Ken Rheberg

Denis, The claim, by anyone, that Tom Craven's film was lost in the developing process at KRLD is incorrect and easy to disprove. In Gary Mack's Email 1, KRLD processor operator Henk Dewit (correct spelling) told Gary a few reels of film were damaged early that afternoon during processing at KRLD. So, Gary concluded, Craven's film was apparently one of them. Then in Gary's Email 2, Gary expanded on what Henk had said. Early that afternoon, the first one or two reels of film were ruined while being processed. But Craven's film wasn't one of the first one or two reels of film to find its way in to KRLD that day. Craven's two rolls of film were among the last, if not the last, of the pre-Oswald films to show up. They were finally in the studio and being developed around 2:30 pm Dallas time. In fact, all of the early films were taken by KRLD photographers. It's as simple as that. There's more proof than this that the Craven film was not ruined, and Gary became aware of it before he passed away. Of course, the above begs the question: Why did Craven's film take so long to arrive at KRLD, and how did it finally make its way there? The answer should be obvious to anyone who really wants to get to the bottom of what happened in Dealey Plaza that Friday. By the way, I also interviewed KRLD film chief Henk Dewit. That was in 1999, twenty years ago, the year before he died. Henk was the one who processed and saw up close all of those KRLD and CBS films. It was an enlightening conversation to say the least. Ken

Denis, I'm fine with that. Both you and Gayle Nix Jackson have publicly, on your websites, kept the mystery of Tom Craven and his film alive for a number of years. I've just been waiting for the right time to jump in and tell what I know, and the time, I believe, is now. Finally. That wait has been a long one. Fifty-six years this November 22. For those who really want to take this investigation to a whole, new level: Craven and his film, along with the film of James Underwood, will break this case wide open. But don't expect any help from the so-called "research community" on this. It's going to be a fight, trust me on that. These people just don't want to go there. Why? How could that be? This is a story that cries out for investigation every time the photographic record pops up. I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw Tom Craven on the cover of Joseph McBride's book, "Into the Nightmare." Yes, follow Craven and you will definitely be taken down the road into the nightmare of the Kennedy assassination cover-up. I feel good about Mr. McBride. We'll see how he responds to all this. And take note of those on the forum who don't participate in this discussion. That will tell you a lot. Meanwhile, I'll be responding to your question about Henk Dewit and the processing of Craven's film sometime over the next few days. Ken

KRLD, where Dan Rather was headquartered that day, was just four blocks away from Dealey Plaza on North Griffin Street, a quick and simple walk back. The logical place for Dan to be stationed in order to catch a roll or rolls of CBS film would have been anywhere along the motorcade route in Dealey Plaza. Just as Dallas Times-Herald reporter James Featherston was stationed near the corner of Main and Houston to catch film thrown to him by Herald cameraman Bob Jackson. To suggest that Dan would head all the way down to the Stemmons Freeway on-ramp to collect the film is a real stretch at best. It makes no sense. But to imply, further, that Dan or any other sane reporter would instead station themselves even further away from the studio -- miles not blocks -- anywhere along the side of a fast, busy freeway to catch some film. . . well, that's a baffling thought indeed. No, it seems clear to me what Dan meant was that he was outside of the Trade Mart, next to the Stemmons Freeway, waiting for the film drop. This was apparently the understanding of Dallas historian and SMU professor emeritus Darwin Payne -- a Dallas Times-Herald reporter at the time of the assassination -- when he wrote about the Press in action that day for a 1969, 53-page Journalism Monograph. He said that members of the news media -- some four or five newsmen -- were waiting outside of the Trade Mart for the arrival of the President. One reporter saw the motorcade speed by without stopping and convinced a police officer to take him to the hospital in an unmarked car. Darwin then said: "Another television newsman at the Trade Mart, Dan Rather of CBS-TV, reacted differently. Upon seeing the passing motorcade, he rushed in his waiting taxi-cab to the downtown office of KRLD-TV, the Dallas CBS affiliate station." I had the pleasure of speaking with Darwin on a few occasions back in 2003, some 34 years after he wrote that monograph. I was curious as to how he had concluded that Dan was actually at the Trade Mart when the motorcade passed by. He couldn't remember and wasn't sure where his notes were. However, with a copy of that monograph in my hands, it appeared to me that he was simply relying on John Mayo's book, "Bulletin from Dallas." Mayo had taped interviews with several reporters active on the day of the assassination. One of them was Dan Rather. It's in that transcript of his interview where Dan mentions the Stemmons Freeway, the Trade Mart, and taking a cab back to KRLD after the limo sped past. That would have to mean sped past the Trade Mart. Otherwise it makes no sense. Darwin referenced Mayo's book seven times with footnotes in his monograph and, to me, this was his source, and understanding, for placing Dan at the Trade Mart when the shots were fired. But this was all rendered meaningless when Dan came up with another story documented in his 1977 book, "The Camera Never Blinks." He was now standing on the north side of Elm Street, next to the west side of the triple underpass when the shots were fired. Backed up by a later photo of him standing in that precise spot. Except for one thing. He wasn't at the Trade Mart. And he wasn't standing next to the underpass. He wasn't anywhere between the underpass and the Trade Mart. He was at the KRLD-TV studio. This was confirmed by someone who worked closely with him on 11/22/63. I can't emphasize this enough. If you (and I mean "you" collectively, the research community as a whole) really, seriously, want to get to the bottom of what happened that day in Dealey Plaza, this is where it all begins. But "you" just won't go there. Resist. Deflect. Ignore. Avoid. Mislead. Argue. Attack. Maybe this is where it all ends. Come on you people. Get with it. Ken

You said, "The footage he took in Dealey Plaza was allegedly permanently damaged during its process at KRLD due to water damage." Not true, Denis. That never happened to Craven's Dealey Plaza footage. It came through the developing process in pristine condition. Please tell us where you came up with this misleading story. And for those reading along, I want to make sure you all understand I have the utmost respect for what Denis Morissette has done with regards to the press coverage of the assassination and the photographic record more than anything. He's one of the few who has dared to bring up Tom Craven and his film. Denis had nothing to do with the origin of that misleading water damage story. It's time to clear things up. Ken

Two stories so different it boggles the mind. In 1964 Dan Rather said he was "stationed along the expressway leading to the Trade Mart." In other words, he was stationed by the Stemmons Freeway at the point of the Trade Mart which is so close to the freeway that its address is 2200 Stemmons Freeway. After the Presidential limousine sped past, he took a cab back to KRLD. But no one has ever been able to confirm Dan's presence at the Trade Mart when the shots were fired. No photos, film or tape. And no personal recollection of anyone seeing him there at that time. Dan's appearance at the Trade Mart about an hour later that day was supported by KRLD's Eddie Barker. In 1977, however, Dan completely changed his story saying that he was "on the other side of the railroad tracks, beyond the triple underpass, thirty yards from a grassy knoll that would later figure in so many conspiracy theories." In other words, he was now right next to the west side of the triple underpass. From there he ran back to KRLD. Dan would confirm this new spot in an article he wrote back then for "Scholastic Magazine." On a Dealey Plaza map, he marked off his location on the north side of Elm Street close to the west side of the underpass. Many years later he offered to stand in that same spot and was photographed there for all to see. No confusion anymore. The place where he was allegedly standing when the shots were fired was right next to the west side of the underpass on the north side of Elm. But we know this was impossible because the Daniels film and a McIntire photo show nobody at that place, at that time. That's because Dan was really in the KRLD-TV studios when the shots were fired. And this can be confirmed. So why two completely different stories, both not true? And why did Dan leave KRLD to stop by the Trade Mart an hour after the assassination, something he's never admitted to anywhere? Follow Dan Rather that day, and you wind up with the biggest story of them all. There really were two people shooting that day. Hard evidence of it, as Gary Mack would say, that cannot be disputed. Ken

You've done a lot of work on this project, Denis. Unfortunately, critical information you posted on the three most important figures from that Friday (more important even than Zapruder) is either incorrect or misleading at best. The three? Dan Rather. James Underwood. And Tom Craven. Maybe now, after almost 56 years, it's finally time for the truth to be told about what really happened in Dealey Plaza just before, during, and after the shots. So let's start with Dan Rather. Why did you place him, incorrectly, at the Stemmons Freeway on-ramp? Ken

Jeff, Thanks for your response. By the way, I've noticed that Jim DiEugenio has now placed the "irrelevant" tag on Dan Rather in one of his posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before I reply to him, however, I wanted to get back to you first. It appears that Dan really viewed the Zapruder film in the KRLD projection room on the Monday after the assassination, not in an attorney's office. According to KRLD's Bob Huffaker, after bringing a copy of the film in a few days following the shooting and viewing it with Bob over and over for about an hour, all the while taking notes, Dan typed up his notes and reported his observations from those notes on the CBS Television Network the same day. That would be Monday. The record shows that Dan made one radio report and three televised reports that day. You can see Dan constantly looking down to his notes during those televised reports. How else could he remember all that? There were no other reports regarding his Zapruder film viewing made on any other days that I'm aware of. This version flies in the face of the story Dan has told over the years. I interviewed the late Bob Huffaker extensively back in 2001, reviewed some things with him in 2007, and I trust what he had to say about everything he told me. The story about Bob and Dan is also in his book, "When the News Went Live." That story is hardly "irrelevant." Then, if you backtrack to Friday, the day of the assassination, and follow Dan's movements and activities and recorded words, what really happened in Dealey Plaza finally begins to take shape. But Jim DiEugenio does not want to do this. Like a little child kicking and screaming on his way to the dentist, he just would rather not go there, no pun intended. And others on this forum apparently don't want to go there either. Some, quite possibly, even on this very thread. And, as I've said before, I'm confident that Dan knew nothing about the assassination beforehand. He simply found himself in an unexpected right place at the right time. His retelling of history and avoidance of what really happened to him on that Friday is the story of a lifetime which Jim DiEugenio, and many others, have chosen not to pursue. Maybe Oliver Stone will one day. JFK 2. Ken

Dan Rather really gave three CBS-TV reports on the Zapruder film the Monday after the assassination. The first broadcast began at 4:18:00 p.m. (EST). The second broadcast began at 4:31:40 p.m. (EST). The third broadcast began at 8:26 p.m. (EST). He also described the film for CBS radio that same day. So where did he actually view the film before broadcasting what he saw? Ken

Michaleen, You've touched on a significant event in this whole assassination mess. To hopefully set the record straight, once and for all: On which day and at what location did Rather's Zapruder film viewing take place? Ken

Don Roberdeau has done a tremendous amount of work on this and provided us all with a valuable resource. Good to see that Don has included the following: 1. Sixty-year-old F. Lee Mudd as Redshirt Man standing several steps below Emmett J. Hudson and the "young fellow. . . in his late twenties. . . [who] worked over there on Industrial" on the grassy knoll stairway. 2. Fourteen-year-old LV Stockard Junior High student Alan Smith as one of the two, letterman jacket-clad teenage boys on the Elm Street sidewalk behind and just west of the Chisms. 3. Thirty-six-year-old Doris Mumford as the woman sitting in the grass near the Newman family shortly after the shots. Thanks, Don. Ken

I had the pleasure of interviewing Faye Chism nearly 15 years ago. She had no camera with her in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. Only her husband John and her son Ricky. So she wasn't taking photographs or shooting film. Not sure how or where you came up with that erroneous idea. Ken

John, It's good to see that Chris Scally and Pat Speer came up with the same conclusion that I had about Alan Smith. Up until today, I hadn't seen their articles/remarks on this subject. A number of years ago I passed on what I had come up with at the time to Debra Conway on the Lancer forum. She had an interest in this witness. I included contact information for the school librarian and suggested that attempts be made to turn up the Stockard 1963-1964 yearbook in order to confirm that an Alan Smith had indeed been a student there. It seems like this information was then either passed on, directly or indirectly, in one way or another, to Chris Scally or Chris took note of my post himself from the forum thread. At any rate, he did exactly what I had recommended by contacting the school while I continued on with my efforts to do the same. We both discovered, independently, and unfortunately and unexpectedly, that there was no 1963-1964 yearbook in the library to review. A phone number was given to me for a city office that might be able to provide some assistance. I reached a dead end. Chris was given the same number. He persevered and got the answer that he was looking for. Good for Chris! He was able to confirm that Alan Smith was a student at the school during that time period. Bob Goodman was not. That means Goodman's story about being Alan Smith should be disregarded. Smith's location on Main Street rather than Elm Street was a simple mistake. And his mention of a building from which shots were fired being behind him (the TSBD) is correct. Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza? Very small and compact. The TSBD really was behind him. I believe witness Alan Smith, and I have no reason not to believe him. There may be more of the story to uncover if he is still alive and efforts are made to reach him. Ken

Your 2? wearing school jackets and standing near the north Elm Street curb would be just two of the boys from Lester Vester Stockard Junior High School (Now Stockard Middle School). The rest of the kids can be seen running across the grassy knoll shortly after the shooting, heading for the area where the picket fence meets the Triple Underpass. By that time the two standing at the curb had run up the knoll to take refuge in the east Pergola shelter. They then joined their fellow students in the dash across the knoll toward the Underpass/fence location. All of them apparently had permission from their parents to miss school that day to see the President. One of the two at the curb, your 2? couple, would have been 14-year-old, ninth-grader Alan Smith. Ken

After reviewing all of the relevant films and photos as well as statements from witnesses, I feel as confident as I've ever been that the two women, as seen in the Bronson photo, standing by the lamppost, are journalism student Cheryl McKinnon to our left of the post and 36-year-old Doris Mumford to our right of it. Immediately after the shots, the older Mumford dropped down to the grass near the Newmans. At the same time McKinnon bolted up Elm -- as seen in a frame of the Wiegman film -- and, in my opinion, was the woman who approached both officers Welcome Barnett and Joe Marshall Smith, running, in hysterics, with a report that someone was shooting from the bushes. Ken

Not true that Don Hewitt and CBS have colluded in the cover up for the past 55 years. Hewitt died in 2009. Although CBS has yet to tell the full story, don't blame them. If you're looking for someone to blame, then blame the entire media, the government, and the so-called "research community" for their role in suppressing the one piece of hard evidence that would blow this case wide open. And by the way, Day One doesn't begin with Dan Rather's comments about the Zapruder film on Monday November 25, 1963. It begins with Rather on the day of the assassination. Where he was, what he did, what he said, what he didn't say for a 2 1/2 hour period from 12:30pm to 3:00pm CST. Following this simple trail leads to that one piece of hard evidence. Will anyone go there? Probably not. No one has publicly gone there for over 55 years now. Maybe it's about time. Finally. I can't stress enough that Dan Rather had no knowledge at all of the assassination before the shooting began. He did, however, find himself in a unique place that would change his life forever. Ken

Reading threads from the dying so-called "research community" can be frustrating. This is where we're at after more than 55 years: Oswald is officially still the lone gunman. No conspiracy. And the "research community" has done nothing to change all that. I can't be any more clear on this. Nothing. That includes forums, journalists, authors and those beloved conferences down through the years. Here, on this thread, a forum member has said that JFK was murdered in a military-style ambush and that's as much truth as we'll ever get. Well, here's the real truth: our government and the media knew within 2 1/2 hours that there was more than one gunman thanks to what Gary Mack called "hard evidence." In other words, evidence that can't be disputed. Evidence, in this case, that's been suppressed all these years in one massive cover up. All that was needed to make it work was a "research community" that would somehow turn their collective backs on this obvious indisputable evidence. And that's exactly what has happened. The evidence is still out there. Waiting to be uncovered. What could it possibly be? Ken

The shadowy figure you've circled on the east side of the grassy knoll in Bothun #4 has nothing to do with the couple who were standing at the top of the stairs (BDM) in Moorman and Betzner.

By the time of the Moorman photo, the couple had already dropped down behind the wall for cover. That's why you don't see them in Moorman.

We do see them in Willis and Betzner. Standing at the very top of the stairs. On the concrete. Not in the grass behind and against the retaining wall as some have said. A female closest to the camera. A male to her right, blocked from our view by the female, just as Emmett Hudson was blocked from our view by his "young fellow. . . about in his late twenties," in the Willis photo. In other words, this female and male are what we now call "Black Dog Man." They could only have been Sitzman's "colored couple. . . between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl" who were sitting on the bench prior to the motorcade coming down Elm Street. There was no one else it could have been. So, yes, we should have seen them if they had been sitting on the bench just before the shots were fired in both Willis and Betzner. But they weren't on the bench. By then they were standing at the top of the stairs. Ken

Ron, I have no problem whatsoever with whether you were being serious or sarcastic about this. It was hard to tell considering your many posts over the years where you can be serious and, yes, sarcastic at times. Your answer above seems to indicate that you weren't being sarcastic but that you were serious. The young, black couple sitting on the bench behind the retaining wall left the bench to see the President and were photographed twice by two different cameramen as they stood at the top of the stairs when the shooting began. Who else could it have been? "Who was right there in the area?", you asked. That's how I understand what you were trying to say. Am I correct? I hope so. Ken

Ron, I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic here. Could you please clarify? Thanks. Ken

Denny, Could you give us an update on how your efforts are going in obtaining a PDF document of Couch's 2007 oral history from the Sixth Floor Museum? If you've changed your mind for any reason about doing this, then let us know and I'll be glad to step in and request a copy. On the other hand, if you're in the process of proceeding as you indicated above, please indicate what Couch had to say about the "brain matter" (mistakenly called a "pool of blood" by Belin) that he saw that day. Hopefully, this will answer some questions and clarify how his story fits in with the stories of Jerry Coley and Jean Hill. It could also open up a whole new, but fascinating, can of worms. Ken

I don't believe the Oral History PDF's are available online. Just give Museum Curator Stephen Fagin a call to place an order for the transcript.

Malcolm Couch has two oral histories archived at the Sixth Floor Museum. One was taken in 1989, the other in 2007. The latter addresses, in detail, the pool of blood issue . A 40 page PDF document of this history can be obtained for a relatively small charge. I don't have my copy yet, but I plan to obtain one soon. I hope it clears up many questions that you and others have about this subject. It's extremely important, in my opinion. I don't believe David Belin did a very good job of making clear for all of us down through the years what Couch was trying to say.

I had no reason to question Malcolm Couch's credibility or doubt his sincerity. His passion was his Christian faith. He was a pastor for many years, an author of numerous books on Bible prophecy, and founded Tyndale Theological Seminary. At the time I spoke to him, he was not doing well physically and was using a walker. I've heard over the years, many times, that he had seen a pool of blood in Dealey Plaza. So when he told me that this wasn't accurate, I was quite surprised to say the least. But he was adamant that it was not a pool of blood. It was brain matter. He then suggested that I check out his oral history at the Sixth Floor Museum. "It's all in there," he said. When you review his testimony before the Warren Commission, you'll see that he never calls it a pool of blood. Just one reference to blood. It's Warren Commission attorney David Belin who, in his questioning of Couch, characterizes it himself as a pool of blood and uses the term twice. Ken