Dan Rather's Description of Zapruder Film Corroborated by Witness

[Gary Murr]

In my opinion, Robert, I don't believe that Olin representatives were "acting out of concern for customer confidentiality." If anything, and again to use your wording it is a "stretch" and only speculation on my part, some and I stress some Olin employees may have been acting out of "concerns" for Olin's reputation rather than anything to do with the customer who placed the order in the first instance - and I must reiterate that as far as I have been able to ascertain this customer was not the CIA. There is little question, based upon my acquisition and study of 100+ pages of internal Western/Olin correspondence, including memorandum, that deals specifically and only with the issue of this 6.5mm ammunition, writings by employees who truly were "in the know," that the revelation that the ammunition found and assumed to have been responsible for the death of a President had been manufactured by Western caused more than a little consternation. It is rather interesting to see the responses from Olin representatives in the late 1960's and even into the 1970's to those who wrote them asking for information about this ammunition; there is a discernible difference between those handled as "conspiracy" theorists and others from the opposite side of the assassination fence, so to speak. However, in the main answers given by those at Olin who had been involved with the production of this ammunition from its very inception were truthful - some people just got "better" answers than others. Olin employees such as Botts and Gebelein were most definitely not "in the know" regarding the true history of this ammunition and there is no indication among the documentation that I have acquired to indicate that they made any effort to discover the details of this same process. On the other hand individuals such as A. S. Hill and W. H. Bellemore were very much "in the know" and as they indicated in correspondence with a private researcher in the mid 1980's, statements issued by Bott's et al that indicated a 1944 dating for this ammunition were incorrect. I can assure you that there were absolutely no orders procured or asked of Olin/Western during WW II that required the production of 6.5mm carcano ammunition. On the other hand, and as a matter of potential interest to you, the WW I contract files of Western indicate that between November 23, 1914 and October 3, 1915, Western received no fewer than seven contract requests for the production of 6.5mm ammunition, three of which were specifically designated as required for use in "6.5mm Italian Model 91/95 rifles and for machine guns."

[Glenn Nall]

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.

just out of curiosity, (you're a scientist in math or physics stuff, do i remember correctly?) - what's the difference between the energy possessed by a swinging baseball bat at the point of impact on an object and the energy of a 6.5mm bullet from 150 yards at the point of impact of the same object?

clearly the baseball bat would transfer most if not all of its energy to the object, depending on the fixedness of it, while the bullet would not. but i imagine that the amount of energy the bullet does transfer, considering the amount of energy it possesses at the time with plenty to spare, is sufficient to snap a person's head back. especially if the bullet is blunt-nosed with exposed, soft lead.

another curiosity: all science aside, i once shot a sealed paint can about half full (or half empty) of paint with a 240 Weatherby from about 25 yards out (i prided myself on my marksmanship from 25 yards out back then) --- (Pat, Robert, what's the velocity of this bullet at that range? the same as your 308?) --- The paint can behaved very much like i'd expect a person's head to behave if it did not have a neck and a body trying very hard to make it behave. the rear portion of the can blew backwards maybe another 25 yards, and the front portion of the can and the paint flew straight upward and outward a considerable distance.

a few points i take from this memory.

a) this action describes a snap like no other snap i've ever in my life seen.

if this paint can behaved as badly as it did (and it did) then i have no problem believing that the president's head (and upper body), as a whole, behaved just as i'd expect it to.

c) i don't know what science says about the bullet's energy transference v. a heavy object (and I support science), but i know what the paint can thinks of the bullet's energy transference.

d) honestly what i think is that very often things seem to want to forego the laws of physics when they are shot with a powerful gun. they do weird things. it's hard to apply science to Ks head reaction. which is why the WC tried so hard to do just that.

/***

fyi/fmi Factory figures indicate that a 100-grain Nosler Partition exits the muzzle at 3,406 fps, maintaining 1,500 ft-lbs of energy to over 300 yards and 1,000 ft-lbs past 500 yards. Another useful load pushes an 85-grain Barnes TSX to 3,500 fps.

Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ammunition_the_6mm_solution_042211/#ixzz3hcRXaZXV

Edited August 2, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

Gary:

Where is your book?

You were going to send it to me two years ago. Did I miss it?

Are you competing with Lifton to see who can take the longest time to finish?

If that is it, I think you will lose.

Edited August 2, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

just out of curiosity, (you're a scientist in math or physics stuff, do i remember correctly?) - what's the difference between the energy possessed by a swinging baseball bat at the point of impact on an object and the energy of a 6.5mm bullet from 150 yards at the point of impact of the same object?

clearly the baseball bat would transfer most if not all of its energy to the object, depending on the fixedness of it, while the bullet would not. but i imagine that the amount of energy the bullet does transfer, considering the amount of energy it possesses at the time with plenty to spare, is sufficient to snap a person's head back. especially if the bullet is blunt-nosed with exposed, soft lead.

another curiosity: all science aside, i once shot a sealed paint can about half full (or half empty) of paint with a 240 Weatherby from about 25 yards out (i prided myself on my marksmanship from 25 yards out back then) --- (Pat, Robert, what's the velocity of this bullet at that range? the same as your 308?) --- The paint can behaved very much like i'd expect a person's head to behave if it did not have a neck and a body trying very hard to make it behave. the rear portion of the can blew backwards maybe another 25 yards, and the front portion of the can and the paint flew straight upward and outward a considerable distance.

a few points i take from this memory.

a) this action describes a snap like no other snap i've ever in my life seen.

if this paint can behaved as badly as it did (and it did) then i have no problem believing that the president's head (and upper body), as a whole, behaved just as i'd expect it to.

c) i don't know what science says about the bullet's energy transference v. a heavy object (and I support science), but i know what the paint can thinks of the bullet's energy transference.

d) honestly what i think is that very often things seem to want to forego the laws of physics when they are shot with a powerful gun. they do weird things. it's hard to apply science to Ks head reaction. which is why the WC tried so hard to do just that.

/***

fyi/fmi Factory figures indicate that a 100-grain Nosler Partition exits the muzzle at 3,406 fps, maintaining 1,500 ft-lbs of energy to over 300 yards and 1,000 ft-lbs past 500 yards. Another useful load pushes an 85-grain Barnes TSX to 3,500 fps.

Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ammunition_the_6mm_solution_042211/#ixzz3hcRXaZXV

The amount of energy transferred also depends on whether or not the bullet continues out the other side of the victim, in a somewhat intact condition, or breaks up inside the victim and actually comes to a complete halt inside the victim.

The examples you used, the Nosler Partition bullet and the Barnes TSX bullet, are both perfect examples of what is called "controlled expansion". The following images will help to explain this concept:

Barnes TSX or "Triple Shock X-bullet", solid copper construction.

Barnes TSX bullet in successive stages of controlled expansion, showing how the dividing "X" allows this bullet to open up but still limits expansion to the base of the "X".

Nosler Partition bullet, showing the copper "partition" partway down the bullet, and how this partition limits expansion of the soft lead nose of this bullet, and does not allow expansion to go past the partition.

Both of these bullets would have had a very good chance of exiting the other side of JFK's skull, thus limiting the amount of energy transferred, although the expansion of the tip of these bullets still inflicts a large amount of damage.

In comparison, a hollow point frangible bullet will completely disintegrate and come to a complete halt inside a head wound, thus transferring ALL of its energy to its victim.

Your paint can analogy demonstrates that large blowout wounds in skulls are not always the exit point of a bullet. Rather, with a disintegrating bullet creating a large hydraulic shock wave ahead of it, the blowout site is often where the hydraulic shock wave has burst the skull, much the same way over inflating a balloon will cause it to burst.

Looking again at the Nosler bullet, it is interesting to note that all that prevents total break up of this bullet is a thin band of copper across the mid section of the bullet. Look at this cross section of a full metal jacket bullet (the type of bullet that allegedly disintegrated inside of JFK's skull):

Would the copper nose of a FMJ bullet not act the same as the copper partition in the Nosler bullet, and prevent expansion and break up of the FMJ bullet? Is this not the purpose of the FMJ design?

[Karl Kinaski]

Gary:

Where is your book?

You were going to send it to me two years ago. Did I miss it?

Are you competing with Lifton to see who can take the longest time to finish?

If that is it, I think you will lose.

LOL. The first time I ordered Liftons FINAL CHARADE was back in 2002...but I am fine with that, because Goethe says: Was lange währt, wird endlich gut...

Edited August 3, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Ken Rheberg]

Somewhere, amongst my JFK threads that I copied off of the internet, is a thread that was begun on Lancer years ago. I think Ken Rheberg was the author. . . He says Rather was at the Trade Mart, not DP)

I asked Ken if he would comment on this thread. If he doesn't, I'll continue to look for it.

I'm just throwing it in the mix.

Kathy

(I edited because I posted the wrong information--sorry!)

Kathy,

Dan Rather wasn't at the Trade Mart when the shots were fired.

He also wasn't standing right next to the west side of the triple underpass, the story he has told many times over the years. The photographic record disproves that. So where was he?

According to a close CBS colleague of his, Rather was actually at KRLD, on the phone with him when the assassination took place. The colleague, a fellow reporter, had called Rather from the Ramada Inn at Love Field during the lunch hour, wanting to check in with him as was this reporter's habit.

The two spoke for several moments after which Rather suddenly interrupted the conversation, telling the reporter to hold the line. "Don't go away," Rather said.

Within a minute or two, Rather returned to the phone and said that the President had been shot. He told the reporter to head for Parkland Hospital "as fast as you can."

Rather, however, would then leave KRLD, winding up at the Trade Mart within an hour or so after the assassination, something else he has never divulged in numerous interviews or in his memoirs.

Ken

I've always thought that this guy has the same outward physical appearance of Dan Rather.

In a 2013 50th anniversary special, Dan Rather was filmed standing in the spot where he was supposed to have been at the time of the assassination. It was on the north Elm sidewalk maybe ten yards or so from the west side of the triple underpass which would have then been to his left. The man in question, based on Dan's own precise placement, could not have been him.

[David Andrews]

Um...if I recall, Dan Rather's identification of where he was during the assassination moments has come under question before, and he has been accused of an untruth on this point before. People may want to search the past threads on this forum for more information.

[Ken Rheberg]

Um...if I recall, Dan Rather's identification of where he was during the assassination moments has come under question before, and he has been accused of an untruth on this point before. People may want to search the past threads on this forum for more information.

Nice to see you encouraging others in this endeavor.

You may want to post some links to help these people out.

Meanwhile, the Rather mystery continues to slowly unravel.

And that takes us closer and closer to the hard evidence -- evidence that can't be disputed -- that Gary Mack always required to prove that there was more than one shooter.

[Ron Bulman]

I stumbled across this thread looking for one to put a somewhat related post on Zapruder in.  It's interesting on its own.  Thought I'd bump it also in part because I want to come back and read the whole thing (a long post by Gary Murr in particular), and because I miss Robert Prudhome's posts.

[Karl Kinaski]

William Newman told Joshia Thompson in 1966, quote: SIX SECONS INDALLAS, by J. Thompson.

Quote

Thompson: Now could you tell me about the impact 
on the President's head, what you saw? 
There's a diagram you drew for me where 
you put it right at the ear. 
Wm. Newman: That's what I saw. The way he was 
hit, it looked like he had just been hit with 
a baseball pitch; just like a block of wood fell 
over his , . . 
Thompson: You just bobbed your head backwards 
and over towards the left. 

Dan Rather said exact the opposite. "Foward with considerable violence." In the late 60ties, when the Zapruder film (which shows the backward motion) has been seen by a lot of people, students where mocking Dan Rather when he appeared in public by shouting: "Forward, with considerable violence  ..."

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Karl Kinaski

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/4/2015 at 12:58 AM, Robert Prudhomme said:

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?

This is interesting. Speaking of witness-described actions missing from the film, Kellerman, one of the SS agents, told the FBI that JFK tried to reach with his left hand "to a point on his right shoulder." This makes sense. When the misfire hit JFK's upper back and made a shallow wound, JFK felt it and was trying to feel what it was, trying to feel what was going on at that spot.

Kellerman's account has been dismissed because this action is not seen in the extant Z film, but one wonders why Kellerman would have invented this and what action he could have mistaken for a left-handed backward reach toward the right shoulder.

Of course, the most egregious case of witness-described actions missing from the Z film is the limo stop, described by over 40 witnesses from all over the plaza. 

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

I miss Bob also.

he was probably the most knowledgeable guy on this forum about ballistics.

[Allen Lowe]

7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is interesting. Speaking of witness-described actions missing from the film, Kellerman, one of the SS agents, told the FBI that JFK tried to reach with his left hand "to a point on his right shoulder." This makes sense. When the misfire hit JFK's upper back and made a shallow wound, JFK felt it and was trying to feel what it was, trying to feel what was going on at that spot.

Kellerman's account has been dismissed because this action is not seen in the extant Z film, but one wonders why Kellerman would have invented this and what action he could have mistaken for a left-handed backward reach toward the right shoulder.

Of course, the most egregious case of witness-described actions missing from the Z film is the limo stop, described by over 40 witnesses from all over the plaza. 

If you look at the Zapruder film the car comes to a near stop  just before the headshot. I seem to recall Senator Yarborough saying the same thing, that it slowed down but did not stop. And every time I see it I see this and wonder why everyone claims it didn’t happen. And it’s easy to see how at this moment of shock witnesses thought the car came to a complete stop, because it was a pause in the action.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Michael Griffith]

4 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

If you look at the Zapruder film the car comes to a near stop  just before the headshot. I seem to recall Senator Yarborough saying the same thing, that it slowed down but did not stop. And every time I see it I see this and wonder why everyone claims it didn’t happen. And it’s easy to see how at this moment of shock witnesses thought the car came to a complete stop, because it was a pause in the action.

There is no visible slowing down of the limousine in the Z film. There is only the virtually invisible, split-second slowing identified by Alvarez. This virtually imperceptible slowing occurs from Z295-304, as the limo decelerates from 11/12 mph to 8 mph, per Alvarez's measurements. In the film, this event is so subtle that viewers usually do not notice it. In fact, no one appears to have noticed it until Alvarez detected it by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. It seems highly unlikely that this split-second, subtle slowing is the 1-2-second stop or drastic slowdown described by over 40 witnesses.

There is also the problem of the vanishing explosion of blood and brain. The spray of particulate matter disappears far too quickly. In the current film, it is there in one frame but gone in the next frame. Ballistics tests have proved that the spray should be visible for at least six frames. In addition, no spray is seen blowing backward. Yet, we know that two of the trailing patrolmen and the follow-up car were sprayed with blood and brain matter. Hargis said the spray hit him such force that he thought he himself had been hit.   

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Allen Lowe]

11 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

There is no visible slowing down of the limousine in the Z film. There is only the virtually invisible, split-second slowing identified by Alvarez. This virtually imperceptible slowing occurs from Z295-304, as the limo decelerates from 11/12 mph to 8 mph, per Alvarez's measurements. In the film, this event is so subtle that viewers usually do not notice it. In fact, no one appears to have noticed it until Alvarez detected it by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. It seems highly unlikely that this split-second, subtle slowing is the 1-2-second stop or drastic slowdown described by over 40 witnesses.

There is also the problem of the vanishing explosion of blood and brain. The spray of particulate matter disappears far too quickly. In the current film, it is there in one frame but gone in the next frame. Ballistics tests have proved that the spray should be visible for at least six frames. In addition, no spray is seen blowing backward. Yet, we know that two of the trailing patrolmen and the follow-up car were sprayed with blood and brain matter. Hargis said the spray hit him such force that he thought he himself had been hit.   

 

You are absolutely wrong about the slowing of the limousine as is everyone else who seems to think it’s a sign of alteration that it’s not stopping. It’s pretty obvious. What you’re missing is that the perspective changes at that moment, we have a close-up of the car and not the rest of the road. But if you look right behind the car you can see the slowing of it. This has really gotten to be quite silly, and is much  ado about literally nothing. You are too smart to be wasting your time on this part of the assassination. Instead of cutting a few frames or some other nonexistent alteration, they would simply have destroyed the film. Because this particular thing is unmissable and obvious.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Allen Lowe