Author Topic: Dan Rather's 12/25/63 Description of the Zapruder Film: Evidence of Alteration  (Read 666 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
There are three noteworthy elements in CBS journalist Dan Rather's 11/25/1963 description of the Zapruder film, all of which indicate that the film we now have is not the original.

1. When the current Zapruder film was made public, Dan Rather took a lot of flack for his 12/25/1963 description of the Zapruder film because he said that the head shot caused Kennedy's head "to move violently forward." But Rather might well have been telling the truth. Rather was not the only one who saw the original Zapruder film who said it showed the head shot clearly knocking Kennedy forward. Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach saw the original film on 11/23/1963, the day after the shooting, and he said in his memoir that the film showed JFK "pitching suddenly forward."

Also, several Dealey Plaza witnesses said the head shot knocked JFK markedly forward. Bill Newman tried to tell Jim Garrison that the head shot knocked Kennedy's head forward so hard that it looked like it had been hit by a baseball bat, but Garrison did not believe him because this event was no longer in the Zapruder film.

2. Another fascinating aspect of Dan Rather's account is his description of the separate hits on JFK and Connally. Rather said the film clearly showed that Kennedy was hit before Connally, and that Connally was hit only after he began to react to the shot that hit Kennedy. This agrees with Connally's emphatic recollection, and it even agrees with the altered Zapruder film. I suspect that the separate hits on JFK and Connally were much more apparent than they are in the current version, although they are fairly apparent in the current version. I suspect that the original version showed that more time elapsed between the hit on JFK and the hit on Connally.

3. Rather said that the film showed Kennedy's limo turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Zapruder himself said he started filming as the limo was turning at Houston and Elm. This would have been a logical point at which to start filming. However, no such event is now seen in the film. In the current film, we see the motorcycles starting to turn left onto Elm Street but then the film skips ahead, and the next thing we see is the limo driving on Elm Street, starting at Z133; there is a noticeable gap between the motorcycles and the limo's first appearance at Z133.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 12:26:57 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Michael Christopher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Dan's statement has long since bothered me but I disagree with your possibilities you posted.

Here are mine and I am not saying I believe them, just that these are the thoughts I have had.

1. He was mistaken. He saw JFk slump to the side and remembered it wrong.
2. He lied. He never saw the film. He was probably told he was going to see it and then told at the last minute, "due to national security we can't show it to you, but here is what happens" This seems the most logical explanation. A young reporter, not wanting to admit he lost the scoop of a lifetime, goes along with it.
3. He lied for reasons unknown and there are many theories as to why but that goes down a rabbit hole I don't wish to enter.

To me the above make more sense than them changing the head direction. Especially as all the films would have to be faked too.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
There are three noteworthy elements in CBS journalist Dan Rather's 11/25/1963 description of the Zapruder film, all of which indicate that the film we now have is not the original.

1. When the current Zapruder film was made public, Dan Rather took a lot of flack for his 12/25/1963 description of the Zapruder film because he said that the head shot caused Kennedy's head "to move violently forward." But Rather might well have been telling the truth. Rather was not the only one who saw the original Zapruder film who said it showed the head shot clearly knocking Kennedy forward. Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach saw the original film on 11/23/1963, the day after the shooting, and he said in his memoir that the film showed JFK "pitching suddenly forward."

Also, several Dealey Plaza witnesses said the head shot knocked JFK markedly forward. Bill Newman tried to tell Jim Garrison that the head shot knocked Kennedy's head forward so hard that it looked like it had been hit by a baseball bat, but Garrison did not believe him because this event was no longer in the Zapruder film.

2. Another fascinating aspect of Dan Rather's account is his description of the separate hits on JFK and Connally. Rather said the film clearly showed that Kennedy was hit before Connally, and that Connally was hit only after he began to react to the shot that hit Kennedy. This agrees with Connally's emphatic recollection, and it even agrees with the altered Zapruder film. I suspect that the separate hits on JFK and Connally were much more apparent than they are in the current version, although they are fairly apparent in the current version. I suspect that the original version showed that more time elapsed between the hit on JFK and the hit on Connally.

3. Rather said that the film showed Kennedy's limo turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Zapruder himself said he started filming as the limo was turning at Houston and Elm. This would have been a logical point at which to start filming. However, no such event is now seen in the film. In the current film, we see the motorcycles starting to turn left onto Elm Street but then the film skips ahead, and the next thing we see is the limo driving on Elm Street, starting at Z133; there is a noticeable gap between the motorcycles and the limo's first appearance at Z133.

So this "original" Zapruder film, which showed JFK's head moving violently forward as a result of the headshot, something in complete agreement with being shot from behind, was miraculously altered to make it a appear as though he had been shot from the front?

Your argument being that the conspirators destroyed the best evidence of a shot from the direction of the TSBD and created something that completely undermined this version of events.

Have you thought this through?

Why would the conspirators do this?
Who would benefit from doing this?

 

Mobile View