-
Video: Dan Rather and Gerald Posner analyze the shots that killed JFK
-
One thing I didn't like about Posner is that in promoting his book, he pushed the myth that the WC had concluded Oswald fired his 3 shots in under 6 seconds and that he was somehow correcting the record. The WCR needed no corrections. The scenario Posner proposed fell within the parameters stated by the WCR. I don't know if he did this by ignorance or deliberate deceit, but either way he was just plain wrong.
-
In "Case Closed", Posner presents this scenario of the shooting. He has the first shot at Z160-166 and the last at Z313. That's ~150 frames or about 8 seconds (150/18). It's a little fuzzy so you might want to magnify.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13718480972/Keyelrdis3w84td/Posner.jpg)
-
Very strange that during this entire presentation, there was NO MENTION of Rather's CBS broadcasts the weekend of the JFK Assassination. The same broadcasts where Rather described viewing a different Zapruder Film than the Zapruder Film that was used for this presentation.
-
Dan Rather is, was, and always will be a damn liar. The WC never conclude Oswald fired all three shots in under 6 seconds. Posner embraced the same lie in his effort to make it seem that he was setting the record straight. The WC always allowed for the possibility that Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots. They found that Oswald fired 3 shots missing JFK with one of those shots but never came to a conclusion as to which of the 3 shots was the miss. The determined that there was no more than 5.6 seconds between the 2 shots that hit JFK and it's only the second shot miss scenario that would require Oswald to fire all 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or less. The reality is there were about 4.9 seconds between the two hits and the missed shot came before those 2 shots. We are able to determine that due to decades of time, millions of eyeballs viewing the Z-film, and technology that wasn't available to the WC.
It will forever be a black mark on Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and the entire CBS News organization for having propagated this lie for all these years. Either it was a deliberate lie or extremely sloppy journalism that led them to this conclusion. All they would have had to do to know this wasn't true would be to read the conclusion summary at the end of the chapter that dealt with the 3 shots.
-
Dan Rather is, was, and always will be a damn liar. The WC never conclude Oswald fired all three shots in under 6 seconds. Posner embraced the same lie in his effort to make it seem that he was setting the record straight. The WC always allowed for the possibility that Oswald took more than 6 seconds to fire his three shots. They found that Oswald fired 3 shots missing JFK with one of those shots but never came to a conclusion as to which of the 3 shots was the miss. The determined that there was no more than 5.6 seconds between the 2 shots that hit JFK and it's only the second shot miss scenario that would require Oswald to fire all 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or less. The reality is there were about 4.9 seconds between the two hits and the missed shot came before those 2 shots. We are able to determine that due to decades of time, millions of eyeballs viewing the Z-film, and technology that wasn't available to the WC.
It will forever be a black mark on Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and the entire CBS News organization for having propagated this lie for all these years. Either it was a deliberate lie or extremely sloppy journalism that led them to this conclusion. All they would have had to do to know this wasn't true would be to read the conclusion summary at the end of the chapter that dealt with the 3 shots.
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.
Rather carries a "Get Outta Jail Free" card. He can Say and Do whatever he wants. Get whatever he wants too. Like Cronkite's chair. Posner? He's Arnold Horshack trying to get attention by glomming onto Dan Rather. Just like Max Holland did with National Geographic. These are Not stand alone individuals nor are the theories they ballyhoo. They are distributing pure "Pulp Fiction".
-
Posner is garbage. Mr. Oswald didn’t know Ferrie, and lied about Boswell.
-
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
-
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 - it was projected it onto the back wall of
his office of a private room at the law office of Zapruder's attorney - 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.
-
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 and 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 at 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.
-
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.
Rather viewed the Zapruder Film on the Monday following the assassination. Rather then immediately began his multiple LIVE TV broadcasts describing what he saw on the Z Film that very same day/Monday. Richard Stolley purchased the rights to the Z Film the previous Sat. How could Rather possibly be concerned about submitting a possible bid for the Z film, when the rights to the film had already been SOLD 2 days before?
Also, in "National Nightmare"by Richard B. Trask, it is detailed that when Zapruder initially showed his film that Saturday morning inside his dress shop, the ONLY people that were present for that viewing were Richard Stolley and SS Agents. Trask goes on to detail that Zapruder immediately replayed his film several times. It was during these repeat showings that, "Representatives from AP, UPI, and several magazines, THOU NO TELEVISION PEOPLE, arrived and also viewed the macabre motorcade". Rather did Not view the Zapruder Film on Saturday. His viewing of the Zapruder Film was done on a Monday. He immediately described to the world what he saw on the Zapruder Film that very same Monday.
-
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.
Waiting on You to respond. You quote Alexandra Zapruder and I quote Richard Trask. That's not a mismatch, it's a total blowout.
-
Zapruder showed the film to the media for bidding on Monday morning.
Here is Rather: "Recalling his walk to Passman & Jones [Zapruder's lawers] on Monday morning, he wrote: "All sorts of crude ideas rushed through my mind. What if he gave it to NBC? What if he sold it to someone else?… For a moment I thought, if I have to, I’ll just knock him down and grab the film, run back to the station, show it one time and then let him sue us."
Rather again: "The 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 a correction: The film was shown in a private office located at the law firm of Zapruder's lawyer and NOT at Zapruder's business office.
-
Zapruder showed the film to the media for bidding on Monday morning.
Here is Rather: "Recalling his walk to Passman & Jones [Zapruder's lawers] on Monday morning, he wrote: "All sorts of crude ideas rushed through my mind. What if he gave it to NBC? What if he sold it to someone else?… For a moment I thought, if I have to, I’ll just knock him down and grab the film, run back to the station, show it one time and then let him sue us."
Rather again: "The 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 a correction: The film was shown in a private office located at the law firm of Zapruder's lawyer and NOT at Zapruder's business office.
I give you the gold standard Trask and Stolley. Yet, you insist on sticking with Dan Rather? This in the face of Rather being rewarded with Cronkite's CBS News Anchor chair? Which is right in line with the Current News Media now admitting to promoting Phony Polling? What's it take to open your eyes?
-
I give you the gold standard Trask and Stolley. Yet, you insist on sticking with Dan Rather? This in the face of Rather being rewarded with Cronkite's CBS News Anchor chair? Which is right in line with the Current News Media now admitting to promoting Phony Polling? What's it take to open your eyes?
Take notice Posner pointed at the top of his back not where the actual entry was. Plus, they ignored the brain material blowing towards the left rear that hit Hargis. Typical Posner nothing but an Bahookie kissing shill.
-
Take notice Posner pointed at the top of his back not where the actual entry was. Plus, they ignored the brain material blowing towards the left rear that hit Hargis. Typical Posner nothing but a Bahookie kissing shill.
I guess you missed the frames where JFK's brains and blood are being propelled forward, as are at least two skull fragments.
PS The only thing Posner got wrong in Case Closed was befriending false-defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962 / false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964 -- Yuri "The KGB Had Absolutely Nothing To Do With Former U-2 Radar Operator Oswald During The Two-And-A-Half Years He Lived In The USSR" Nosenko because he was telling him exactly what he (as had a very grateful J. Edgar Hoover!) wanted to hear.
LOL!
-
Take notice Posner pointed at the top of his back not where the actual entry was. Plus, they ignored the brain material blowing towards the left rear that hit Hargis. Typical Posner nothing but an Bahookie kissing shill.
The brain matter did not blow back toward Hargis. It blew forward and upward and Hargis drove through that cloud. Frame Z313 clearly shows the splatter is forward and upward from the upper right side of JFK's head which had just exploded.
-
Take notice Posner pointed at the top of his back not where the actual entry was. Plus, they ignored the brain material blowing towards the left rear that hit Hargis. Typical Posner nothing but an Bahookie kissing shill.
Hargis explained the brain/blood matter/material striking him below.
Question: You were sprayed with matter, and you were behind the limousine, and yet you say you initially ran to the Book Depository because of the suggestion of the direction of the shot.
Hargis: Right.
Question: But the actual - the fact that you were behind the car suggests that the shot in fact came from the front and right of the car.
Hargis: Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it.
And
Question: Left shoulder. Could you see what part of his head got hit?
Hargis: No I couldn't see what part of it got hit.
Oser: Would you say that he was hit in the rear of the head, the side of the head, or the front of his head?
Hargis: If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side.
So he says he "run through" the blood/brain matter and that he didn't see a "hit" in the back of JFK's head but a "splash" on the side. If it blew out the back of JFK's head I would think he would have seen that? And he wouldn't have "run through" the matter; it would have blown into his windshield/face?
He's not a good witness for a rear exit wound. Could he have been wrong? Of course. That's why they had an autopsy.
Link/source: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hargis.htm
And James Chaney, the motorcycle officer right next to JFK (below right), said all of the shots came from behind him, from the rear.
"Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located. Chaney said the noises were fairly evenly spaced."
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/9965#relPageId=10&search=Chaney
Here's the Moorman photo with Hargis on the near left and Chaney on the farther right.
(https://d2skn5554g4boz.cloudfront.net/content/images/512/larger/3373830_1.jpg)
-
Here is Hargis on the brain/blood matter/material:
Question: You were sprayed with matter, and you were behind the limousine, and yet you say you initially ran to the Book Depository because of the suggestion of the direction of the shot.
Hargis: Right.
Question: But the actual - the fact that you were behind the car suggests that the shot in fact came from the front and right of the car.
Hargis: Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it.
And
Question: Left shoulder. Could you see what part of his head got hit?
Hargis: No I couldn't see what part of it got hit.
Oser: Would you say that he was hit in the rear of the head, the side of the head, or the front of his head?
Hargis: If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side.
So he says he "run through" the blood/brain matter and that he didn't see a "hit" in the back of JFK's head but a "splash" on the side. If it blew out the back of JFK's head I would think he would have seen that? And he wouldn't have "run through" the matter; it would have blown into his windshield/face?
He's not a good witness for a rear exit wound. Could he have been wrong? Of course. That's why they had an autopsy.
Link/source: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hargis.htm
And James Chaney, the motorcycle officer right next to JFK (below right), said all of the shots came from behind him, from the rear.
"Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located. Chaney said the noises were fairly evenly spaced."
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/9965#relPageId=12&search=Chaney
(https://d2skn5554g4boz.cloudfront.net/content/images/512/larger/3373830_1.jpg)
Non of the above is sworn testimony. It carries No Weight what-so-ever. Mary Farrell, Mary Todd Lincoln, Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Doesn't matter unless the quoted source is looking at Perjury for whatever he/she is saying. This includes Fauci.