Video: Dan Rather and Gerald Posner analyze the shots that killed JFK

[Tom Graves]

Your clan would be wise to take it easy on Rather. You tick him off and he will again tell the World what he saw on the Z Film Copy he viewed the weekend of the assassination.

Dear Storm Trooper Storing,

How many times did Rather get to view the Zapruder film on 11/23/63 (or was it the 25th?)?

Just once?

How far did he have to run from where he viewed it to where he spoke on-air about it?

Hundred yards?

More?

Did he say later that he ran as fast as he could, or just kinda jogged?

When he spoke on air that first time, was he reading from notes he had taken, or from memory?

Other than the fact that in the film JFK obviously "clutched his throat" for a few seconds, that JBC obviously turned all the way around and "looked at JFK," that JBC obviously "fell back into Nellie's lap," that a bullet obviously struck JFK in the head, that Jackie obviously climbed onto the trunk, and that Clint Hill obviously ran to the limo from the follow-up car and "pushed her back," is everything else in the Zapruder film pretty easy to understand for someone who's viewing it for the first time, or is it kinda confusing?

Hmm?

-- Tom

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Rather admitted that his account of what he saw was wrong, that he had given a rushed description. He said he saw the film once - Zapruder projected it onto the back wall of his office - and rushed out with no notes to broadcast what he saw. And it wasn't a copy of the film; it was the original.

Here is Rather in his memoirs: "The lawyer [Sam Passman, Zapruder's lawyer] laid out the ground rules for us: He had set up a projector in a private room. You went in, looked at the film one time, took no notes, came out and gave him your bid. I was already saying to myself, the bid comes second. The first thing I am going to do is look at the film, then knock the hinges off the door getting back to the station and describe what I had just seen. Then, and only then, would we get into the bidding."

And this (from Alexandra Zapruder's book):  For his part, Rather defends his misrepresentation of what was on the film not by acknowledging that it was irresponsible to give an account after having seen it only once, but as follows: “At the risk of sounding too defensive, I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two-second film [sic] of devastating impact, run several blocks, then describe what they had seen in its entirety, without notes. Perhaps someone can do so better than I did that day. I only know that I did it as well and as honestly as I could under the conditions."

Of course none of this matters. The same folks will repeat the same groundless claims and then demand their claims be proven wrong. When they are, they will ignore it and then repeat the claim. More than 60 years of this.

[John Corbett]

Rather admitted that his account of what he saw was wrong, he gave a rushed account. He said he saw the film once - Zapruder projected it onto the back wall of his office - and rushed out to give an account of what he saw. And it wasn't a copy; it was the original.

Here is Rather in his memoirs: "The lawyer [Sam Passman, Zapruder's lawyer] laid out the ground rules for us: He had set up a projector in a private room. You went in, looked at the film one time, took no notes, came out and gave him your bid. I was already saying to myself, the bid comes second. The first thing I am going to do is look at the film, then knock the hinges off the door getting back to the station and describe what I had just seen. Then, and only then, would we get into the bidding."

And this (from Alexandra Zapruder's book):  For his part, Rather defends his misrepresentation of what was on the film not by acknowledging that it was irresponsible to give an account after having seen it only once, but as follows: “At the risk of sounding too defensive, I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two-second film [sic] of devastating impact, run several blocks, then describe what they had seen in its entirety, without notes. Perhaps someone can do so better than I did that day. I only know that I did it as well and as honestly as I could under the conditions.”

Of course none of this matters. The same folks will repeat the same groundless claims and then demand their claims be proven wrong. When they are, they will ignore it and then repeat the claim. More than 60 years of this.

I can forgive Rather for mistakes he made after just one viewing of the Zfilm. What I find unforgiveable by both him ind Cronkite is their complete misrepresentation of the WC conclusions regarding the elapsed time of the shooting and when Oswad commenced firing. That was just garbage reporting and contributed to the public's mistrust of the WCR. Both of them said on the air on multiple occasions thut the WC had concluded the Oswald didn't fire his first shot until after JFK passed the tree and that he fired all 3 shots in under seconds. This is what the WC actually concluded ut the end of Chapter 3 on page 117:

TIME SPAN OF SHOTS

Witnesses at the assassination scene said that the shots were fired within a few seconds, with the general estimate being 5 to 6 seconds. That approximation was most probably based on the earlier publicized reports that the first shot struck the President in the neck, the second wounded the Governor and the third shattered the President's head, with the time span from the neck to the head shots on the President being approximately 5 seconds. As previously indicated, the time span between the shot entering the back of the President's neck and the bullet which shattered his skull was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. If the second shot missed, then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots. If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence analyzed in this chapter, the Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.