PDA

View Full Version : The "Other" Zapruder Film



Gil Jesus
10-03-2010, 09:08 PM
Several people, including the late Rich Dellarossa, have claimed to
have seen an unaltered, unedited version of the Zapruder film that is
different than the film commonly seen by the American public. It has
been described as showing the limo making a wide turn from Houston St.
onto Elm and a bullet hitting the Stemmons Freeway sign. More
shockingly, the film reportedly shows the limo completely stopped when
the head shots are fired.

When Rich first told me about this, I was intrigued at the possibility that the extant Z-film was an edited version.

As part of Jack White's research into the authenticity and accuracy of the extant Zapruder film, author/researcher Jim Marrs interviewed William Reymond, a French free-lance writer who is one of the people who claim to have seen the "ORIGINAL" Zapruder film.

Here, Mr. Reymond describes what he saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdyqDBTpeo

Jack White
10-03-2010, 09:37 PM
Several people, including the late Rich Dellarossa, have claimed to
have seen an unaltered, unedited version of the Zapruder film that is
different than the film commonly seen by the American public. It has
been described as showing the limo making a wide turn from Houston St.
onto Elm and a bullet hitting the Stemmons Freeway sign. More
shockingly, the film reportedly shows the limo completely stopped when
the head shots are fired.

When Rich first told me about this, I was intrigued at the possibility that the extant Z-film was an edited version.

As part of Jack White's research into the authenticity and accuracy of the extant Zapruder film, author/researcher Jim Marrs interviewed William Reymond, a French free-lance writer who is one of the people who claim to have seen the "ORIGINAL" Zapruder film.

Here, Mr. Reymond describes what he saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdyqDBTpeo

Thanks for posting this Gil. Reymond's observations are very important.
Incidentally, this is excerpted from my video THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX.

Jack

Peter Lemkin
10-04-2010, 04:24 AM
Thanks Gil, Jack and Jim for each of your work on this matter. I had gotten detailed descriptions of the 'other film' - from Rich D [both as he described it on his forum, and further in private exchanges], and with one other person who prefers not to be named. Their descriptions match each other and that heard in the clip Gil points toward on this thread. Rich had himself spoken to a few others who had seen a showing of it, and they all describe what must have been copies of the same 'other' film. When one puts this together with all the very odd and all but impossible anomalies of the publicly extant film, it is quite clear we were given a 'film' of the 'event' as 'real' as the official version of events are (i.e. a Fake! :y:). :listen:

After all these years, I still can't get over how sinister the whole event was and remains - and the lack of a real official investigation. Why the PTB don't want a real investigation is crystal clear; why American citizens have not demanded one is not. Thank goodness for those private researchers who have worked all these years, usually for nothing more than more venom or problems than praise, to detail just how 'naked' the Empire has been all along. Sadly, it clearly shows no signs of self-reform. :mad:

Peter Dawson
10-04-2010, 06:02 AM
When was this interview with Mr Reymond recorded?

Jack White
10-04-2010, 03:09 PM
When was this interview with Mr Reymond recorded?

As I recall, it was the year 2000.

Jack

Charles Drago
10-04-2010, 09:21 PM
Jack,

What, if anything, can you tell us about David Mantik's trip to Europe to meet with Reymond and see the "other" Z-film -- other than David never saw anything of the sort?

Are you in a position to ask David if he'd care to comment on these pages?

Thanks, my friend.

CD

Jack White
10-05-2010, 04:22 AM
Jack,

What, if anything, can you tell us about David Mantik's trip to Europe to meet with Reymond and see the "other" Z-film -- other than David never saw anything of the sort?

Are you in a position to ask David if he'd care to comment on these pages?

Thanks, my friend.

CD

Charles...I am not aware that David Mantik planned to meet with
Reymond when he vacationed in France. I never heard that.
If you know of such, you know more than I.

Thanks for getting Magda to reconnect me.

Jack

Charles Drago
10-05-2010, 04:13 PM
You're entirely welcome, Jack.

I know only what David himself chose to reveal at a JFK Lancer conference some years back.

If memory serves, he said that he was offered the opportunity to see an "uncut" Z-film in Europe, and that Reymond was facilitating the venture.

I'm not in contact with David; if you are, perhaps you can ask him to comment.

It brings to mind a certain Mr. Jaffe's quest for what turned out to be the manuscript of Farewell America.

Frank Nelson
10-10-2010, 04:36 PM
The importance of Mr. Zapruder’s description of when he began filming the attack on JFK that Mr. Zapruder gave to WFAA Program Director Jay Watson on live TV the afternoon of 22 Nov 1963 cannot be over emphasized because at the very least it indicates footage Mr. Zapruder recorded is missing from the film he took. This in turn means that the camera “original” stored at the National Archives cannot possibly be the Zapruder original because it also is missing this footage and no indications of film editing (splice tape, etc) has been reported by handlers and examiners of the film, the most recent being Roland Zavala. Missing film footage with no visible physical evidence of editing indicates the film at the Archives is a “print” of an edited film and not the original.

Before all of Mr. Zapruder’s 4 films (1 original & 3 copies) left Dallas the film was screened before a number of persons. These persons included Jamison employees, Mr. Zapruder’s lawyer, Zapruder’s business partner (Irwin Schwartz), Dan Rather and other journalists. The importance of what all these people witnessed when the film was screened before them cannot be over emphasized yet I know of no effort by the Justice Department over the years to contact these people and interview them, do you?

Dan Rather described what he saw on national TV, his description including the JFK parade car rounding the corner at Houston & Elm Streets (just as Mr. Zapruder described it in his WFAA interview) and Rather also described JFK being thrown ‘violently forward’ (not back and to the left) when he was wounded in his head.

The co-creator of the Zapruder film (Marilyn Sitzman) described when her boss began filming in both ‘The Men Who Killed Kennedy’ and also in ‘Image Of An Assassination’. Both times she indicated the filming began before the JFK parade car made the turn at Elm & Houston.

The public has never seen this parade car turn. It was never published by anything the media giant that purchased Mr. Zapruder’s film and all rights to it ever published over the years, it was not published in the WC exhibits, it did not appear in any Zapruder bootlegs from the Clay Shaw trial years, it’s missing from the Geraldo Rivera bootleg Zapruder film broadcast from the mid 70’s, there’s nothing from the HSCA on it and it’s not in any of the 4 digital versions of the film contained in ‘Image Of An Assassination’ that was released to the public by the Zapruder heirs.

When Mr. Zapruder skipped over the DPD who were actively investigating the assassination and publicly asking for those with photos and motion pictures of the attack to contact them and placed his film first into the hands of federal investigators and then a media giant he opened doors for the film to copied many times over by handlers within that elite triangle (SS-Hoover’s FBI-Time-Life). How many times and by whom that may have been done within this unique triangle will probably never be known but there always exists a possibility that the “real deal” is in someone’s hands and may possibly see the light of day in our lifetime. What could it hurt to show the public what really occurred to JFK on Elm Street, it’s not going to expose the shooters or their handlers any more than the film that has been seen by the public, will it?

What’s strange in this topic is the silence of all those who were involved in the creation, development, copying, initial Dallas screening, the 1st federal handlers of the film and the media giant that paid out a small fortune for the film. Surely someone within this elite group knows if what the public has seen is bogus. Is it that hard to locate these people and ask them a simple question, “Did you see the JFK parade car make the turn at Elm & Houston when you saw the film screened the assassination weekend?” plus “what else did you see in the film?”

The silence on the matter from that elite group is deafening.

The JFK parade car turn at Houston & Elm Streets is also missing from a multitude of JFK attack films and is the subject of intrigue & private research. Obviously, something occurred that was removed from public scrutiny. In the case of the Zapruder film, it appears to have been removed by someone within the unique triangle (SS-Hoover’s FBI-Time Life).

I constantly hope that either those who saw the film before it left Dallas the assassination weekend will go public with what they saw or friends and family of those now deceased will share with the public what those people described to them while they were here on Earth. I also constantly hope that whoever’s hands the “real” film may now reside will release it to the public in my lifetime.

Best wishes,

Frank Nelson

Bernice Moore
10-23-2010, 10:19 PM
hi frank;

quote ''What could it hurt to show the public what really occurred to JFK on Elm Street'' i am thinking first off it would give away the compliance of the government in the cover-up of the crime,after all they had the film, they only were the guilty party who altered it,having the facilities and epertise to do so, therefore they would be found to have shown their guilt in covering their butts, then the zapruder's would have to give back the 16 million plus interest, omg, that is never going to happen, there are were, 6 researchers all together who reported seeing the other film , the comparisons they gave in the past, which i do not have now, but were at one time posted on rich's and when compared were basically,and extremely similar, there was, is another film out there, rich said that cbc and nbc also had a copy, the info about such sorry to say is also gone, perhaps jack may recall,some details..?? but it was milicent cranor that told of her seeing the other film being at one of the two stations in her recall .. thanks

b

Bernice Moore
10-23-2010, 10:57 PM
hey myra i got logged in again...below is some information from rich himself, god bless him, that he posted in reply to questions re the other film from a pretending neive pot stirring member imo.i have clipped some of the questionaires replies and his name, from such.....the replies shown posted to him were not by the man who was asking the questions but by a third party member..

aug.17th, 2006

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
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.

aug 21..2006 rich

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
NBC.

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??

Rich;

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,
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?!
----
other member's reply.

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.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2006, 12:38 AM by admin » http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/wlmailhtml:{F1C20502-51D3-4414-9198-DC6FAFD534A7}mid://00000000/!x-usc:file:///C:/Users/Bernice/Documents/PHOTOS/Section%203/Zapruder%20Research/The%20OTHER%20film___files/ip.gif Logged (wlmailhtml:{F1C20502-51D3-4414-9198-DC6FAFD534A7}mid://00000000/!x-usc:http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip) .

__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Rich DellaRosa

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth!"
-- A.C. Doyle: "A Study In Scarlet" (1887)



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?
----
other members reply

Bernice Moore
10-23-2010, 11:04 PM
rich's print out of seeing the other film..from the ""Great Zapruder Film Hoax"".b

Charles Drago
10-24-2010, 04:03 AM
In all of its density, this is really quite simple:

It's the doppelganger gambit -- as it has been written in multiple iterations throughout the dramatic construct that is the Kennedy assassination.

Understand this, and you will understand not just the "how," but also the "who" of the crime.

Bernice Moore
10-24-2010, 04:12 AM
thanks charles as there were found to be several doppelgangers within dealey that day...take care b...

p.s hey jack, the doppelgangers of dealey have not been done in quite some time, they were always very interesting,perhaps one more time when you feel like it ??i will join in gladly, :angel: hope all is well take care my friend, best b..

Steve Duffy
10-25-2010, 03:36 AM
This may be of if interest...And trying not to complicate things...
Finishing a book by Cheri Seymour called "The Last Circle", which follows the investigation of Danny Casaloro, and the stolen PROMIS software. One of the key players ...is an Intelligence asset (No claims to any department-though prob CIA) known as Robert Booth Nichols.
When Cheri was at his apartment, she viewed a version of the Z film which showed the driver shooting at Kennedy. He claimed it was the uncut version (pg 179)...Cheri's husband also viewed this version.
In later talking with Dick Russel (the Man who Knew to Much) it was believed that she was shown this version as it provided Nichols with "deniability" , having her see this version would of had the effect of invalidating her research...(Pg 192)
So, one wonders if there are extant copies of this film that legitimate researchers have seen? The above events took place in the mid 90's.

Magda Hassan
10-25-2010, 05:39 AM
Cheri is a member here. I wonder if she may like to discuss this?

Charles Drago
10-25-2010, 01:22 PM
This may be of if interest...And trying not to complicate things...
Finishing a book by Cheri Seymour called "The Last Circle", which follows the investigation of Danny Casaloro, and the stolen PROMIS software. One of the key players ...is an Intelligence asset (No claims to any department-though prob CIA) known as Robert Booth Nichols.
When Cheri was at his apartment, she viewed a version of the Z film which showed the driver shooting at Kennedy. He claimed it was the uncut version (pg 179)...Cheri's husband also viewed this version.
In later talking with Dick Russel (the Man who Knew to Much) it was believed that she was shown this version as it provided Nichols with "deniability" , having her see this version would of had the effect of invalidating her research...(Pg 192)
So, one wonders if there are extant copies of this film that legitimate researchers have seen? The above events took place in the mid 90's.

Two points:

1. Appearances by "helpful" intel assets bearing the names "Booth" or "Nichols" (then there's "Oswald Lewinter") -- among others borrowed from characters in historic assassination/deep political dramas -- must be appreciated as red flags.

2. The driver-did-it video is a chimera created to provoke within the public in general and the JFK investigative community in particular the cognitive dissonance and internecine struggles critical to the maintenance of the coverup.

Despite the logic-defying championing by some of the most gifted and principled JFK researchers of an in-limo shot theory, and with the complicity of certain Secret Service agents/assets in the assassination duly recognized, there is not a scintilla of legitimate evidence to suggest that gunfire originated within the Lincoln that day.

Ms. Seymour has been had.

Steve Duffy
10-25-2010, 01:56 PM
That's what's pointed out in the book, Charles.
Cheri was shown the film, and after talking to Dick Russell, was assured it was a fake used to throw her off her investigation.
I don't ascribe to the theory...it just stood out because I was at another page the other day where this same theory was being thrown about...
Thought it belonged in this thread.

Frank Nelson
10-26-2010, 12:51 AM
(thanking Bernice for her comments to me)….that is a bleak image of our representatives
if they follow the trend of CYA for the misdeeds and sins of people who are dead, particularly disgusting creeps like Dulles. It means in effect that Reagan was wrong when he told the Soviets they lived under an “evil empire”. What could possibly be more evil than what Bernice described as government motives to conceal the truth from the American public? It must be difficult for educators to instill faith in our system with this dark cloud hanging overhead.

A thought kicking around the minds of several people I interact with is perhaps the ‘Zapruder movie’ was prepared way in advance of the attack and all that was used from Zapruder’s film was just the background spectators, not the actual horror within the parade car. In other words, the faces of the real attack victims could have been added to actor’s bodies filmed in a similar vehicle (or a portion of a similar vehicle) prior to the attack. Hollywood and Madison Avenue does this all the time, using stunt doubles and morphing faces and bodies. Bits and pieces of what Zapruder captured would then be merged into a finished illusion that was falsely portrayed as the “Zapruder film”.

No proof of this as yet but it’s a different spin on the chain of custody story that a lot of people think is a hoax starting with Zapruder’s TV interview the afternoon of the massacre.

Why would this be done in advance? To have a quick propaganda film for the public and to fund the operation through magazine and newspaper sales. Exclusive massacre photos and film sells; sales equate to fat wallets.

It’s easily realized that whoever ambushed JFK didn’t just happen to show up at the kill zone out of the wild blue a couple minutes before the shooting and just happen to have assault weapons in their possession; that location was picked well in advance and the attack probably rehearsed in advance as well. It’s not unreasonable to suspect the Zapruder filming was also prepared in advance.

What these persons who tell of seeing “other films” may in fact have seen a “pre-morph” portion of what was used to create the illusion of what is believed to be the “Zapruder film” and they may also have seen the “real deal”.

Best wishes,


Frank Nelson

Steve Duffy
10-26-2010, 02:46 AM
Frank, because I'm new here, and believe that everyone has a right to their views and my Mother did raise me to be polite, I'll simply ask:
Do these people you correspond with actually even entertain this viewpoint? It has to be one of the most outlandish theories on the Z film I've ever heard. And I've read a substantial amount regarding the works for both alteration and non alteration.
Body doubles? Morphing of Faces? with 1963 technology?
Applying Occams Razor, wouldn't the capture of the authentic event, by Zapruder, and then later alteration if necessary be a way more simple process?
I must admit, you've done gone and confounded me.

Charles Drago
10-26-2010, 04:50 AM
Or how about this:

The Z-film was shot 11 years later and sent back via Nazi-designed time machine.

The give-away: Onassis is driving.

Frank Nelson
10-26-2010, 08:43 AM
One of the enduring mysteries of the Zapruder film is why it begins with the 3 lead motorcycles rounding the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets instead of catching the JFK parade car in the vicinity of where Tina Towner began her film as Zapruder described on live TV shortly after the assassination. If Zapruder had begun filming when he said he did these 3 lead motorcycles would have already come down Elm street past Zapruder & Marilyn Sitzman and the white Ford pilot car containing Jesse Curry would be in the process of passing the Zapruder-Sitzman filming team. That being said, how did these 3 lead motorcycles get into his film and what happened to the JFK parade car ‘coming down Houston Street, making his turn’?

When Mr. Zapruder’s comments were first noticed by those comparing what he told Jay Watson (who was barely listening to Zapruder) to what his film depicts a theory began that Zapruder’s film was a hybrid.

I believe Jack White was doing some research in this area a few years back and was exploring the possibility that a camera and tripod was used from within the pergola shelter while others suggested BDM is the other mystery photographer. Then there’s the story of the soldier who lost his film to the hatless police officer; where did that film go?

The Weaver photo (taken from the corner of Main & Houston) looking north towards the TSBD catches the 3 lead motorcycles plus the pilot car, thus, if Zapruder was filming them at the time they negotiated the intersection turn JFK’s parade car was just rounding the corner of Main and Houston. Zapruder would have seen this fender flag waving limo from his line of sight from the pergola pedestal. He would have also seen the white Ford pilot car nearing the intersection of Houston & Elm.

So what’s it all mean? Did Zapruder get it wrong when he described on TV what he filmed or was there some hanky panky happening with his film behind closed doors once Mr. Z cut the footage loose?

I believe there are persons alive that hold the answers to all this mystery and want to get the truth out. With the Internet it should be possible to post the real footage without being persecuted or killed. I believe the right way to deal with the public on this crime is to expose the crime for what it was, air it all out, stop covering for the deceased guilty parties and be thankful the criminals that murdered that helpless, defenseless man on Elm Street sitting next to his pretty wife in the backseat of a convertible are being dealt with by the highest authority and are forever gone from our lives.

The public can handle the truth.


Best wishes,


Frank Nelson

Bernice Moore
11-13-2010, 06:47 AM
i finally dug it up and milicent cranor saw the other film, on the premises of NBC in NYC...

in the following Rich speaks for himself, as he always did in his replies to some questions...often asked...

The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: admin on March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
portrayed in the extant Z Film.

Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and
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
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
to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and
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:

To remove all evidence of multiple shooters
To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible
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,
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.

Magda Hassan
11-13-2010, 07:29 AM
Thank you Bernice for going into the dusty basement of the hard drive and finding this treasure.

Ed Jewett
11-13-2010, 08:26 AM
I passed on to others, blinkingly, the description of "another" version found in Seymour's book "The Last Circle". It was suggested that it was used as some kind of reverse honey pot -- boy, I need a good functional glossary of terms -- a "poison pill" to prevent or destroy someone's effort to go public with what else was discussed during the meeting. It was seen by both Seymour and her husband. Others in attendance are described earlier in the chapter. It freaked me out when I read it because the Z(*) film showed the driver of the limo clearly firing the fatal shot. I know this has been a contentious issue, and I am not sufficiently up to speed on Dealey-related matters to address the point well, coherently, or soundly.

Here is the excerpt, taken from Chapter 12 of "The Last Circle" by Carol Marshall (the original, shorter online version):


CHAPTER 12, Part 3

I was becoming unresponsive to the game, so I presume Nichols decided it was time to "set the hook." It was not until two years later that I understood the significance of this incident. At one point during our conversation, and completely out of context with what we were discussing, Nichols played a video tape of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The southern wall of Nichols' apartment contained a six-foot-wide screen on which I watched a blown-up (enlarged), slow motion "uncut" version of the famous Zapruder film.

I watched what appeared to be the standard media version of the film, seen so many times in film clips over the years, but then Nichols slowed the camera even more, and on the six-foot screen, I observed the driver of the limousine turn to his right, first looking at Connolly, then at Kennedy. The driver's left hand came over his right shoulder, and he was holding a long barreled gun. Smoke and a bullet emerged from the gun, traveling ever so slowly across the screen into Kennedy's head, blowing brain tissue into the air as he fell back against the seat.

Stunned, I watched Jacqueline Kennedy open her mouth in horror as she glanced at the driver, then try to climb over the back seat of the car.

Littman and Zokosky and I stared at the scene in silence, unable to believe what we were seeing. Nichols then changed the tape and showed what he described as the "media" version of the Zapruder tape. In the media version, the driver continued to drive, unflinching, as the shots rang out. Then the scene switched to the back part of the limousine.

At this point, Nichols stopped the frame and pointed with a stick at a tree in the background behind the limousine. From the middle of the tree to the ground, there was no trunk, just air. The top part of the tree was growing in air!

I demanded that my husband be allowed to see the film. I felt I must have been hypnotized. When he arrived, he viewed both films up close, in slow motion, and saw the same thing. Nichols played both tapes backwards and forwards as often as we demanded, until the memory of it was burned forever into our minds.

I wondered if the video had been tampered with. I asked Nichols where he had obtained the original "uncut" version? He would not say. I had no idea at that time that his F.I.D.C.O. partner, Clint Murchison, Jr.'s father had had instant access to the Zapruder film immediately after the assassination in Dallas, Texas.

Nichols studied me for the longest time, then walked over to the window and lit a cigarette. He finally commented that the CIA can cover up anything it wants, even a president's murder. He wanted to show me the power of the Octopus. "Nothing is as it appears to be," he said.

Steve Duffy
11-13-2010, 09:01 AM
Ed, I'm mentioned Cheri's sighting on the previous page.
Magda confirmed she's a member here? I would very much like more details on what she saw.

Ed Jewett
11-13-2010, 07:58 PM
Ooops, sorry about that, Steve. I don't tend to spend a lot of time inside the JFK threads or debate so I apologize for the oversight. I would like to know more too, and see the discussion(s), but I am far from being an expert in the minutiae of those few minutes.

[As an aside, I wonder if someone could suggest a mathematical formula: the number of seconds involved from the point of approach to the Plaza until the pronouncements at Parkland divided by the numbers of books, words, and bytes devoted to a discussion of them. Maybe the numerator and the denominator ought to be switched, but I was taught in grade school to reduce fractions to their LCD.]

Albert Doyle
11-13-2010, 08:02 PM
The first reaction to any "mystery film" is 'yeah, sure, the predictable mystery film,' but it would make sense that the confiscated Gordon Arnold film would be mistaken for the Zapruder film because they were shot so close to each other.

Bernice Moore
11-14-2010, 06:19 AM
Thank you Bernice for going into the dusty basement of the hard drive and finding this treasure.
hi magda; i was so pleased to find the gremlin had not eaten the info , i accuse him of doing so as docs pdfs and whatnot do disappear and heaven knows it could not be the computer let alone the said operator, groan, i only wish i now had what was lost some years back when, honest, my computer blew up and had a fire within, lots of flame, smoke and excitement at the time, when Rich was informed he came back LLH asking what was next he called me the professional computer wrecker from then on, i did trash a few, like my son had set me up a pc said here mom here's a book to read and learn. so i am very pc illiterate, so whatever i have learnt some the hard way,but also with much help along the way, i have some of Rich's info, he is still with us, fighting the good fight, he once gave me permission to use his research posted as needed in doing so, when i thought it would help, so there you have it the dungeon did not fail me, this time that is..:ciao:...thanks take care best b..

Albert Doyle
11-14-2010, 05:06 PM
Not only that being fresh from basic training and having both feet planted on the ground, Arnold might have shot a steadier film, unlike Zapruder who was swaying with vertigo on the pedestal while being held from behind. Arnold might have come from rifle range qualification where he was recently trained to shoot steady. He might have shot a much more stable film. Hmm.

A.J. Blocker
01-11-2011, 02:08 PM
Take depositions from those that claim to have seen other versions of the Z film, especially those on NBC or CBS premises. Take depositions from those that claim to have seen other versions of the Z film in LA law offices or at Hollywood parties or in Dallas homes of Oil millionaries.

Then supoena H.L. Hunts family, Clint Murchison Jnr's family, NBC and CBS current presidents to release these films thru a class action civil suit that claims they are for witholding evidence in a capital crime.

Bernice Moore
01-12-2011, 05:43 AM
Perhaps Jack, or David can add information to this, but there is or was a report, that there were film crews in trucks or such reported in the area that day, i recall rich mentioning such, but that's all i recall...ourselves we know there is another film taken somewhere in the park area down near the underpass, with the view filmng up towards the tsbd, we saw a clip that day on telly, my dad and husband hollared out loud to come running, i did it was only seconds long a quick clip, it may have been on cbc or an american channel probably buffalo, and we never saw it again that long week-end, they tried the other channels many times during that afternoon and evening but to no avail, it showed the limo coming towards the underpass, it showed also the fence area steps etc, not close up, and when i came upon the forum, rich's and read about the other zapruder film, i was not really surprised as the clip we saw had never been seen again by us,within the telly specials videos etc..down through the years.i contacted scott myers at that time first, and he helped me view every film available on the web, there is not another like it showing that opposite view, when i contacted rich some time later the first thought on his mind was did we see the limo stop, no, and if so we did not notice, so there it sat until one day rich was at the alts, and low and behold a man had posted with just about the same info about a film he saw that was the same as ours,and he wanted to know, i think what film it was from, rich tried to contact him but his information was no longer active, so all i know is there is somewhere another film not like the zapruder but a film taken showing the view from down near the area of the underpass looking up towards the corner of elm and houston, we know what we saw, we did not add anything to what we saw or did not see, just the limo view from the south side, taking off, for rich,and the angle of the view, but nothing else came to mind and we did not add any information other than what i have stated here, so if that one can disappear, then others could have also, though i imagine they are all alive and well, and perhaps as the ss show their copy of the zapruder to their members on how to assassinate a president,perhaps they show the missing also, and they more than likely show the real snappy zappy to their trainees..for now......best b:rockandroll:

Peter Lemkin
01-12-2011, 06:19 AM
Take depositions from those that claim to have seen other versions of the Z film, especially those on NBC or CBS premises. Take depositions from those that claim to have seen other versions of the Z film in LA law offices or at Hollywood parties or in Dallas homes of Oil millionaries.

Then supoena H.L. Hunts family, Clint Murchison Jnr's family, NBC and CBS current presidents to release these films thru a class action civil suit that claims they are for witholding evidence in a capital crime.



Where there is a will, there's a way....sadly there is no 'will' to subpoena anyone about any of the assassinations topside; and us common serfs don't have such authority.

May I suggest, just as friendly advice, you not post suggestions of eliminating people - even if meant in jest o rin a metaphoric 'thought experiment' sense. Such are the times.... The government does it all the time, but again, serfs even thinking or speaking about such can be dealt a very bad 'hand'.

Peter Lemkin
01-12-2011, 06:32 AM
i finally dug it up and milicent cranor saw the other film, on the premises of NBC in NYC...

in the following Rich speaks for himself, as he always did in his replies to some questions...often asked...

The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: admin on March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
portrayed in the extant Z Film.

Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and
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
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
to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and
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:

To remove all evidence of multiple shooters
To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible
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,
past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. I truly
wish that someone would come forward and report a more recent viewing.
I truly do.

Ah, makes me miss Rich. I don't know what years he saw it, but I know I contacted him privately and told him that I know someone who wishes to remain nameless in this regard who saw it not too many years ago and their report to me contained the same basic features that Rich mentions.

Its always been a fantasy of mine that when a new President is inaugurated, some group of spooks [official ones, with high clearances and big salaries and positions] sit the new Prez down and show him this film in the dark. Then the lights come on and they ask, "Any questions Mr. President?" In my mind the new Presidents never ask anything or mention it ever again. However, after the viewing any remaining autonomy they might have thought they had is then in the negative range of numbers, if not into imaginary numbers......

Charles Drago
01-12-2011, 02:15 PM
If that fail's, hire someone to start eliminating relatives of these two great American families until the current patriarch gives up their copies of the assassination film which we have proof was obtained with hours of the assassination by a H.L Hunt employee.

Under no circumstances will I sit silent while an e-publication which I co-own is used to publish a call for murder.

I am a Free Speech absolutist, and I wholeheartedly defend A. J. Blocker's right to make such a call.

I am also within my legal and moral rights to oppose and, within rules established by this forum's owners, reject publication on DPF of incitements to violence.

Pamela McElwain-Brown
01-12-2011, 04:53 PM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

Jack White
01-12-2011, 07:59 PM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

Too bad you cannot provide more info than this. Proof of this would
be highly significant.

Jack

Paul Rigby
01-12-2011, 08:11 PM
A thought kicking around the minds of several people I interact with is perhaps the �Zapruder movie� was prepared way in advance of the attack and all that was used from Zapruder�s film was just the background spectators...

Not so. The version of the film we have is remarkable for the Elm Street spectators it omits. This is precisely what one would expect of a film (either) prepared in advance and/or subject to extensive revision.


In other words, the faces of the real attack victims could have been added to actor�s bodies filmed in a similar vehicle (or a portion of a similar vehicle) prior to the attack. Hollywood and Madison Avenue does this all the time, using stunt doubles and morphing faces and bodies. Bits and pieces of what Zapruder captured would then be merged into a finished illusion that was falsely portrayed as the �Zapruder film�.

Use of "doubles," back-projection, etc? Routine Hollywood and Madison Avenue practice well before 1963. Point well-made.


Why would this be done in advance? To have a quick propaganda film for the public and to fund the operation through magazine and newspaper sales. Exclusive massacre photos and film sells; sales equate to fat wallets.

And that was precisely the intention, early on at least. If you listen to Rather on CBS on November 25, there's no suggestion that the version of the Z-fake he'd just watched was intended for anything other than broadcasting. Other sources attest to the first version's distribution on the same day.


It�s easily realized that whoever ambushed JFK didn�t just happen to show up at the kill zone out of the wild blue a couple minutes before the shooting and just happen to have assault weapons in their possession; that location was picked well in advance and the attack probably rehearsed in advance as well. It�s not unreasonable to suspect the Zapruder filming was also prepared in advance.

I agree.

All in all, an incisive and thought-provoking post.

Incidentally, by far the strangest position is that of the pro-conspiracy anti-alterationists, who invite us to believe that the plotters were sufficiently bold and powerful to kill the President in broad daylight, but too timid and socially unconnected to move against the pieces of celluloid we are invited to believe blew their carefully nurtured fables out of the water. Now that really is weird; and is a powerful pointer to just how topsy-turvy is much of the exhausted assassination consensus.

Paul

Pamela McElwain-Brown
01-12-2011, 11:37 PM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

Too bad you cannot provide more info than this. Proof of this would
be highly significant.

Jack

I am continuing my research now. What would be valuable to you?

Jack White
01-13-2011, 04:41 AM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

Too bad you cannot provide more info than this. Proof of this would
be highly significant.

Jack

I am continuing my research now. What would be valuable to you?

Highly significant would be a newspaper ad announcing the movie, its name,
theater and date. Old remembrances, even if accurate, are not good evidence.

Next would be finding another person who remembered seeing the same thing
you saw. That lends credibility to your remembrance.

Jack

Pamela McElwain-Brown
01-13-2011, 06:15 PM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

Too bad you cannot provide more info than this. Proof of this would
be highly significant.

Jack

I am continuing my research now. What would be valuable to you?

Highly significant would be a newspaper ad announcing the movie, its name,
theater and date. Old remembrances, even if accurate, are not good evidence.

Next would be finding another person who remembered seeing the same thing
you saw. That lends credibility to your remembrance.

Jack

Agreed. Of course, sharing this experience with everyone during the years cannot be discounted either.
Here is the page from CCC "SS-100-X" where I discuss the screening. It was the impetus for my focusing on the limo starting in 1988.
http://in-broad-daylight.com/CCC165.pdf

Tracy Riddle
11-06-2013, 04:30 PM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

To my knowledge, '1000 Days' was a made-for-TV documentary. "Four Days in November" was shown in the theaters.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2lvo0R1-Y

Again, I just have a hard time getting my head around these "other film" stories. If these stories are true, they are amazingly careless at letting just anyone see these films, or it's part of a psy-ops campaign to confuse people.

Pamela McElwain-Brown
11-06-2013, 04:56 PM
I attended a screening of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964. At the time, I knew that this was unusual, but had no idea that it would be virtually unheard of. I included a reference to this event in my esay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE, Palgrave,2002. The film was shown following the David Wolper b+w documentary on the JFK administration called "1000 days". I sat in the front row, and watched this clear copy. My impression was that all the debris flowed to the rear, and there was no 'blob'. Having this experience has influenced everything I believe about the Zapruder film(s). When I tried to track down the theatre, I initially thought it might have been the Bleeker. However, I contacted the grandson of the owner at that time, and he said he didn't think so. He pointed me to someone else who said he thought it was shown at the Charles Theatre, on the lower East Side. I have since visited that site and it fits with my recollections; so does the interior, from photos.

To my knowledge, '1000 Days' was a made-for-TV documentary. "Four Days in November" was shown in the theaters.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2lvo0R1-Y

Again, I just have a hard time getting my head around these "other film" stories. If these stories are true, they are amazingly careless at letting just anyone see these films, or it's part of a psy-ops campaign to confuse people.

No, 1000 Days was made for the 1964 Democratic Convention.

I saw a copy of the Zapruder film. It may have been an unaltered copy. I don't know that for sure, as I don't currently have access to it, to compare it with what is at NARA. There were other showings of copies of the Zapruder film(s) in NYC in the 60's long before the general public viewed it via Giraldo Rivera in 1975. And his copy of the film was dreadful.

I went the first night. I don't know at this point if there were any subsequent showings, or if somebody clamped down on the Charles for showing it. I do know it is rumored that a handful of Time-Life executives supposedly had copies of the Z-film(s) in their safes in their homes in Greenwich CT. As this viewing occurred in NYC it is my thinking that one of them took the risk of having their copy shown to the public for at least one night. I will always be grateful for that, as it changed my life forever. I would not be presenting "Midnight Blue to Black: the Vanishing Act of the JFK Presidential Limousine In Broad Daylight" at JFKLancer on the 22nd had it not been for my watching JFK killed in that exquisite limousine in front of my eyes on that screen.