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.   

    You described the motorcycles rounding of the corner as the, "ROAR of 4 motorcycles accelerating out of the sharp turn...". Now, you want to describe it as merely a "speed up". And, there is a difference between "4 Motorcycles" and "Any VEHICLE". You wanna go Drama Queen, and you will be held accountable. The Facts are important. So is the verbiage you choose to use.

Please explain the difference between "speed up" and "accelerate".

Do you think any vehicle is going to go around a 110 degree turn at the same speed as it would on a straightaway or do you think it would speed up coming out of the turn?

    You described the motorcycles rounding of the corner as the, "ROAR of 4 motorcycles accelerating out of the sharp turn...". Now, you want to describe it as merely a "speed up". And, there is a difference between "4 Motorcycles" and "Any VEHICLE". You wanna go Drama Queen, and you will be held accountable. The Facts are important. So is the verbiage you choose to use.

You got me.  I just made up all this evidence and concocted all the fake sources (you can click on the cites to see how realistic those fake sources look):

"I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure."  Pulitizer Prize winning photographer Robert Jackson 2 H 160.

"Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. "  Linda Willis 7 H 498

"The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot." Luke Mooney, 3 H 282

"Mr. BELIN. And what about between the second and third?
Mr. CRAIG. Not more than 2 seconds. It was—they were real rapid." Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, 6 H 263

"After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired." U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough, affidavit) 7 H 440

“There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.” Forrest Sorrels 7 H 345.

“The Presidential vehicle was approximately 200 feet from the underpass when the first shot was fired, followed in quick succession by two more.I would estimate that all three shots were fired within 5 seconds. SA Wm. McIntyre 18 H 747

“I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot”.  Sheriff's Deputy Allan Sweatt 19 H 531.

“I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together”. Lee Bowers 6 H 287.

“The last two were closer than the first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.” Haygood 6 H 298. 

“The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one”. Crawford 6 H 172.  (He also confirms that the VP security car had completed the turn when the first shot was heard.)

"Q    How much time elapsed from the time you heard the second noise until your heard the third noise?
A    When I heard the second noise, the third was followed nearly just right back to back. It was fired in rapid succession." Buell Wesley Frazier, in his 1969 testimony at the Clay Shaw trial (Transcript, State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw Trial, Feb 13, 1969, afternoon, page 27-28, part of the HSCA JFK Collection, Ex. RG 233).

and that's not all. I made up many more.

There are other witnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced and others who said the first two shots were closer together. I could quote those people too but what would that prove?
Answer: Not a damn thing.

well as long as Hargrove apologized, that’s ok.  after all, Hargrove is to Armstrong as Ouspensky was to Gurdjieff.