. My memory is that of our group Millie was the only one to see this different film. Next time we speak I will ask her about it. That film had more emphasis on the headshot that came from behind, as well as the limo coming to a stop.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

The copies of this film are not going to be contained. People with 'Trophy Room' films would not show them in theaters in manhattan and classrooms at a college. This isn't a 'banned movie'. This is evidence of a covert revolution. Possession of this film provides possessor with tremendous power. If there were that many copies, which it seems there were, and they were viewed by that many people, somebody would have leaked it by now - or much more likely - it would never have been paraded around and shown to people.

Putting the lid on that, again imo, would be exponentially harder than murdering some politicians, which seems pretty par for the course. People who were stupid enough to let that film be viewed publicly, apparent for about a decade, would not be competent enough to clean that mess up and get the genie back into the bottle.

You're missing the point entirely -- and I attribute this fact to your self-proclaimed unfamiliarity with deep political realities and analysis methodologies. Permit me to explain.

The "other" Dealey Plaza film(s), controlled by cover-up Facilitators, were created and selectively shown in order to support the cover-up, to foster doubt, to create conflict, to deflect attention from more pressing matters, and, as Jan Klimkowski notes, to be channelled to the public at some future time for unknown reasons which might include the reinfliction of mass trauma on the audience, to demonstrate that Power can tell you what to believe, or more prosaically to provide leverage of some sort against one of the players.

Doubt fueled by cognitive dissonance.

Control.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Directly relevant to this thread, is another thread here in which investigative journalist and DPF member Cheri Seymour discusses being shown another JFK assassination film and names those who showed it to her.


Note that in the thread dedicated to her important book, The Last Circle, which deserves to be read in its entirety, Cheri discusses in post #72 her sincere reservations about the veracity of that other JFK assassination film.