Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?

[Ken Rheberg]

Paul,

You've been wondering here, and over on the Deep Politics Forum, why Rather would broadcast a second, new description of the Zapruder film so quickly after his first. Why so soon, and why even new at all?

Seems obvious to me that the reason is this. . .

Rather's earlier radio description referenced the movement of the limo during the shots: "The car never stopped, it never paused." But his later, first TV description only said, "The car never stopped." He left out "it never paused." As soon as that mistake was realized, he was immediately back on the air again with another, brand new description which now included the important, missing words, "the car never paused."

"The car never stopped, it never paused" was then found in Rather's third description later that night. This broadcast, however, rather than being a repeat of the second, was again brand new in order to delete any suggestion that Jackie may have been trying to escape over the trunk of the limo.

Once more, the time of the third TV description was 8:26 PM EST, not 6:30 PM EST. Your times for the first two TV descriptions are also inaccurate.

Ken

[Paul Rigby]

Paul,

You've been wondering here, and over on the Deep Politics Forum, why Rather would broadcast a second, new description of the Zapruder film so quickly after his first. Why so soon, and why even new at all?

Seems obvious to me that the reason is this. . .

Rather's earlier radio description referenced the movement of the limo during the shots: "The car never stopped, it never paused." But his later, first TV description only said, "The car never stopped." He left out "it never paused." As soon as that mistake was realized, he was immediately back on the air again with another, brand new description which now included the important, missing words, "the car never paused."

"The car never stopped, it never paused" was then found in Rather's third description later that night. This broadcast, however, rather than being a repeat of the second, was again brand new in order to delete any suggestion that Jackie may have been trying to escape over the trunk of the limo.

Once more, the time of the third TV description was 8:26 PM EST, not 6:30 PM EST. Your times for the first two TV descriptions are also inaccurate.

Ken

Very plausible explanations for both, Ken, particularly the change in version 3 (wherein Rather removed any suggestion that the First Lady was fleeing from the car in fear).

As to the question of the precise timings, feel free to correct: the object, after all, is accuracy. Better still, photograph or scan the source(s) for your timings, and post so that everyone can see it/them.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Paul,

You've been wondering here, and over on the Deep Politics Forum, why Rather would broadcast a second, new description of the Zapruder film so quickly after his first. Why so soon, and why even new at all?

Seems obvious to me that the reason is this. . .

Rather's earlier radio description referenced the movement of the limo during the shots: "The car never stopped, it never paused." But his later, first TV description only said, "The car never stopped." He left out "it never paused." As soon as that mistake was realized, he was immediately back on the air again with another, brand new description which now included the important, missing words, "the car never paused."

"The car never stopped, it never paused" was then found in Rather's third description later that night. This broadcast, however, rather than being a repeat of the second, was again brand new in order to delete any suggestion that Jackie may have been trying to escape over the trunk of the limo.

Once more, the time of the third TV description was 8:26 PM EST, not 6:30 PM EST. Your times for the first two TV descriptions are also inaccurate.

Ken

Why were the plotters and their media mouthpieces so concerned to answer a question - did the limousine stop on Elm? - that was not being posed by the world-public?

The answer lies in the testimony of the motorcyle outriders, a group largely - and revealingly - ignored by the Warren Commission.

What follows is a necessarily truncated version - there are too many images within the piece to post in its entirely here - focusing on the testimony elicited by an interviewer acting for Fred Newcomb:

The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews by Larry Rivera and Jim Fetzer

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/03/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews-3/

Among the most disputed issues in JFK research is whether or not the presidential limousine came to a halt after bullets began to be fired.

Remarkably enough, interviews of the four JFK motorcycle escort patrolmen conducted in 1971 by Fred Newcomb for his book, Murder from Within (2011), reveal significant details about the duration of the event and the multiple activities that occurred when it stopped on Elm Street. The officers were Billy Joe Martin on the outside/left (#7), Robert Weldon Hargis the inside/left (#6),

James M. Chaney on the inside/right (#9) and Douglas L. Jackson the outside/right (#10). In these excerpts, which are transcribed from the Newcomb interviews, all four of them claimed that it stopped or almost stopped after the “first” shot, which was actually the second or third, since JFK had already been hit in the back by a shot fired from the top of the County Records Building.

The sound of a firecracker

The reason many reported the second or third as “the first shot” is that it made the sound of a firecracker as it passed through the windshield en route to JFK’s throat, where, according to Bob Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain and expert on wound ballistics, it hit bone and fragmented, part going downward into his right lung, the other upward into his brain. In these transcripts, “Whitney” on behalf of Fred Newcomb is questioning Officers Hargis and Martin. When Hargis refers to “that first shot”, therefore, he is speaking of what happened after the sound of a firecracker, not the actual first shot. He has told Whitney that the limo stop lasted for “about 5 or 6 seconds”. Office Martin is troubled the Zapruder film does not show a limo stop:

What is also significant about Martin’s replies is that he is describing an agent–presumably, Clint Hill–who was trying to get up on the limo during the stop. Jackie is out on the trunk and, Martin believes, was reaching out to help him get up on the back of the vehicle, where she had gone after a chunk of JFK’s skull and brains and which she would hold in her hand all the way to Parkland.

Hargis runs between the limos

This one with James Chaney offers further proof that the limo stopped on Elm Street for quite some time. Chaney describes how Bobby Hargis, after dismounting from his cycle and leaving it on the left lane of Elm Street, ran in front of him–and in between the two limos–on his way up the grassy knoll and up to the pedestal, where Zapruder had been standing (WC6H 295):

For Bobby Hargis to have had enough time to park his motorcycle and then pass in between the two vehicles in front of Chaney means that both limos stopped for a substantial amount of time, perhaps at least as long as 5 or 6 seconds, as Hargis himself had observed above. The only problem with this is that none of the films that exist today show Bobby Hargis doing any of that.

Who climbed on the limo?

The extant Zapruder and Nix films show a smooth rolling limousine cruising around 12-15 miles an hour, which slows down slightly when Clint Hill boards the vehicle via the back, by climbing over the trunk, who according to Bobby Hargis, did so in order to prevent Jackie Kennedy from climbing out of the back seat of the car. Was Clint Hill the only Secret Service Agent to climb into the limousine? Hargis was emphatic about a second agent boarding and entering the back seat:

Sargent Stavis Ellis, who was in very close contact with all of the patrolmen who were under his supervision, had this to say:

This information, if accurate, is devastating to the official version, because it confirms not only that the limo did stop on Elm Street, but that it stopped, as Hargis said, perhaps for as long as 5 to 6 seconds, giving not just one agent time to get in, but a second agent time to get in and cover the President and First Lady. This would have been in line with protocol established by the Secret Service, where each one was assigned a personal shield in case of an emergency such as this one.

The Chunk of Skull

Apparently a large chunk of JFK’s skull was blown to the left and onto the the inner grass beyond the south curb of Elm Street. Since the motorcade was at a standstill, an unidentified boy picked up the piece of skull and a Secret Service Agent snatched it from him and threw it into the back seat of the limo. As far fetched as it may seem, Sargent Stavis Ellis was quite sure this happened:

Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination. He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done.

Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

[David Andrews]

Greg Burnham, do you recall seeing on film any of the events that Chaney, Hargis, and Ellis describe in the interviews above?

I know that you feel that you've done this to death, Greg - but maybe you can forestall further questions by posting (or re-posting) a short precis of the alternate film you saw.

Edited April 8, 2014 by David Andrews

[David Lifton]

Someone called Hans Trayne has obligingly (?) posted to his Youtube channel the three versions, stripped of extraneous preamble and correctly timed*, complete with the texts I posted above:

First version:

Published on Mar 28, 2014

On 25 Nov 1963, CBS news broadcast 3 different reports from Dan Rather in Dallas describing what he had seen when he viewed the Zapruder film. This 1st report was broadcast at 4:07 PM EST. Each report differs in details of scenes Mr. Rather saw that do not match the officially released Zapruder film authorized by the Zapruder heirs in 1998 on 'Image Of An Assassination'. Global visuals analysts now believe Mr. Rather was describing a film that was subsequently falsified by government operatives at a secret film lab before the public 1st viewed it on TV in1975.

Second version:

Published on Mar 28, 2014

On 25 Nov 1963, CBS news broadcast 3 different reports from Dan Rather in Dallas describing what he had seen when he viewed the Zapruder film. This 2nd report was broadcast at 4:21 PM EST. Each report differs in details of scenes Mr. Rather saw that do not match the officially released Zapruder film authorized by the Zapruder heirs in 1998 on 'Image Of An Assassination'. Global visuals analysts now believe Mr. Rather was describing a film that was subsequently falsified by government operatives at a secret film lab before the public 1st viewed it on TV in 1975.

Third version:

Published on Mar 28, 2014

On 25 Nov 1963, CBS news broadcast 3 different reports from Dan Rather in Dallas describing what he had seen when he viewed the Zapruder film. This 3rd report was broadcast at 6:30 PM EST*. The description of Jackie Kennedy trying to exit the limo has been dropped in this report. Scenes described differ from what is seen when the film was officially released by Zapruder's heirs in 1998 on 'Image Of An Assassination'. Global visuals analysts now believe Mr. Rather was describing a film that was subsequently falsified by government operatives at a secret film lab before the public 1st viewed it on TV in1975.

Trayne’s “channel” is to be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/trayne59

* For reasons unspecified, Trayne follows Gary Mack in timing the third description to 6:30pm, EST, rather than Ken Rheberg, who offered 8:26PM, EST.

Gary Mack, “The $8,000,000 Man,” The Continuing Enquiry, 22 August 1980, (Vol 5, No 1), 3: 6:30 PM, EST: http://digitalcollec...o-jones/id/1181

Ken Rheberg: “Dan Rather described the Zapruder film THREE separate times on CBS-TV Monday 11/25/63. The final report was televised at approximately 8:26PM, EST.”

Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...12216&p=262821

Post #249, 17 November 2012, within the thread: Was Muchmore's film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?

Please consider this a "Personal 'thank you'" plus a suggestion (indeed, a request) for certain additional information. .. :

First of all. . . : Whoever did this research --its not all that clear to me just who "Hans Trayne" is--has performed a valuable public service.

(John Simkin. . .please note: this is precisely why your LEF is so valuable). The three Dan Rather TV reports about his reporting of watching the Zapruder film provide a treasure trove of important information..

Second: I have a suggestion for some additional work which would be most valuable.

I'm wondering if someone could find and post the audio of the initial CBS radio report where Rather speaks to CBS correspondents Richard C. Hottelet and Hughes Rudd.

A transcript of this radio report--note, its a "radio report," and was not broadcast via TV--can be found in the two Richard Trask books Pictures Of the Pain (starting on pg. 86) and National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film (starting on page 137). I'm hopeful that someone in this group of JFK researchers can post an MP3 of this report so that we can have all of the Dan Rather material in one place--the 3 Dan Rather TV broadcasts, and this single "radio report."

I have some other thoughts about "the three versions" but will save them for another post.

Thanks in advance- - to anyone who can add such an MP3 to this valuable collection.

DSL

4/17/14; 8:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

P.S. If anyone does add the audio I am suggesting, please do send me a "private message" via the LEF, because time does not permit me to visit here as often as I would like. Thank you. DSL

Edited April 18, 2014 by David Lifton

[Paul Rigby]

Rather's very different versions of the Z-film are discussed in the interview listed below:

Thought you'd heard the last word on the JFK assassination? Well, you haven't. This week on NightVision, documentary film maker Gil Toff blows the lid off the most controversial event of modern American history. Toff's riveting 1960s interviews with eye witnesses in Dealey Plaza will shock you. Or maybe confirm what you've always suspected!

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

http://www.latalkradio.com/Players/Rene-100312.shtml

Trailer for Gill Toff's proposed documentary:

http://youtu.be/OxPFFdyRL3I

[Paul Rigby]

A Network Vanishes

How far were the coup plotters prepared to go to hide which assassination film debuted where and when? The answer is very far. And then some. Consider the case of a book published by Stanford University Press in 1965.

Ostensibly edited by Bradley S Greenberg & Edwin B Parker, The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public: Social Communications in Crisis, comprised a preface, Introduction, twenty-five essays and a summary, all split into four sections. It was based upon extensive research among the public, journalists, television executives and academics, beginning with survey work that commenced in the week following the coup, via a conference involving Dallas’ three network-affiliates in February of the following year, and much else besides, into 1964.

For the interested lay reader, the most recognizable names were those of the New York Times duo, Tom Wicker and Harrison Salisbury, who disinterestedly examined their own and their paper’s performance and found both the opposite of wanting. For the academic communications specialists, however, the real big name was the author of the Introduction, Wilbur Schramm, who, as the editors cheerfully conceded, not only prompted them to compile the volume, but secured funding for it, mostly from the Stanford Institute, where he was the Director. Schramm was precisely the kind of guiding hand such a compilation needed, being one of the intellectual and bureaucratic giants in his field (which was propaganda, not communication studies), and thus a serial recipient of CIA (and multiple other warfare state) research grants, and a sometime FBI-informer.

A general air of satisfaction pervaded the authors and their essays, a mood Schramm’s Introduction faithfully reflected. The American system had been challenged, and the media had done its patriotic duty in helping it to survive the trauma. He was particularly impressed with the contribution of the small screen: “In a sense television Journalism grew up in Dallas, for never before had it faced such a story with so much of the responsibility for telling it.” How had the three major television networks earned this plaudit? Above all else, by not showing the sole film of the assassination of which Schramm was aware: “Apparently the networks decided against, although Life later published a sequence of still pictures from the same film.” He quoted with evident approval from the essay produced by Ruth Leeds Love, a researcher from the similarly CIA-connected Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia. Love’s essay-contribution to the volume, The Business of Television and the Black Weekend (73-86) contained the following pearl of wisdom: Television had learned from the Old Gray Lady and the assassination that “all the news that’s fit to print is not necessarily fit to be seen.”

Love’s essay, focused on the period 22-25 November, expanded on the subject of the Zapruder film and America’s TV networks. She reported that though they might have used stills from the Zapruder film had they been available in the immediate aftermath of the presidential assassination, they had chosen not to bid for the film, despite having the opportunity to do so, because it was just too brutal and dramatic for American households. As one ABC executive explained: “I understand you can see the President’s head snap as a bullet hit him and the blood spurt right out of his temple.” An NBC panjandrum offered a variant on the theme, stating “it wasn’t the fact that it was JFK, but…the inside of a man’s brain being outside that was so awful.” The televising of Oswald’s murder, by contrast, was a different matter, for as an NBC producer insisted, it “turned out to be a very clean one.”

All of which was slightly jarring, because according to the conventional history of the assassination films, UPI Newsfilm was offering, on the evening of November 25, the perfect solution for the ethically-minded nabobs of the networks – a film of the assassination that satisfied their imperative to report the assassination pictorially without splashing the extruded and shredded brain of America’s 35th President across the nation’s screens. Not only did the TV executives concerned not seize the opportunity, they appeared, like Schramm and Love, entirely unaware that the Muchmore film option had even existed that evening. Then again, perhaps one of the three networks had managed to work out a via media with the Zapruder film’s first version. The network’s identity was revealed by its absence.

For there was a striking omission in Love's list of interviewees from the three television networks: There was not a single quote from CBS and its higher-ups. What inconvenient truth was Love (and Schramm) hiding from the reader? That on the afternoon of Monday, 25 November, Kennedy’s funeral over, a striking bifurcation occurred in the assassination coverage of America’s three major TV networks.

The cause of the divergence was the Zapruder film. Two networks - the FBI-friendly ABC, together with NBC, the Pentagon contractor’s network - evinced no interest in the subject, while the third, the CIA annex known as CBS, embarked upon an energetic, Dan Rather-fronted campaign to construct and refine a verbal prism through which the film was to be interpreted - as an obvious prelude to broadcasting it. At least four times in the afternoon and early evening of 25 November, CBS TV and radio had devoted time for Rather to describe the film. Had CBS found a way of showing the Zapruder film without provoking horror and disgust among its audience? John Barbour’s comments on Black Op Radio in early August 2009 strongly suggest it had:

Quote

 

I have him [Dan Rather] in a kinescope on television. He’s on CBS evening news and you see the motor vehicle moving and he’s describing everything that Jackie Kennedy’s wearing, the little pea-pod hat, the little pink outfit, the little roses on her lapel, describing what Kennedy’s wearing, describing everything that Connally has, got a little hat in his hand, describing everything, and he’s absolutely right in what he’s describing.

Then it comes to the time of the fatal shot. And he stops the Zapruder film and he looks into the camera. And he says: “This is too gruesome for you to see so I just have to describe what is happening. There is a gunshot. John Kennedy is struck in the back of the head and thrown violently forward.”

 

This can’t be true, of course, precisely because we don’t have the full footage of CBS’s output during the evening and early hours of 25-26 November 1963, just as we lack a single surviving copy of the allegedly multiple copies of the UPI Newfilm package of the Muchmore film distributed late on the evening of 25 November to subscribing stations across America. For when it comes to the assassination films, absence of evidence is nothing short of conclusive proof. Just ask Wilbur Schramm and Ruth Leeds Love.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Paul Rigby
Indigestion

[Paul Rigby]

On the evening of Monday, 25 November 1963, two (of only three) films held to capture the assassination of President Kennedy were being worked upon. According to widely believed  myths of the assassination films’ histories, the film attributed to Abraham Zapruder was supposedly being suppressed as a film, but not as still photographs, a select number of which were being readied for publication in Life magazine’s first post-assassination edition (dated 29 November, though going to press late on 25 November or early the following day). The film attributed to Muchmore, by contrast, was being prepared for distribution as a film, but not as still photographs. None of these widely accepted claims, some of which have been previously examined in this thread, withstand scrutiny. 

Consider the case of the Zapruder stills. Their public debut occurred not within the covers of Life magazine’s first post-assassination edition, but within a newspaper on an island over three thousand miles away – and 5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time in the US. The Daily Express was Britain’s biggest selling daily paper at the time, boasting an established and much prized reputation for its use of photographs. On the evening of Monday, 25 November, it went to press with 11 stills, the earliest the frame we now number 230, from the Zapruder film. There was no question that the publication was authorised - “Copyright 1963 Life Magazine Time Incorporated. All rights reserved,” ran the conclusion of an accompanying piece about Zapruder and his film – or last minute: The photos appeared over two pages deep within that day’s edition, and not on the cover pages traditionally reserved for last minute insertions, additions, or revisions. So how and why did a British morning paper get such a jump on the US press? 

The conventional answer would likely dwell on the decades-long relationship between Lord Beaverbrook & Henry Luce, the respective owners of the Express & Time-Life. There were, after all, important similarities in background, method and ideology: Both men were sons of Presbyterian ministers; forged vast and influential media empires which they used ruthlessly to advance policies and politicians they supported; and were obsessive and unapologetic imperialists, both of whom had flirted (or worse) with fascism. Their relationship was further cemented by Luce’s two-year affair (1959-1961) with Beaverbrook’s grand-daughter, Lady Jeanne Campbell, who, after a spell as an Evening Standard correspondent in the US, had been working as a researcher at Time, and was subsequently promoted, by an enamoured and plainly grateful Luce, to Life. 

All of which is true, relevant - and inadequate. Sufficient, yes, to explain the Luce-Beaverbook collaboration, say, in the December 1963 race to capture photographs of the burning cruise ship the Lakonia off the Portuguese coast, but not the Zapruder frames exclusive. Beaverbrook knew enough about Anglo-American intelligence services to fear and never oppose them, as he was to reveal in a letter of reproof to Lady Jeanne Campbell after she committed the faux pas of criticising the CIA in an early despatch for the Evening Standard in 1956. Luce and his empire were the public face of the elite domestic institutional-oligarchical resistance to Kennedy’s policies. Both he and his media were joined at the hip with the CIA. The latter, as we saw in the previous post, was actively pushing, through CBS’ radio and television networks, for the showing of the first version of the Zapruder film on Monday, 25 November.  So did the release of those eleven frames by Life to the Daily Express have anything to do with that CIA push? 

Here the case of the Muchmore film is instructive. Contrary to the impression given by Richard Trask et al, that film was only one element in a package, not the totality of UPI Newsfilms’ work with it, as Maurice W. Schonfeld’s second 2011 epilogue to his 1975 piece for the Columbia Journalism Review made clear: “Originally, UPI Newsfilm had blown the Muchmore film up to 16mm, slow-moed it, stop-motioned it and delivered prints with scripts to all its clients. The original was turned over to the UPI still picture service, which sent frames from it to its clients.” Film, script, stills. Three elements. 

Remarkably, no examples of the first two categories survive, even though produced in significant numbers and distributed widely. Examples of the stills do, however, preserved by such disparate newspapers as the Philadelphia Daily News, the Orlando Evening Star and the San Francisco Chronicle. In the first two, both afternoon papers, the same four stills from the Muchmore film appeared; while in the last-named, a morning newspaper, only three of the four were utilised. There were two major problems, however, with these photos – the captions and the timings of their appearance. 

In all three papers, the Muchmore stills were labelled Zapruder’s and attributed to UPI. How was such a misattribution possible? UPI had never, according to the orthodox history, had anything to do with the Zapruder film. The chronology was even more baffling: It was the inverse of what one might reasonably expected had UPI distributed Muchmore stills from its New York HQ during the late evening of Monday, 25 November.  By this timeline, there was plenty of time for UPI customers in the Mid-West and West Coast to have incorporated them into next morning’s papers; and almost certainly for East Coast morning papers to have inserted them into later editions. Yet precisely the opposite occurred: The San Francisco Chronicle, a morning paper, only received them in time for its Wednesday, 27 November edition; and both the Philadelphia Daily News and Orlando Evening Star were afternoon-evening papers which splashed them on their respective front pages on Tuesday, 26 November. The evidence here leaves little doubt that the Muchmore stills distributed by UPI were sent no earlier than mid-morning on Tuesday, 26 November. 

The Muchmore film of the shooting comprised 66 frames, so a minimum of just over 6% of the film was converted to still photographs and distributed.  Were the 11 Zapruder frames published by The Daily Express on the late evening of 25 November originally intended to serve the same function as those four (or more) allegedly created from the Muchmore? That is, as accompaniments to, and reinforcing publicity for, a distributed Zapruder film? It certainly looks that way.

 

[Paul Rigby]

I am, er, delighted to welcome O J Groden to the list of converts to the previously heretical position that the Muchmore film was not shown on WNEW-TV in the first hour of Tuesday, 26 November.

https://youtu.be/YHCUcP8O7HM?t=9598

I assume he intended this somewhat startling reversal, but I am open to arguments that it was just another enormous O J Groden cock-up. I Rather hope the latter.

[Paul Rigby]

John Barbour on Black Op Radio, show #435, August 6, 2009, 44:40 until 47:36.

Quote

 

Oh, I have a lot of footage. I have some stunning footage. I got, I got a piece of footage that I would have loved to have put in there, and I could never get it in there. And it’s footage of Dan Rather.

You know Dan Rather was just a local reporter in Dallas at the time. Now how is it that Dan Rather, a local reporter, gets to go on CBS News to describe the Zapruder film - the Zapruder film which is in the hands of the Federal Government - and then goes on the air to lie about it? And the lie I’m telling you about is this.

I have him in a kinescope on television. He’s on CBS evening news and you see the motor vehicle moving and he’s describing everything that Jackie Kennedy’s wearing, the little pea-pod hat, the little pink outfit, the little roses on her lapel, describing what Kennedy’s wearing, describing everything that Connally has, got a little hat in his hand, describing everything, and he’s absolutely right in what he’s describing.

Then it comes to the time of the fatal shot. And he stops the Zapruder film and he looks into the camera. And he says: “This is too gruesome for you to see so I just have to describe what is happening. There is a gunshot. John Kennedy is struck in the back of the head and thrown violently forward.” Now I’ll tell you how I came across this film.

I was a lecturer at a university and some students got a hold of this film. Then they got a hold of the Zapruder film, and they ran Dan Rather’s audio over the Zapruder film, so you can see the man is obviously lying, because the gunshot hits him in the right temple, he’s thrown violently backwards, half of the skull is thrown out the left rear and on to a motorcycle cop, part of the skull is in the back and Jackie jumps out to grab it to bring it to the hospital in hopes she can repair her husband’s shattered head. And the College students, eighteen or nineteen years of age, start hooting and hollering that Dan Rather is a xxxx. You never saw that on the news. You never saw anybody report about how this guy lied; and nobody ever confronted him.

I never got that into the documentary. It would have made it too long. Because I was trying to tell Jim’s story and that’s a different story. If I ever get round to part II, part II will be about the extensive media cover-up…

 

Here’s a fascinating example of mischievous (film?) students at work, sometime in 1969 or the early 1970s, combining Rather’s commentary with the version of the Zapruder film that was released unofficially via the Garrison prosecution of Clay Shaw. Note that this version is not the same one as that described above by John Barbour; and that the edited extracts from Rather’s radio commentary did not originate from the transcript provided by Richard Trask. We are therefore listening to a selected elements of a second and different CBS radio commentary provided by Rather in the course of Monday, 25 November 1963:

https://youtu.be/bI50fgzwaKc

 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Paul Rigby
Inexactitude

[Paul Rigby]

On 2/13/2008 at 2:58 AM, Jack White said:

Paul...I checked the chapter on Muchmore. I could find no mention of NWEW-TV. What I did

find:

1. The FBI was not interested in her fillm

2. She sold the UNDEVELOPED film to UPI for $1000 (she did not see her film)

3. She denied taking footage on Elm Street

4. Nobody knew of her Elm footage till 1964 publication of FOUR DAYS

5. Following Trask's narrative of her activity, it seems impossible for her to move from her filming

location on Houston to the location where her "Elm footage" was shot from in the time allowed.

6. Her Elm footage lasts only 3 seconds, but is perfectly framed on the limo.

Jack

The first half of the following is solid work:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/yIskEfo4mfKO/

[Paul Rigby]

On 2/10/2008 at 1:35 PM, Paul Rigby said:

AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3:

Dallas, Tex.-AP - A strip of color movie film graphically depicting the assassination of President Kennedy was made by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8 millimeter camera.

Several persons in Dallas who have seen the film, which lasts about 15 seconds, say it clearly shows how the president was hit in the head with shattering force by the second of two bullets fired by the assassin.

Life magazine reportedly purchased still picture rights to the material for about $40,000.

("The film also was being distributed by United Press International Newsfilms to subscribing stations. WITI-TV in Milwaukee is a subscriber, but will reserve judgment on whether to show the film until after its officials have viewed it.")

The anonymous Milwaukee Journal reporter responsible for the words in parenthesis above was not the only local journalist who pursued the story-behind-the-film(s). Ed Seitz of the Cincinnati Enquirer was also moved to enquiry. The result was this fascinating report: 

Ed Seitz, “What’s Going … Those Assassination Films,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, Wednesday, 27 November 1963, 7:

From ‘Black Friday’ to ‘Blue Monday,’ the one thing Cincinnati TV watchers did NOT see was camera coverage at the instant of assassination. This may have been a blessing. But when the word got round Tuesday that Life magazine’s current issue was carrying movie clips of the actual shooting, news stand stocks were bought up in a hurry. Bell-Block sold out its quota of 150 copies in two hours, then said ‘sorry’ to a stream of would-be purchasers.

Behind this grisly episode in American history lies a story of high finance and commercial competition. Life, in spirited bidding for a Dallas amateur’s eight-millimeter movies, paid $40,000 for so-called ‘still’ rights – and that’s the short of it. For the movie rights, Time, Inc. (of which Life is a subsidiary) put out a reported $250,000.

Mims Thomason, United Press International president, told the Enquirer Tuesday he had bid $100,000 for the movie rights. He said one of his attorneys reported Time’s successful quarter-of-a-million bid. Because of the money involved, Mr. Thomason said he was glad his bid wasn’t accepted. But he conceded that the Time movies were ‘pretty good stuff.’ ‘It’ll be a good investment for 100 years,’ he said. ‘For documentary and historical purposes, it is priceless. For example, what would a movie of Lincoln’s assassination be worth now?’

Mr. Thomason said he had bought (price undisclosed) another amateur’s eight mm. movie film. Those are the shots you might have seen on WCPO-TV at noon, 7p.m. and 11 p.m. Tuesday. But the UPI executive admits they are inferior to Time-Life’s films, having been taken from the opposite side of the presidential limousine. Both movie strips, however, show the former First Lady frantically climbing out onto the trunk, shouting at the Secret Service man on the back bumper. How she bore up – then and in many public appearances of the next few days – no one can ever know.