Dan Rather's Description of Zapruder Film Corroborated by Witness

[Robert Prudhomme]

Below is a link to a Youtube film showing newsman Dan Rather describing his viewing of the Zapruder film on 25/11/63.

His descriptions vary greatly from what is actually seen in the version of the Z film we see today. I had put this down to Mr. Rather misremembering (OMG! Misremembering? I just used a classic LN verb) what he had seen but, after reading some eyewitness testimony today, I believe he was describing exactly what he saw.

At about 1:34 in this film, Mr. Rather describes Gov. John Connally turning in his seat, and extending his right hand towards JFK. Of course, no such thing can be seen in today's version of the Z film. However, read this excerpt from the WC testimony of eyewitness S.M. Holland, a railroad worker who saw the assassination unfold from atop the Triple Underpass.

"Mr. HOLLAND - And the motorcade was coming down in this fashion, and the President was waving to the people on this side [indicating].

Mr. STERN - That is the north side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - Yes; On the north side.
Mr. STERN - All right.
Mr. HOLLAND - And she was looking in this direction [indicating].
Mr. STERN - "She," is Mrs. Kennedy?
Mr. HOLLAND - His wife. And about that time---
Mr. STERN - Was looking in a southern direction?
Mr. HOLLAND - In the southern direction.
Mr. STERN - South side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - And about that time he went over like that [indicating], and put his hand up, and she was still looking off, as well as I could tell.
Mr. STERN - Now, when you say, "he went like that," you leaned forward and raised your right hand?
Mr. HOLLAND - Pulled forward and hand just stood like that momentarily.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand?
Mr. HOLLAND - His right hand; and that was the first report that I heard.
Mr. STERN - What did it sound like?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
Mr. STERN - To his right?
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just standing there, and she turned around facing the President and Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening, I guess.
Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?"

So, Dan rather was not the only one to see Connally extend his hand out. Is this more proof of alteration of the Z film?

Edited January 4, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

I just saw that Mr. Holland corroborated another thing Dan Rather claimed to have seen. While we see JFK going back and to his left, Mr. Holland describes seeing JFK in this way, "I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over." As the floor could only be ahead of the seat, Holland is NOT describing JFK going back and to the left.

Dan Rather's description of the JFK head shot, "His head could be seen to move violently forward."

[Chris Davidson]

Robert,

I know people are not too fond of Dan Rather, but if you can focus on what he says in terms of the film duration itself, you'll understand he described a version in transition most likely.

The first part is an excerpt from Josiah Thompson:

Meanwhile, back in New York, Life’s publisher viewed the copy obtained by Stolley and instructed Stolley to buy worldwide exclusive rights from Zapruder. On Monday morning, Stolley met with Zapruder and his lawyer and negotiated the sale to Life of worldwide rights for $150,000. As early as Tuesday or Wednesday, copies were ordered from the Life photolab by editors and began to circulate. In Chicago, a private lab made a 16 mm black and white copy for Life. In Washington, D.C., another private lab made a 16 mm black and white copy for the Secret Service. The Secret Service made additional copies of their copies and these were circulated to other law enforcement agencies. That Monday, Dallas secret service agents asked if they could use the 16 mm projector owned by the local CBS affiliate (KRLD) to view the film. They brought over the film in 16 mm format and Bob Huffaker projected it for them. Huffaker remembered that Dan Rather of CBS News was there to watch it with the agents.

The second part is an excerpt from Dan Rather's first TV interview:

That is the scene shown in about twenty seconds of film that the FBI has in its possession. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who was in a very advantageous position, and who had his camera trained on the President’s car from the time it made the turn in front of the assassin until it disappeared on its way to the hospital.

This is Dan Rather in Dallas.

Rather viewed a 16mm film approx 20seconds long.

24 frames per sec x 20.25seconds = 486 frames=total extant Z frames.

Once again, dealing with time references.

I know many are not fond of Paul Mandel either, but!!!

Another excerpt from Rathers first TV interview:

The car never stopped. The secret service man in the front seat had a telephone in his hand. The car...its acceleration increased rapidly and it disappeared under an underpass. Three shots - the first one hitting President Kennedy, the second one hitting Governor Connally, the third one hitting the President – consume, possibly, five seconds. Not much more than that, if any.

Attached is the article from Mandel published in the Dec 6th 1963 edition of Life Magazine

Mandel is under the impression he is counting frames from an 18.3 fps version.

Just convert his total frames between 3 shots based on 24 frames per sec.

122frames/24frames per sec = 5.08 seconds

Compared to Dan Rather's description of timing between shots, I 'd say they probably saw the same version.

chris

[Jon G. Tidd]

The supposedly strongest argument the Z-film was not fabricated is that the extant film shows JFK being snapped "back and to the left." Why would forgers who were trying to cover up a conspiracy create such a representation, the argument goes.

I think forgers did re-create the Z-film in order to obscure the number and direction of shots and the limousine slow-down.

In particular, I believe Z-313 is a fabrication based on the head-snap it and the succeeding few frames appear to create. A head snap doesn't make sense. A head snap is characteristic, for example, of the head being hit by blunt object, such as a boxer's gloved fist. The striking object transfers most if not virtually all of its momentum to the struck object, the head; and it does so in a short time. A bullet striking a head, however, does not transfer all or most of its momentum to the head upon striking the hard outer surface of the head. Reason: the bullet is piercing the skull, and so it retains a great deal of its momentum as it passes into the brain. Inside the brain, momentum is transferred to various brain structures.

Look at films, if you can stand to do so, of prisoners being executed by gunshot. There is no snapping of any body part when it's struck by the bullet. At most, there is a a pushing "forward" -- i.e., in the direction the bullet was fired.

Dan Rather may or may not have viewed a camera-original copy of the Z-film. His description, however, of the movement of JFK's body is consistent with how a penetrable object moves when struck by a penetrating bullet.

[David Andrews]

In this Costella pan of Zapruder, you can see Connally swat at the bullet with the Stetson hat in his right hand, then shift the hat to his left hand as he turns. Just before Connally's open-mouth reaction in mid-turn (the disputed moment where he is either hit or is not), you can see Connally's right shoulder rise as if he is reaching back toward Kennedy - but the right hand and forearm are out of the bottom framing line.

[David Andrews]

Look at films, if you can stand to do so, of prisoners being executed by gunshot. There is no snapping of any body part when it's struck by the bullet. At most, there is a a pushing "forward" -- i.e., in the direction the bullet was fired.

Is Kennedy's reaction perhaps affected by his apparently losing consciousness from his previous wounds? Fully conscious men aware that they are about to take one in the head may tend to be a bit tense before impact.

Do the ballistics of a frangible bullet affect the Zapruder head-snap?

Comparison to the Nix film reaction?

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews @ post #8:

David, I don't see the head snap in Nix that I see in Zapruder. Caveats: The perspectives are different. There's reason to believe the extant Nix film is a fabrication.

As for frangible bullets, the same principle of momentum applies. If the bullet pierces the scalp and skull, enters the brain, and then fragments, the bullet's momentum is transferred partly to the skull; the remaining momentum is allocated to the brain and the separate fragments. The laws of physics that apply here are relatively simple in concept but would be complex to apply in actual analysis. The basic outcome in terms of head-snapping will be the same as for an FMJ bullet.

If on the other hand a frangible bullet breaks apart upon hitting the head, does not enter the brain, and imparts all of its momentum to the skull, the skull is going to behave as if it were hit by a hard object (a rock, a hammer, etc.) that broke apart on hitting the skull (i.e., didn't rebound). That is, the skull is going to be driven forcibly.

The analysis is only slightly more complex if one assumes muscles are tensed and are holding the head in a fairly rigid way. In this case, momentum imparted to the head is imparted to the mass of the head, associated muscles and bones, and associated internal components. The whole of this mass will take on the momentum imparted by the striking of the bullet.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Do the ballistics of a frangible bullet affect the Zapruder head-snap?"

The perfect question, David, and I'm glad you asked it.

The prisoners seen being shot in the films are likely shot with non-expanding full metal jacket bullets. Because they do not come to an immediate halt inside of a head wound, or expand, they create a minimal pressure wave, and do not transfer that much energy to surrounding tissue. These bullets will likely exit the other side of the skull, or ricochet around inside the skull until they are spent.

OTOH, a frangible bullet or a hollow point bullet or even the humble soft tipped bullet is designed to expand or break up, and, in the case of the frangible bullet (and many hollow points), is designed to break up completely and come to a halt a few inches into the skull. By coming to a halt, ALL of the energy of the bullet is applied to a non-compressible semi-liquid matter (ie. the brain) and, hydraulically, this energy is then transferred to the skull itself. The amount of expansion and the amount the bullet is slowed (or halted) will directly determine the amount of energy transferred to the skull, along with factors such as bullet weight and bullet velocity.

Sound complicated? I'll put it in simpler terms. I hit a deer in the side of the skull, at about 100 yards, with a 110 grain hollow point bullet fired at a velocity of 2850 fps from a .308 calibre rifle. The bullet made a neat little entrance wound and did not exit; nor was there any blowout wound. This shot lifted this deer right off of his front feet and laid him on his side. I had never seen a soft tipped bullet lift a deer off its front feet.

[Robert Prudhomme]

David Andrews @ post #8:

David, I don't see the head snap in Nix that I see in Zapruder. Caveats: The perspectives are different. There's reason to believe the extant Nix film is a fabrication.

As for frangible bullets, the same principle of momentum applies. If the bullet pierces the scalp and skull, enters the brain, and then fragments, the bullet's momentum is transferred partly to the skull; the remaining momentum is allocated to the brain and the separate fragments. The laws of physics that apply here are relatively simple in concept but would be complex to apply in actual analysis. The basic outcome in terms of head-snapping will be the same as for an FMJ bullet.

If on the other hand a frangible bullet breaks apart upon hitting the head, does not enter the brain, and imparts all of its momentum to the skull, the skull is going to behave as if it were hit by a hard object (a rock, a hammer, etc.) that broke apart on hitting the skull (i.e., didn't rebound). That is, the skull is going to be driven forcibly.

The analysis is only slightly more complex if one assumes muscles are tensed and are holding the head in fairly fairly rigid way. In this case, momentum imparted to the head is imparted to the mass of the head, associated muscles and bones, and associated internal components. The whole of this mass will take on the momentum imparted by the striking of the bullet.

You've never done a lot of hunting, right? What would be the point of using a frangible bullet, if it broke up on the outside of the skull, instead of entering the skull?

For your education, go to this site and read all of the info there.

www.drtammo.com

Edited January 4, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhomme @ post #11:

Robert, I defer to you on the behavior of frangible rounds. My only purpose was to describe, how in concept, the law of conservation of momentum would work.

I'm guessing from what you write that in your experience hunting, a frangible bullet does not cause the sort of body-part snapping depicted by the Z-film.

[Robert Prudhomme]

No, that's not what I am saying at all. Did you go to the Dynamic Research Technologies web site I posted and study up on their frangible hunting bullet?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhomme @ post #13:

At the DRT website, I found this:

"Our frangible bullet breaks apart upon penetration of an organic target and returns to its original powder form while still being able to deliver terminal effects on the target. The high density frangible bullets will disintegrate upon impact with a hard target such as steel or rock and thus reduce the risk of ricochet and personal injury."

The DRT frangible bullet penetrates an "organic target" and then disintegrates. I'm guessing a human head, or an animal's head for that matter, is an "organic target."

From this description, the laws of physics require that part of the bullet's momentum is transferred to the head upon impact and penetration. The remainder of the momentum is imparted to the brain in the disintegration process. Momentum and energy are conserved, which is required by the laws of physics.

Given that only part of the bullet's momentum is lost to the head upon striking and penetration, I'm skeptical the bullet would cause a head snap of the sort depicted in the Z-film. But I'm open-minded as to the possibility of a snapping. That's why I'm interested in your experiences shooting animals with frangible rounds.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhomme @ post #10:

You write:

"I hit a deer in the side of the skull, at about 100 yards, with a 110 grain hollow point bullet fired at a velocity of 2850 fps from a .308 calibre rifle. The bullet made a neat little entrance wound and did not exit; nor was there any blowout wound. This shot lifted this deer right off of his front feet and laid him on his side. I had never seen a soft tipped bullet lift a deer off its front feet."

Question: Would a soft-tipped bullet pass through the deer's skull, meaning not all of its momentum was imparted to the skull and brain?

Second question: Would a soft-tipped bullet break apart in the deer's brain or stay intact? If it stayed relatively intact, the momentum it imparted to the deer would be largely in the direction of the bullet.

I can understand what you are writing from a physics standpoint. In particular, that a DRT round you fired into the side of a deer's skull lifted the deer off its front feet. Was there any snapping to the deer's motion? By snapping I mean the skull moved rapidly in a way the rest of the animal's body didn't move.

[Brad Milch]

Small arms & ammunition is the area of this case where Robert Prudhomme really shines & teaches with his expertise IMHO. As this thread develops I would like to see Mr. Prudhomme use theoretic scenarios for the multitude of popular theories about where the assassin(s) were located in Dealey Plaza & what damage could be expected had any used specific weapons & ammo on President Kennedy's upper torso & head plus the different places John Connally was wounded on his body. Does Mr. Prudhomme see any evidence for a SBT?

For instance, a popular theory is Greer or Kellerman shot JFK with a .45 or .38 pistol from the front seat of the touring car. What would Mr. Prudhomme expect to see in a film capturing such a horrific event with those weapons & different ammo? Repeat for the stockade fence, North pergola, TSBD, Dal-Tex, South pergola, SS follow-up car, storm drains, TUP (top, bottom & corners) and any other areas I did not mention that are popular suspected attack platforms. What would Mr. Prudhomme expect to see on film with silenced & unsilenced weapons at each of those locations with a multitude of different weapons & ammo? What does the z-film suggest to him was used to kill JFK & wound JBC?

I could never direct myself to destroy a beautiful creature like Bambi & therefore never became a hunter (but I have met & talked to a lot of them). Hunters have a lot of good input on weapons & ammo based on personal experience. Much can be learned from them, even though a person does not hunt. I have had hunters, military & police shooters tell me that what they see in the z-film is what they'd expect to see with a typical 30.30 of 1963 & 'varmit' ammo. Others have told me what they see in the z-film looks more like JFK was killed with something like a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) that Clyde Barrow was so fond of back in his day of crime. Some see Remington damage, others see an M-16 or M-1. Some don't see enough damage; others see too much. Robert would know.

We all know both JFK & John Connally were shot with some type of weapon(s) & ammo in late 1963. Let's suppose that any given researcher is postulating that a shooter positioned in the North Pergola shelter behind Zapruder & Sitzman shot JFK and/or JBC with a silenced or unsilenced weapon with some type of ammo. What would Mr. Prudhomme expect to see in the z-film if that actually happened using different weapons & ammo?

Next, move the shooter(s) to different locations suspected of being firing platforms. Would the effects expected from the North pergola be the same or different from different vantage points & distances? Understanding this aspect of the case & the multitude of shooting theories postulated in the last 51 years will aid EF readers today in determining if what a researcher is suggesting has merit or is groundless IMHO.

In following Mr. Prudhomme's research in other venues online I was quite startled to learn that the 'Oswald weapon' fired bullets manufactured in the 1950's under contract for the CIA. EF readers stand to learn a great deal from him.

BM

Edited January 5, 2015 by Brad Milch

[Jon G. Tidd]

Brad Milch @ post #16:

I second your call. Experience is the best teacher.