What Rich Della Rosa Saw In The Other Zapruder Film

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ

[Robert Harris]

curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>

Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?

Who has possession of it?




Robert Harris

[Steve Barber]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:09:02 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ

And you believe that?

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>
>

Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.

>
> Who has possession of it?
>
>

With a huge amount of years to hide it or get rid of it...we may have to call in Mighty Mouse.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Sure. "Eight Shots."

Homer McMahon AARB Interview. Saw it with others at NPIC as part of the CIA, Ben Hunter, etc. It was their job to make about 40 individual frames.

I think he was interviewed in 1997 as well.

CJ

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:09:02 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRhcQI4tFTI Rich Dellarosa Black Op 29min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdyqDBTpeo William Reymond Jim Marrs 6 min.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:55:44 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:09:02 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>
>>
>>
>> And you believe that?
>
> Sure. "Eight Shots."
>
> Homer McMahon AARB Interview. Saw it with others at NPIC as part of the CIA, Ben Hunter, etc. It was their job to make about 40 individual frames.
>

That's not what he said. Stop misrepresenting witnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>>
>>
> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>

False reports.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:30:46 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:55:44 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:09:02 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And you believe that?
>
> >
>
> > Sure. "Eight Shots."
>
> >
>
> > Homer McMahon AARB Interview. Saw it with others at NPIC as part of the CIA, Ben Hunter, etc. It was their job to make about 40 individual frames.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That's not what he said. Stop misrepresenting witnesses.
>
>

Quote


Service agent “Bill Smith” told Homer McMahon that he had just come
from Rochester, New York, where the 16-millimeter film now in his
possession had been “processed” earlier that day at the CIA’s
“Hawkeye” facility (sometimes referred to as “Hawkeyeworks”).4
Classified and designated top secret, known for its state-of-the-art
“clean facility,” the CIA Hawkeye facility in Rochester required all
technicians to wear full body suits of special fabric to avoid
contamination. “Hawkeye had the capability to do almost anything with
any film product,” recalled Brugioni. While there is still debate among
Kennedy assassination researchers as to whether the Zapruder film has been
altered, the recent revelations by Dino Brugioni, along with Homer
McMahon’s 1997 interview at the ARRB, clearly underscore the likelihood
of alteration. That alteration plausibly could have taken place sometime
after early Sunday morning, when the original 8-millimeter film left NPIC,
and before Sunday night, when some version of the film returned to NPIC in
a 16-millimeter format. The CIA’s Hawkeye facility in Rochester was the
ideal place, technically superior and capable of such an alteration.
“They could do anything,” Brugioni repeated emphatically. Interviewed
once on the telephone and twice in person by the staff of the
Assassination Records Review Board in 1997, Homer McMahon was blunt, his
statements staggering. After reviewing the 16-millimeter film at NPIC that
Sunday evening, November 24, with his assistant Morgan Bennett Hunter, he
was sure, he told the ARRB, that “about eight (8) shots” had been
fired at the president’s limousine. “[As to how many shots were fired]
what was it that you observed on the film’s examination, in your
opinion?” asked Jeremy Gunn, the chief counsel to the ARRB. “About
eight shots,” said the former NPIC employee Homer McMahon in 1997.
“And where did they come from?” Gunn further inquired. “Three
different directions, at least,” replied McMahon. “I expressed my
opinion that night, but it was already preconceived. I did not agree with
the analysis at the time. I didn’t have to. I was [just] doing the work.
That’s the way I felt about it. It was preconceived. You don’t fight
city hall. I wasn’t there to fight them. I was there to do the work.”
“Do you remember what [Secret Service agent] Smith’s analysis was?”
asked Douglas P. Horne, chief analyst for military records at the ARRB.
“He thought there were three (3) shots,” recalled McMahon. “He went
with the standard concept, that Oswald was the shooter.”24 When I
interviewed Dino Brugioni in 2009, he was both shocked and mystified when
he heard about the subsequent Zapruder film event that had taken place at
the NPIC Sunday evening (November 24). As the NPIC on-call duty officer
during the assassination weekend, Brugioni should have been notified. He
wasn’t, and for good reason. Why? Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter had
assisted in the preparation of a set of briefing boards that were
significantly different in size and composition (as well as, presumably,
in image content) from those made on Saturday night by Brugioni and his
colleagues. When shown photos of the one surviving set of Homer
McMahon’s briefing boards made on November 24, Brugioni categorically
told me that they were not the briefing boards he had made on Saturday
night.25 It appeared that the skulduggery that had taken place was known
only at the highest levels, part of a well-organized cover-up, to which
even mid-to-upper level CIA officers like Brugioni weren’t privy. In the
spring of 2011, I visited Dino Brugioni at his home in Virginia to further
discuss the Zapruder film. I showed him a high-resolution image of the one
and only frame in the extant Zapruder film that graphically depicts the
fatal head shot, frame 313. Dino was incredulous there was only one frame
of the head explosion—then repeatedly rejected the possibility, based
upon what he had personally witnessed when he had viewed the
camera-original Zapruder film on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963. I
asked him several times, “Was there more than one frame?” Dino
responded unequivocally there was indeed: “Oh yeah! Oh yeah … I
remember all of us being shocked…. it was straight up [gesturing high
above his own head] … in the sky. … There should have been more than
one frame…. I thought the spray was, say, three or four feet from his
head…. what I saw was more than that [in the image of frame 313 being
shown to him] … it wasn’t low [as in frame 313], it was high … there
was more than that in the original…. It was way high off of his head …
and I can’t imagine that there would only be one frame. What I saw was
more than you have there [in frame 313].”26 Why was it necessary to
alter the film and produce a different version of what had occurred?
According to AARB staff member Douglas P. Horne, author of the 2009
five-volume Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, “they had to
remove whatever was objectionable in the film—most likely, the car [the
president’s limousine] stop, seen by over fifty witnesses in Dealey
Plaza, and the exit debris which would inevitably have been seen in the
film leaving the rear of President Kennedy’s head. They would also have
had to add to the film whatever was desired—such as a large, painted-on
exit wound generally consistent with the enlarged, altered head wound
depicted in the autopsy photos, which were developed the day before on
Saturday, November 23, by Robert Knudsen at NPC [Naval Photographic
Center] Anacostia.”27 Horne was adamant in his book about the falsity of
the photographic record: The brain photographs in the National Archives
today cannot be, and are not [Horne’s emphasis], photographs of
President Kennedy’s brain. This we now know beyond any reasonable doubt.
The purpose for creating this false photographic record was to suppress
evidence that President Kennedy was killed by a shot or shots from the
front, and to insert into the record false “evidence” consistent with
the official story that he was shot only from behind. This discovery is
the single most significant “smoking gun” indicating a government
cover-up within the medical evidence surrounding President Kennedy’s
assassination, and is a direct result of the JFK Records Act, which in
turn was fathered by the film JFK.28 Simply put, the conspiracy to murder
the president, if it were to succeed, had to be matched by an equal, and
perhaps more elaborate, conspiracy to manipulate the evidence to support
the contrived narrative of only three shots, all fired from behind the
president’s motorcade from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository, from one rifle, by one man. While eyewitness accounts in
general are often vulnerable to misinterpretation, physical forensic
evidence is much less so, and therefore poses a far greater challenge.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>
> >
>
>
>
> False reports.
>
>

A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.

[Robert Harris]

curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>>
>>
> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.

That is not an impressive answer, amigo.

If there really was a different, "real" Zapruder film, then it was a
bombshell. Surely, he mentioned who had possession of it.

Who was it?

>
>>
>> Who has possession of it?
>>
>>
> With a huge amount of years to hide it or get rid of it...we may have to call in Mighty Mouse.

Regardless of whether it was hidden or whatever, who had possession of
it at the time he saw it?







Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> False reports.
>>
>>
>
> A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
> things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.

So, why is it that *NOT ONE* of them will tell us who had possession of
the film when they "saw" it?






Robert Harris

[Glenn V.]

> > >> cur.......@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
>
> things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.

No, that's not what happened. At least three of those who claimed to have
seen this film, described what it allegedly showed, quite different.

I raised a question about this a couple of years ago on the EF:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17595&hl=

Not surprising, no real answers. It's amazing; hundreds of researchers
working on all kind if issues related to the assassination and yet this
alleged film is left far outside of any efforts to get to the bottom.
There's indeed something very strange about this whole issue; those who
claims to have seen the film "are not at liberty to talk about it".

CJ, could you think of one single reason as to why this would be? If so,
please oblige..Personally, I can't think of a single reason that would
make CT's stay away because "they have to". Nothing, as far as I know, is
off the table for CT researchers. Except, of course, things they do not
believe in.

During the time this was discussed, about a couple of weeks, I received
two emails from well respected CT's, saying just about the same thing:
"forget it, it's a myth and there's nothing to it whatsoever".

[Steve Barber]

You actually believe what Rich Della Rosa says about this whole thing. It
is laughable, righ from the start. First of all, Greer was following the
lead car which turned onto Elm Street. So why, then, would Greer think he
was supposed to turn onto the service road directly in front of the TSBD?
It is unbelievable the things that conspiracy buffs come up with in ther
free time.

And you also believe that 8 shots were fired. eh? Those must have been
some remarkable marksmen being used in this "conspiracy". Eight shots, and
out of those 8, two shots hit Kennedy! Unbelievable!

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:36:37 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>
>
>
> That is not an impressive answer, amigo.
>
>
>
> If there really was a different, "real" Zapruder film, then it was a
>
> bombshell. Surely, he mentioned who had possession of it.
>
>
>
> Who was it?
>
>

I put the youtube additional videos where he explained how he came to view
the film, at different times. He was only curious after the second time
when he had seen the extant film for the first time. Your questions are
shooting-from-the-hip in ignorance.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:36:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> False reports.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
>
> > things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, why is it that *NOT ONE* of them will tell us who had possession of
>
> the film when they "saw" it?
>
>

Only Reymond said he saw it within some Intelligence people and he didn't
want to finger the person. If your curious enough on the subject, you'll
look for a history.....when it came to NPIC, who viewed it, who had a
chance to view it; the people at Jamieson and Kodak...Bruce Jamieson,
Kathryn Kirby, Phil Chamberlain. These others seeing were college folk,
just going to see something interesting without having any particular
knowledge of what to look for...so they had no interest in who, what, or
where.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
grave...being steadfast and being a leader, and you're going with the
'myth strategy'??!!!

In your prejudice and haste you're looking to debunk something that has no
need to have superiour high provenance. People are viewing a film, with
nothing to really look for, other than the President getting shot. Why in
the world do you think they are going to say the same thing??? What we
have a lot of is more shots than usual, and much more detail when some of
these folks see the extant film later, much later in life. Those
experience show a quite a different film and a lot of the same differences
verified. Rich Dellarosa, said so as much; and it makes sense what he
said, when.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2013 9:29 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> False reports.
>>
>>
>
> A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
> things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.
>

Not really. Why don't you try being a little more vague to impress us.

[Anthony Marsh]

> responded unequivocally there was indeed: “Oh yeah! Oh yeah …= I

That's some kook's article, not testimony.
AT least now you've backpedaled from identifying 8 shots on the film to
maybe there were "about" 8 shots on the film.

And your witness admitted that his opinion was not based on examining
the Zapruder film. He had already formed that opinion before he saw it.

> “And where did they come from?” Gunn further inquired. “Three
> different directions, at least,” replied McMahon. “I expressed my
> opinion that night, but it was already preconceived. I did not agree with
> the analysis at the time. I didn’t have to. I was [just] doing the work.
> That’s the way I felt about it. It was preconceived. You don’t fight

>
>>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2013 3:36 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>
> That is not an impressive answer, amigo.
>
> If there really was a different, "real" Zapruder film, then it was a
> bombshell. Surely, he mentioned who had possession of it.
>
> Who was it?
>

Nope. It sure is fun to start rumors.

[bpete1969]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:37:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:

Glenn,

I'm glad you posted the link to your thread at EF. I remembered reading
that some time back and have always thought about Burnham's response to
Colby about the circumstances of viewing the other film.

I find it strange that someone can say they saw the film, discuss what was
in the film, discuss who might have possessed the film but not be able to
discuss the circumstances surrounding viewing the film.

I also ,based on the discussion between everyone, wonder if the WC saw the
"other film" or the Z film. There is apparently a boatload of copies of
the "other film" and find it hard to believe one hasn't surfaced.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing strange at all. Fantasists often dream up things that didn't
happen to make themselves seem important. Insert themselves into history.

> I also ,based on the discussion between everyone, wonder if the WC saw the
> "other film" or the Z film. There is apparently a boatload of copies of
> the "other film" and find it hard to believe one hasn't surfaced.
>

There was no other Zapruder film unless you mean the footage of his
grandson.

[bpete1969]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:36:09 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:57:51 AM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:55:44 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:09:02 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And you believe that?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sure. "Eight Shots."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Homer McMahon AARB Interview. Saw it with others at NPIC as part of the CIA, Ben Hunter, etc. It was their job to make about 40 individual frames.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think he was interviewed in 1997 as well.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > CJ
>
>
>
> You actually believe what Rich Della Rosa says about this whole thing. It
>
> is laughable, righ from the start. First of all, Greer was following the
>
> lead car which turned onto Elm Street. So why, then, would Greer think he
>
> was supposed to turn onto the service road directly in front of the TSBD?
>
> It is unbelievable the things that conspiracy buffs come up with in ther
>
> free time.
>

Actually Roy Truly testified that he was standing along the curb in front
of the TSBD and said that the driver almost missed the turn onto Elm and
came close to hitting the curb...

Mr. BELIN. The street leading to the expressway, that diagonal street?
Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average
speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were
getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out
too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into
this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down
perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane
of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out
this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as
he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading
to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop,
to pull over to the left.

If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little
section here.

Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway?
Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what did you see happen?
Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion, which I thought was a toy cannon or a loud firecracker from west of the building. Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun, a rifle of some kind.
The President's--I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in this area. It is misleading here. And that is the last I saw of his ear, because this crowd, when the third shot rang out--there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front--they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw the President's car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?
Mr. TRULY. It would be hard to say over a second or two or something like that. I didn't see I just saw it stop. I don't know. I didn't see it start up.

A conspiracy nut didn't come up with that tid bit....

[Glenn V.]

Indeed. The whole thing is just too weird. But by far, the most relevant
question still is - why aren't others researching this? Nothing,
absolutely nothing is ever off limits to researchers. Finding out about
this blockbuster film - as it would be if it exists and can be
authenticated, would be the jackpot of a lifetime to whoever succeeded.

And yet, no efforts, none?

Come on, CJ..

[Glenn V.]

Den tisdagen den 1:e oktober 2013 kl. 04:42:30 UTC+2 skrev curtj...@hotmail.com:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:37:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:


>
> Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
>
> detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
>
> grave...being steadfast and being a leader, and you're going with the
>
> 'myth strategy

The answer is a resounding YES.

This wouldn't be the first myth created in the JFK research community, and
it will not be the last. Heck CJ, just look at this forum and the latest
crackpot myth that's being promoted?

A better question you should ask yourself is - will I take this at face
value without anything substantial to back it up? You also seem to forget
that the various stories among those who says they've watched it, on
crucial points differs greatly, which does nothing to strengthen their
testimonies. The most important thing they agree on is that the limo
stopped entirely for a few seconds, and that's of course how you keep a
story like this one alive, isn't it?

Until any of this is substantiated no one should regard these testimonies
as anything but hearsay, at best. And that's, as a matter of fact, how
almost all CTs seems to view this, wouldn't you say? I very rarely see
anyone use these stories as confirmation that the limo stopped - do you
have a better explanation as to why that is so?

>
>
>
> In your prejudice and haste you're looking to debunk something that has no
>
> need to have superiour high provenance. People are viewing a film, with
>
> nothing to really look for, other than the President getting shot. Why in
>
> the world do you think they are going to say the same thing???

See above, they *did not* say the same thing, you've got that all wrong,
importantly. The devil is in the details, CJ. Personally, I believe that
there's at least one of these claimants in particular that I don't give
much credit at all, as far as being entirely truthful.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who? What?
Some people waste their entire lives chasing an impossible theory.
Now you're pleading for sympathy?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2013 10:40 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:36:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> False reports.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
>>
>>> things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So, why is it that *NOT ONE* of them will tell us who had possession of
>>
>> the film when they "saw" it?
>>
>>
>
> Only Reymond said he saw it within some Intelligence people and he didn't

But in reality he didn't.

> want to finger the person. If your curious enough on the subject, you'll
> look for a history.....when it came to NPIC, who viewed it, who had a
> chance to view it; the people at Jamieson and Kodak...Bruce Jamieson,
> Kathryn Kirby, Phil Chamberlain. These others seeing were college folk,
> just going to see something interesting without having any particular
> knowledge of what to look for...so they had no interest in who, what, or
> where.
>

Nonsense. The most secret CIA lab just lets some college kids wander
around?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>

[Steve Barber]

That's funny, because the Towner film doesn't show Greer struggling at
all to make to turn. In fact, Greer is looking slightly to his left the
whole time he is turning the car onto Elm from Houston, and shows
absolutely NO sign of struggling to make the turn.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

I doubt it would be something that would be readily attainable. How would
you start your manhunt...err..filmhunt? It's either available or not. I
am sure the one showing the film knew of it's importance and all the heavy
baggage that could come about if they were scrutinized. It's probably why
it was at a few campuses and left real quick. If I had to make a stab, I
would say someone at NPIC had made a copy of it and just came out of the
closet with it. Was seen a the U. of Maryland where Dellarosa was a
student. Someone probably told the person to cut it out or else...so they
did.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:13:43 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> Den tisdagen den 1:e oktober 2013 kl. 04:42:30 UTC+2 skrev curtj...@hotmail.com:
>
> > On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:37:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
>
> >
>
> > detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
>
> >
>
> > grave...being steadfast and being a leader, and you're going with the
>
> >
>
> > 'myth strategy
>
>
>
> The answer is a resounding YES.
>
>
>
> This wouldn't be the first myth created in the JFK research community, and
>
> it will not be the last. Heck CJ, just look at this forum and the latest
>
> crackpot myth that's being promoted?
>
>
>
> A better question you should ask yourself is - will I take this at face
>
> value without anything substantial to back it up? You also seem to forget
>
> that the various stories among those who says they've watched it, on
>
> crucial points differs greatly, which does nothing to strengthen their
>
> testimonies. The most important thing they agree on is that the limo
>
> stopped entirely for a few seconds, and that's of course how you keep a
>
> story like this one alive, isn't it?
>
>
>
> Until any of this is substantiated no one should regard these testimonies
>
> as anything but hearsay, at best. And that's, as a matter of fact, how
>
> almost all CTs seems to view this, wouldn't you say? I very rarely see
>
> anyone use these stories as confirmation that the limo stopped - do you
>
> have a better explanation as to why that is so?
>
>

There is no need to hunt down the tape of the original film. You have the
bogus film and that can be scientifically analyzed and that is shown to be
an altered film. Next you take witness testimony. It doesn't match in
the extant, bogus film. There is no limo stoppage/extreme slowdown.
There is no lead car going through. There is no meeting of the officers
going up to Curry and conferring before they do. There is no start of a
film "after the limo tries to go down the street in front of the TSBD
before gettig back on track." There aren't animated people watching it.
There is a huge sign that's not huge covering up necessary shots and hits.
On and on...

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In your prejudice and haste you're looking to debunk something that has no
>
> >
>
> > need to have superiour high provenance. People are viewing a film, with
>
> >
>
> > nothing to really look for, other than the President getting shot. Why in
>
> >
>
> > the world do you think they are going to say the same thing???
>
>
>
> See above, they *did not* say the same thing, you've got that all wrong,
>
> importantly. The devil is in the details, CJ. Personally, I believe that
>
> there's at least one of these claimants in particular that I don't give
>
> much credit at all, as far as being entirely truthful.
>
>

I already said, the people would either be watching it...right after the
assassination, or from 1975 on. They would not know what to be looking
for until they see what an extant film could show. They do see a film not
starting at 133. They see more shots. Some see two head shots. Some see
a lead car going through (like it should). They see what one would expect
from recall. They are not trained to see the minutae after years and
years of research. What I would like to see is more people coming forward
that saw the film right after the assassination in Dallas; and ones who
saw it the next day. I suspect they don't want to get involved. Rather
opened up his mouth and said he saw a shot make the President's head go
forward. Others saw that too. The problem is, you have fantasies on what
you would expect for proof. There shouldn't be a high expectancy just on
the anthology of what happened right after the shots with the film and its
subsequent copies.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

I have seen where he said "eight shots" and not about eight shots. Look
around.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2013 12:13 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
> Den tisdagen den 1:e oktober 2013 kl. 04:42:30 UTC+2 skrev curtj...@hotmail.com:
>> On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:37:39 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
>>
>> detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
>>
>> grave...being steadfast and being a leader, and you're going with the
>>
>> 'myth strategy
>
> The answer is a resounding YES.
>
> This wouldn't be the first myth created in the JFK research community, and
> it will not be the last. Heck CJ, just look at this forum and the latest
> crackpot myth that's being promoted?
>

Only one crackpot myth? You don't get around much, do you?

> A better question you should ask yourself is - will I take this at face
> value without anything substantial to back it up? You also seem to forget
> that the various stories among those who says they've watched it, on
> crucial points differs greatly, which does nothing to strengthen their
> testimonies. The most important thing they agree on is that the limo
> stopped entirely for a few seconds, and that's of course how you keep a
> story like this one alive, isn't it?
>
> Until any of this is substantiated no one should regard these testimonies
> as anything but hearsay, at best. And that's, as a matter of fact, how
> almost all CTs seems to view this, wouldn't you say? I very rarely see
> anyone use these stories as confirmation that the limo stopped - do you
> have a better explanation as to why that is so?
>

Seems you didn't read my article. Some people just LIE and make up false
claims.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Mantik1.htm

Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped

On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik
uses a list of witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had
stopped on Elm Street and because we can not see that happen in the
Zapruder film that therefore the Zapruder film must have been edited.
There are several problems with that argument. First, the point at which
the limousine stopped may have been before or after Zapruder had filmed
the limousine. Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133,
so if the limousine had stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have
shown it. From Z-1 to Z-132 Zapruder had only filmed the lead cycles,
mistakenly thinking that the motorcade was about to round the corner
from Houston onto Elm Street. When he realized his mistake, he stopped
filming at Z-132 and began filming again when he actually saw the
Presidential limousine coming down Elm Street which started the
continuous sequence at Z-133. If Zapruder had filmed continuously from
the time he saw the lead cycles, he feared that he would run out of film
before he could have filmed the limousine going down Elm Street. There
is no indication that there was an edit between Z-132 and Z-133 and
every indication that there was not an edit at that time. Other films
and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine stopping
before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If
the limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have
been seen from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing
on his film to edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show
that the limousine did not stop in the underpass.

Another problem with Mantik's approach is that eyewitness
testimony is unreliable. One can simply not point out a statement by a
witness and accept that as absolute proof of a fact. It needs to be
corroborated, especially with physical evidence such as photographic
evidence. And some authors, in their haste to prove a pre-conceived
conclusion, misuse the eyewitness testimony they select, or select only
the eyewitness testimony which supports their conclusion. For example,
Mantik quotes both motorcycle officers Baker and Chaney as stating that
the limousine stopped. But Baker was only stating what Chaney had told
him, as Sylvia Meagher points out in her book Accessories After the Fact
on page 4, which is quoted here:

4 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT

Lane's allegation about Chaney is corroborated in the testimony of
another motorcycle officer, M. L. Baker. Baker testified on March 24, 1964
that his fellow officer, James Chaney, had told him:

He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at
the time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he
moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret
Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the
shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped
completely, pulled to the left and stopped. . . . Mr. Truly was standing
out there, he said it stopped.

Several officers said it stopped completely. (3H 266)

There is nothing wrong with the use of such hearsay to corroborate
Chaney's statement, but it is a misuse of research method to cite both
as separate witnesses to the same fact. One could easily puff up the
number of witnesses by adding in everyone who had heard the original
witnesses state something. But why would Mantik need to use Baker's
hearsay when he quotes Chaney's statement and even cites it as Warren
Commission (WC) testimony? Because Chaney NEVER testified before the
Warren Commission. The reference to the WC hearings at (3H221) is
totally fictitious. When you look at page 275, you can see that (3H221)
is Truly's WC testimony, which does not even mention Chaney. It appears
that the attribution of (3H221) to Chaney was a simple tabulation error.
Either Mantik or his source probably just wrote down the wrong citation
on separate lists and did not carefully compare and fact check them. If
the error was Mantik's then we should expect a quick and simple
correction. If Mantik had merely copied someone else's error, this
points up one major problem in this area of research. Too many
researchers make the mistake of taking for granted the "facts" presented
by a fellow researcher who happens to belong to the same clique, without
bothering to double-check the facts for themselves. They don't want to
risk angering fellow clique members by questioning their work. This is
how simple errors are perpetuated into "facts." Another common misuse of
eyewitness testimony is to misquote or quote out of context what the
witness actually said, in order to create a false impression. Mantik, as
well as others, has done this with the testimony of Patrolman Brown. He
only quotes the portion of WC testimony where Brown said, "when the
shots were fired, it stopped." (6H233) Mantik should have included the
next few sentences where Brown backed off that absolute statement and
could only state for sure that the limousine slowed down:

Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped.
. . . After
it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
Brown: That, I couldn't swear to.
Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
Brown: Yes; slowed down. (6H 233)

So, in his zeal to puff up the list of witnesses, Mantik has
included people who did not actually state that they had seen the
limousine stop. Yes, several people stated that they saw the limousine
stop, but not as many as Mantik has suggested. And we already know from
other witness statements that some witnesses were simply mistaken when
they stated that they saw something, such as Jean Hill seeing a dog in
the back seat of the limousine.

Another problem in this research area is when an author
misuses other researchers' work. The way that Mantik characterizes Vince
Palamara's article from The Third Decade (page 51) leaves the impression
that Palamara claimed (and that Mantik concurs) there were at least 48
witnesses who said that the limousine stopped on Elm Street. This is
incorrect. When you actually read Vince's article for yourself, you can
see that Vince clearly admits at the beginning of the article that he is
lumping together ALL witnesses, including some who said that the limo
had come to a complete stop, some who said that the limo had slowed
down, and those who said that the limo did not accelerate until after
the head shot. Mantik did not dare to quote Vince's article so that you
could find this out for yourself. I will:

". . . the vast number of witnesses who testified that the
Presidential limousine, driven by veteran Secret Service driver William R.
Greer, slowed, stopped or, at the very least, failed to accelerate until
only after the fatal head shot had found its mark."

So, out of 47 witnesses listed in Vince's article, how many
actually stated that the limousine made a complete stop? I went through
his article and noted how many actually stated that the limousine made a
complete stop. I had to throw out a few witnesses because it was not
clear that they meant the limousine when they talked about the 'party'
or the 'cavalcade' stopping. We know that some witnesses were referring
only to the rest of the motorcade, and the photographic evidence shows
that several cars further back in the motorcade did stop in the middle
of Elm Street. Out of the remaining 41 witnesses, only 14 actually
stated that the limousine stopped. 19 of the 41 only stated that the
limousine had slowed down, and 8 of the 41 only stated that the
limousine had waited until after the head shot to accelerate. I have
drawn up a chart (see below) which places the witnesses in the various
categories. The chart has no statistical significance, but it seems
evident that more witnesses only stated that the limousine slowed down
than those who were sure that it stopped. The Zapruder film itself, as
well as other films, corroborates that the limousine was going very
slowly when it rounded the corner onto Elm Street. And the Zapruder film
itself, as shown by the Alvarez study, corroborates that the limousine
had suddenly slowed down at about Z-300 from about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH.

Mantik's obvious errors are another reason why a book like
Assassination Science suffers from the lack of proofreading and fact
checking (just like Posner's Case Closed). The innocent reader would not
have the means to spot such obvious errors and thus would be impressed
by the false conclusions based on faulty data.

41 witnesses | limo stopped (14) | limo slowed down (19) |limo
waited (8)

______________________________________________________________________________
After the |Chaney, Mrs. Cabell, |Brown, Harkness,Moorman, |
first shot |Woodward, Truly |Hawkins,Brehm, Yarborough|
(13) | (4) |Jean Hill, Ready, Similas|
| | (9) |

_____________________________________________________________________________
At the time of|Hargis, Foster, Smith|Campbell, Holmes, Clark,
|Kinney, Hill,
the head shot |Broeder, Mrs. Willis |Clay, Powers
|Bennett, Nellie,
(18) | (5) | (5)
|Altgens, Chism,
| |
|O'Donnell,
| |
|Connally (8)

______________________________________________________________________________

At underpass | Betzner, Newman (2) | |

______________________________________________________________________________
Unspecified | Martin, Burney, Orr |Jackson, Johns, Lawson, |
(8) | (3) |Holland, Simmon (5) |
______________________________________________________

[Anthony Marsh]

Been there, done that. The is no other film. There are three copies of
the Zapruder film. Each is slightly different. Some people are easily
confused by that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Never happened. WE have continuous film coverage of the turn.

> If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little
> section here.
>
> Mr. BELIN. All right.
> Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway?
> Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area.
> Mr. BELIN. All right.
> Then what did you see happen?
> Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion, which I thought was a toy cannon or a loud firecracker from west of the building. Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun, a rifle of some kind.
> The President's--I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in this area. It is misleading here. And that is the last I saw of his ear, because this crowd, when the third shot rang out--there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front--they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.
> Mr. BELIN. When you saw the President's car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?
> Mr. TRULY. It would be hard to say over a second or two or something like that. I didn't see I just saw it stop. I don't know. I didn't see it start up.
>
> A conspiracy nut didn't come up with that tid bit....
>

Never rely on witnesses.

[bpete1969]

The Towner film has an obvious splice at the beginning of the turn on to
elm.

[bpete1969]

Where is YOUR continuous coverage of the turn?

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Look at what people usually look at. Means, motive and opportunity. If
one is going to want to chase a myth, they would do it early. They only
had the opportunity when it presented itself. It was advertised and they
went. They viewed the film. There was no chasing. I came to them.
There is no motive to suddenly change their life's direction until they
saw the extant film and saw something much different. The only one
chasing wrong theories is you about pincushioning which people have
addressed time and time again.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:30:28 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/30/2013 10:40 PM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, September 30, 2013 3:36:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 9/29/2013 10:57 AM, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:51:21 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> Ok, so when can we take a look at the "original" film that he saw?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Maybe Rich left some info on a site or his site. RIP, Rich.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> False reports.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> A half a dozen saw the film at different times and described the same
>
> >>
>
> >>> things from the same film later on = Verified true reports.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So, why is it that *NOT ONE* of them will tell us who had possession of
>
> >>
>
> >> the film when they "saw" it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Only Reymond said he saw it within some Intelligence people and he didn't
>
>
>
> But in reality he didn't.
>
>

It's not much of a defense to just deem one didn't. People have seen the
film from early stages and very periodically afterwards.

>
> > want to finger the person. If your curious enough on the subject, you'll
>
> > look for a history.....when it came to NPIC, who viewed it, who had a
>
> > chance to view it; the people at Jamieson and Kodak...Bruce Jamieson,
>
> > Kathryn Kirby, Phil Chamberlain. These others seeing were college folk,
>
> > just going to see something interesting without having any particular
>
> > knowledge of what to look for...so they had no interest in who, what, or
>
> > where.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nonsense. The most secret CIA lab just lets some college kids wander
>
> around?
>
>

The college kids were in the mid-70's. I'm just sayin' it would be
possible that at NPIC, someone could have made a copy with time to do so.
McMahon said he made individual prints and didn't make copies. People had
the film there before it got to him...if one reads up on it. And who
knows what the Secret Service did with theirs. Anything could have
happened in the Washington D.C. area and found it's way into somebody's
hands.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> >
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Reading up on kook web sites is not the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

Several overlapping films. Bell, Martin, Turner, Zapruder.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure you have. In your imagination.

[Steve Barber]

Two frames are missing. Wow.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Only a kook would think there is firm protocol of the film(s). They
usually do, when they want to support a narrow view. Truth is, there were
copies made. Those copies were handled by people other than Zapruder or
Time-Life. The film was seen in Dallas for two days, and seen in
Washington the day after the assassination, and subequently by others.
Need to get over it.

[bpete1969]

Best guesses are more than two frames and unexplained splices in other
films as well.

now that may not be enough for you, I really don't care, but there is no
confirmed film documentation of every foot the motorcade traveled.

[bpete1969]

The totality of film footage doesn't cover the entire motorcade.

Point me to a study that confirms every foot of motorcade travel is
documented on film.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

I saw it in an official interview 2 days ago. It's there if you'd look
for it.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:42:30 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
> detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
> grave...being steadfast and being a leader,

Sounds like any number of Bigfoot, flying saucer, and alien abduction
witnesses to me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. \:^)

and you're going with the
> 'myth strategy'??!!!

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:13:43 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> Den tisdagen den 1:e oktober 2013 kl. 04:42:30 UTC+2 skrev curtj...@hotmail.com:
> > Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
> > detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
> > grave...being steadfast and being a leader, and you're going with the
> > 'myth strategy
>
>
> The answer is a resounding YES.
>
> This wouldn't be the first myth created in the JFK research community, and
> it will not be the last. Heck CJ, just look at this forum and the latest
> crackpot myth that's being promoted?
>
> A better question you should ask yourself is - will I take this at face
> value without anything substantial to back it up? You also seem to forget
> that the various stories among those who says they've watched it, on
> crucial points differs greatly, which does nothing to strengthen their
> testimonies. The most important thing they agree on is that the limo
> stopped entirely for a few seconds, and that's of course how you keep a
> story like this one alive, isn't it?

If you watch the Nix film, you can see the limo brake abruptly, but the
wheels never stop moving. The car never came to a complete stop, but it's
pretty obvious why people might have thought otherwise.

http://youtu.be/3Kob0zzDuuE

This isn't rocket science.

> Until any of this is substantiated no one should regard these testimonies
> as anything but hearsay, at best. And that's, as a matter of fact, how
> almost all CTs seems to view this, wouldn't you say? I very rarely see
> anyone use these stories as confirmation that the limo stopped - do you
> have a better explanation as to why that is so?

If you Google around YouTube and blog posts on Z film alteration, you can
occasionally find people commenting that THEY have seen other versions of
the film, too. They usually remember it as being essentially the same Z
film we all know, but with some detail or other different than they
remember seeing before. Of course, they saw this "different" version on
TV, in a video, or on the internet, so how rare could it be?

Are there dozens of fundamentally altered versions of the Z film floating
around -- even freely disseminated via mass media -- or does memory just
play tricks?

I have a relevant anecdote. I have several versions of the Z film
available for free download at my website, but I call it the "Smith" film,
because there was a time, possibly when Zapruder's family still owned the
rights, that lawyers worked tirelessly to keep it off the internet. So I
called it the "Smith" film, hoping it would stay beneath their radar.

Well, a researcher chanced upon it, and excitedly emailed legendary
photographic expert Jack White about it. I'm going to start a new thread
about what happened next. I think you'll enjoy it.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

You are moving the goal posts. I did not say the entire motorcade.
This discussion was about the turn onto Elm. Don't ask me to prove a
claim I never made.

> Point me to a study that confirms every foot of motorcade travel is
> documented on film.
>

No such claim was ever made. But there are some which show overlapping
coverage of Dealey Plaza. The old NOVA show. Dale Myers synchronization
of the the films in Dealey Plaza. I assume you can find his Web page by
yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2013 5:38 PM, bpete1969 wrote:

No one made that claim.

[Anthony Marsh]

That sentence doesn't even make sense in English. You prove my point.

> usually do, when they want to support a narrow view. Truth is, there were
> copies made. Those copies were handled by people other than Zapruder or
> Time-Life. The film was seen in Dallas for two days, and seen in

Yeah, so what?

[bpete1969]

I have Myers report and it does show what frame corresponds with what
other frame.

But the entire turn onto Elm is not shown.

You said Bell, Martin, Turner, Zapruder overlapped. They may but the
entire turn isn't captured on film..

[Dave Reitzes]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:14:28 PM UTC-4, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:13:43 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:

[snipping]

> > Until any of this is substantiated no one should regard these testimonies
> > as anything but hearsay, at best. And that's, as a matter of fact, how
> > almost all CTs seems to view this, wouldn't you say? I very rarely see
> > anyone use these stories as confirmation that the limo stopped - do you
> > have a better explanation as to why that is so?
>
>
> If you Google around YouTube and blog posts on Z film alteration, you can
> occasionally find people commenting that THEY have seen other versions of
> the film, too. They usually remember it as being essentially the same Z
> film we all know, but with some detail or other different than they
> remember seeing before. Of course, they saw this "different" version on
> TV, in a video, or on the internet, so how rare could it be?
>
> Are there dozens of fundamentally altered versions of the Z film floating
> around -- even freely disseminated via mass media -- or does memory just
> play tricks?

Millicent Cranor is one of those who claims she viewed a variant of the Z
film, which was in the possession of a major television network (because
OF COURSE they're part of the cover-up). Gary Mack had an explanation for
what Cranor saw, although Jim Fetzer pooh-poohs it:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack2.html

> I have a relevant anecdote. I have several versions of the Z film
> available for free download at my website, but I call it the "Smith" film,
> because there was a time, possibly when Zapruder's family still owned the
> rights, that lawyers worked tirelessly to keep it off the internet. So I
> called it the "Smith" film, hoping it would stay beneath their radar.
>
> Well, a researcher chanced upon it, and excitedly emailed legendary
> photographic expert Jack White about it. I'm going to start a new thread
> about what happened next. I think you'll enjoy it.

Check it out:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/42O0A5PmvMw

Dave

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:14:28 PM UTC-4, Dave Reitzes wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:13:43 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
>
> > Den tisdagen den 1:e oktober 2013 kl. 04:42:30 UTC+2 skrev curtj...@hotmail.com:
>
> > > Here a man devotes a good portion of his life telling what he saw in
>
> > > detail after seeing the significance of what he saw...and goes into his
>
> > > grave...being steadfast and being a leader, and you're going with the
>
> > > 'myth strategy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The answer is a resounding YES.
>
> >
>
> > This wouldn't be the first myth created in the JFK research community, and
>
> > it will not be the last. Heck CJ, just look at this forum and the latest
>
> > crackpot myth that's being promoted?
>
> >
>
> > A better question you should ask yourself is - will I take this at face
>
> > value without anything substantial to back it up? You also seem to forget
>
> > that the various stories among those who says they've watched it, on
>
> > crucial points differs greatly, which does nothing to strengthen their
>
> > testimonies. The most important thing they agree on is that the limo
>
> > stopped entirely for a few seconds, and that's of course how you keep a
>
> > story like this one alive, isn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
> If you watch the Nix film, you can see the limo brake abruptly, but the
>
> wheels never stop moving. The car never came to a complete stop, but it's
>
> pretty obvious why people might have thought otherwise.
>
>
>
> http://youtu.be/3Kob0zzDuuE
>
>
>
> This isn't rocket science.
>
>

It isn't rocket science that if the brake light goes on that the film that
is 'showing' no stopping has nothing to do with making that a statement of
'fact'. Surely the brake lights could have been going on longer if the
film is edited and the limo could be at a complete stop if edited. We
know that it is when there is no meeting of the motorcylists going ahead,
and subsquently going up to the lead car Curry as meticulously told be
motorcyclists, Curry, Sorrel, and the observer witnesses. The film was
edited.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop spreading misinformation. The brake lights did not come on and the
limo did not stop.

[pachik...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:36:09 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:57:51 AM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:55:44 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:09:02 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And you believe that?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sure. "Eight Shots."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Homer McMahon AARB Interview. Saw it with others at NPIC as part of the CIA, Ben Hunter, etc. It was their job to make about 40 individual frames.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think he was interviewed in 1997 as well.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > CJ
>
>
>
> You actually believe what Rich Della Rosa says about this whole thing. It
>
> is laughable, righ from the start. First of all, Greer was following the
>
> lead car which turned onto Elm Street. So why, then, would Greer think he
>
> was supposed to turn onto the service road directly in front of the TSBD?
>
> It is unbelievable the things that conspiracy buffs come up with in ther
>
> free time.
>
>
>

> And you also believe that 8 shots were fired. eh? Those must have been
>
> some remarkable marksmen being used in this "conspiracy". Eight shots, and
>
> out of those 8, two shots hit Kennedy! Unbelievable!

The Lead car turned onto elm street way before greer even turned onto
Houston. Therefore, he never saw lead car make a left onto elm.

[pachik...@gmail.com]

The light brakes did come on. Do some more research.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, they don't. You see refraction through only ONE lens.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, John, the brake lights do not come on and no one editing the
Zapruder film.
We can see from the other films that the limo never stopped.
We they ALL edited in sync with each other to hide the stop? Even the films
they didn't even know about?

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 2:36:51 PM UTC-4, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:

Yes, the Z-film was altered. Here's the Muchmore film showing the brake
light coming on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrX8lsb2WTk

No doubt about that. Proves that the Z-film was altered because that
slowdown wasn't shown on the Z-film. It also messes up all the
calculating that was done using the Z-film.

Chris