Ken Rheberg
-
Posts
182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ken Rheberg
-
-
E-Mail Subject: Dan Rather
Date: Nov. 27, 2015
From: David S. Lifton
To: David Von Pein
---------------
DVP:
You stated that Dan Rather reported that JFK was transferred to an ambulance. I am aware that AP reported that factoid at about 12:49 CST (approx., I’m writing this from memory), but I did not know that Dan Rather actually read that dispatch over the air.
My request: could you please point me to the source of that particular piece of sound?
Your have archived quite a few radio stations on your YouTube channel, and I have no idea which one might be the one that carried that particular report.
Could you please point me to the source?
I would appreciate that.
Thank you.
DSL
================================================
DVP's Reply:
Here it is (linked below). It's a CBS radio report by Dan Rather, with Rather saying that JFK "was taken into an ambulance and rushed to Dallas' Parkland Hospital". This occurs at the 8:57 mark of Part 1 of my WCCO-Radio (Minneapolis) series, which equates to about 12:55 PM CST:
And in video form, here's Dan Rather narrating a film and saying that an ambulance had transported JFK to Parkland (it's at the 2:13:02 mark in Part 2 of my 5-part CBS-TV series):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqkcC7r96o
DVP
================================================
DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS (ON DECEMBER 2, 2015):
FYI for David Lifton....
I thought David might want to know of another instance in which a TV reporter said that JFK had been taken to Parkland Hospital in an ambulance. I noticed today in my NBC-TV coverage that Chet Huntley of NBC News also erroneously reported very early in the NBC coverage on 11/22/63 that the wounded President had been "transferred to an ambulance". That clip with Huntley comes 10 minutes and 35 seconds into Part 1 of my new high-quality version of the NBC assassination coverage (below), which equates to about 1:00 PM Dallas time.
================================================
Addendum:
Walter Cronkite of CBS also mentions the "ambulance" in his second bulletin that aired on CBS-TV at 12:43 PM CST (at the 13:51 mark in the video below). So I'm guessing that I could easily find similar references to the same incorrect AP report about the ambulance on ABC as well. If one network was saying it, you can bet they all were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0qdvCQY22g?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIMRSDT19pXjBuGLcXKqS-3r&t=831
The CBS-TV Part 1 coverage posted here has been edited from 2:24:23 - 2:24:33. Who did this and why?
Ken
-
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. -
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.KenI'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.
-
I'm stunned and very sad to hear about this.Gary and I corresponded many, many times over the years. We shared information with each other and had a number of interesting discussions, some lively but always civil and respectful. His knowledge of all things JFK was extraordinary, and no one can really replace him.Ken
-
As reported on Fox (no surprise). . .
Why no surprise, Pat? Not sure what you're getting at.
-
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 -
A few troubling observations about forum closure:1. John Simkin said, "The current account expires at the end of July 2014 and we do not intend to renew it."Essentially, this forum is going to close down. We were put on notice of this some time ago. I'm not sure who "we" refers to as in "we do not intend to renew it", but my guess would be John and Andy Walker.2. It's been over a week now since John started this thread, and he has not yet publicly responded to any of the offers made regarding how to save this forum. I'd say John really means what he says.3. John did suggest that anyone interested in taking over the forum should contact Andy.To date, apparently no one has contacted Andy. That is mind-boggling to say the least.In other words, because good-hearted, well-meaning members can't follow up on John's vital suggestion, this forum will surely close down at the end of July 2014.4. Only two forum members have raised the issue of whether or not the archived materials will survive if the forum does, indeed, close down.The archived materials should be the number one priority. Not only for us but for generations to come. It's hard to imagine all that opinion, debate and research over many years just simply disappearing.But it's been happening elsewhere.Robert Harris decided to close down his JFK History forum, and everything has vanished. Many good things. All gone. As if they never existed. Wasn't there a way to save those archived materials?JFK Lancer, of all places, began showing the preliminary signs of forum closure in August of last year when it shut down for a few days and moderator Jerry Dealey assured everyone that the powers that be were looking to upgrade forum software and then he expressed his concern about not wanting to lose 14 years of threads and topics, a concern that seems to be oddly lacking in this current thread.Well, it looks like Lancer has lost 14 years of threads and topics. As if they never existed. Wasn't there a way to save those archived materials either?Maybe current Lancer Chairman Larry Hancock could enlighten us on that. Why, Larry? Why have you and your associates decided to junk all those Lancer forum threads? Whatever possessed you to do that?Meanwhile, what's the point of starting new JFK assassination forums if members can't be guaranteed that archived threads won't all wind up in the trash bin, which ultimately wastes our time and deprives future generations of a valuable resource?Ken
-
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
-
Trayne refers to Rather's third Zapruder film summary broadcast time of 6:30 PM EST as "debatable". Good for him. That time was off by almost two hours.
-
Looming over all of this is the story told by KRLD's Bob Huffaker in the book he co-authored with fellow reporters Bill Mercer, George Phenix and Wes Wise, "When the News Went Live." I interviewed Bob after the book came out in 2004, and he did not back off the following statement:
"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite's evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes. . . As I ran the now-famous film time after time, Dan and I talked about what it's fuzzy sequence revealed. . . Dan went to a typewriter, then into our television studio, where he reported our conclusions for CBS. Like the rest of us, he read directly from the copy he wrote. . ."
This contradicts Rather's version in all respects. But the story doesn't end there.
By the way, thanks to Craig for posting the video of Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview. There's a blockbuster revelation in there that no one has picked up on so far.
Ken
. . . And are we taking into account that people generally try to inflate their own importance when they retell a story (that minnow becomes a whale eventually).
I think we're seeing some of that in the above. . .
. . . I find it difficult to put much credence in Huffaker's claims.
Hank
Bob Huffaker is a good guy who has accomplished a great deal in his life. To suggest that he may be trying to inflate his own importance is ridiculous.
-
Looming over all of this is the story told by KRLD's Bob Huffaker in the book he co-authored with fellow reporters Bill Mercer, George Phenix and Wes Wise, "When the News Went Live." I interviewed Bob after the book came out in 2004, and he did not back off the following statement:
"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite's evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes. . . As I ran the now-famous film time after time, Dan and I talked about what it's fuzzy sequence revealed. . . Dan went to a typewriter, then into our television studio, where he reported our conclusions for CBS. Like the rest of us, he read directly from the copy he wrote. . ."
This contradicts Rather's version in all respects. But the story doesn't end there.
By the way, thanks to Craig for posting the video of Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview. There's a blockbuster revelation in there that no one has picked up on so far.
Ken
Mr. Rheberg
I assume this viewing Bob Huffaker is describing took place after Mr. Rather's radio and TV broadcasts that Mr. Speer posted for us? Or did it take place before then?
And a "blockbuster revelation" in Mr. Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview?? Good God, man, don't keep us in suspense here! Share it with us!
The Zapruder film viewing Bob Huffaker describes would have taken place on Monday before all of Rather's broadcasts. Rather didn't see the Zapruder film one time. He saw it over and over again for the better part of an hour, according to Bob, with Rather taking notes and then referring to his own typewritten copy of them for his CBS reports.
The 50th Anniversary expanded edition of Bob's book is coming out on October 7. It'll be interesting to see if he has more to say about this subject.
As for Rather's "Archive" interview, I hope to get back to you later today on that. Thanks for your patience.
Ken
-
Looming over all of this is the story told by KRLD's Bob Huffaker in the book he co-authored with fellow reporters Bill Mercer, George Phenix and Wes Wise, "When the News Went Live." I interviewed Bob after the book came out in 2004, and he did not back off the following statement:
"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite's evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes. . . As I ran the now-famous film time after time, Dan and I talked about what it's fuzzy sequence revealed. . . Dan went to a typewriter, then into our television studio, where he reported our conclusions for CBS. Like the rest of us, he read directly from the copy he wrote. . ."
This contradicts Rather's version in all respects. But the story doesn't end there.
By the way, thanks to Craig for posting the video of Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview. There's a blockbuster revelation in there that no one has picked up on so far.
Ken
-
Mr. MacRae
As Mr. Lamson seems to be desperately avoiding the question, perhaps you could tell this forum how Mr. Rather was able to see the violent forward motion of JFK's head, if that entire forward motion took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film?
Poor bobby, you are SO technically inept.
Ever heard of slow speed playback? Frame by frame playback?
You seem to (wrongly) assume the film had to be viewed at a single playback speed. (And what playback speed would that be bobby?)
Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather. Neither do you.
But one thing is abundantly clear, you simply don't have a clue how REALITY works.
You should have quit MANY posts ago.
So you don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather.
Maybe Dan can help you. This is what he said fourteen years after the assassination. . .
"The lawyer laid out the ground rules for us. . . You went in, looked at the film one time, took no notes, came out and gave him your bid. . . I stepped into the room, did not even sit down, looked at the film one time, hooked it out of there and fled back to the station."
Dan "hooked it out of there" so fast that he never even made a bid. He was more concerned at the time with getting his description of the film on TV. "Then, and only then, would we get into the bidding," he said.
That should be clear enough for most reasonable people. The picture he's painting here is a quick, one-time only showing of a 22 second film, first for Dan, after which Dan was supposed to have made a bid. Then it would be the next viewer's turn. And the next. No cruel, sick slow-mo of a grizzly head shot. Regular speed was bad enough. Just show the film. One time for each viewer. Twenty-two seconds. Get the bid. In and out. Dan Rather's version of Saturday morning.
All the other evidence, however, paints a completely different picture. Which happened on Monday.
-
Thanks, Duncan.This is a snippet from the third broadcast of Rather's Zapruder film description shown four hours after the first two at 8:26pm EST the Monday following the assassination.Again, the three broadcasts are not the same one televised three separate times. They're all different.More on this later.Ken
-
So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this.
Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward....
Thirty-six years ago, Dan admitted that he was in error. According to Dan, the President's head lurches "slightly forward." It then "explodes backward." He went on to refer to this as a "violent, backward reaction." The "violent" part of his prior description has now been transferred from the forward movement to the backward movement. No more violent forward movement of the head.
-
Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site.
"Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was -
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.
Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. "
What happened to the hundred frames?
Worth keeping handy:
Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230)
Paul,Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted.Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this.One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it.Ken -
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.
-
Well i will not differ on the poorly, but rather with many witnesses after giving their statements, found they were not as they had related, i guess that could be called as being treated poorly, Dallas in 1963, was as many citys of the South, blacks were not treated gently, now there's a word, there was still the kk around and many members, the John Birchers, and lots of red necks, it was the way things were, after integration , and Dallas to it's credit, did so with such finese they did not have the problems that many cities reeled from, things did become some better, but it took years to finally really take hold, and to this day there are still areas which still will not treat some others as human..in the south,and that is also found in areas in other countries, there are within this forum links to information from research, books, that will make what it was like much clearer.......imo...b
i found this information re Casey Quinlan's information that has been related to us by Joe, thanks....fwiw for any members interested...b
http://www.jfklancer...mode=full#91875
The DVD of his presentation is available here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/nidmedia/Dallas10.html
Debra also states''When you go through the presentation, please keep in mind that Casey said it was speculation, these names were given to him and not authenticated. The source is not always reliable........""
Good to see Debra's disclaimer regarding Casey's presentation. It's all speculation as Casey also attested to. The names given to him were not authenticated. Besides, the story is simply not true.
This much is correct:
1. Black Dog Man is not a woman holding a baby.
2. The Black couple who sat on a bench behind the retaining wall and ate lunch together prior to the assassination are not the Black couple filmed together behind the same wall after the shooting.
The following is incorrect:
Black Dog Man is a guy wearing a black hoodie.
Ken
-
Thompson never asked Sitzman, "Did either of these two move up to the end of the wall?" He asked her, "Did you notice (if they did)?" Her answer was, "No." In other words, "No. I didn't notice." She went on to elaborate: "They may have. I don't know." That is to say, "They may have moved up to the end of the wall. I don't know." She allowed for such a move but didn't notice it because her focus had obviously been elsewhere. Thompson responded immediately, "Of course, you were looking at the parade at that point, and you wouldn't have seen what they did." Sitzman never said that the kids on the bench did not move up to the end of the wall at some time prior to or during the shooting.
-
Marilyn Sitzman referred to this couple twice as kids and once as a boy and girl. She estimated their ages to be between eighteen and twenty-one. As far as who or what they had with them, she only mentioned "little lunch sacks" and a couple of Coke bottles. They were kids, younger than Sitzman who was only twenty-three. Emmett Hudson, however, said the "young fellow" standing next to him on the stairs was in his late twenties. Everything this man told Hudson, as well as what he did prior to the shots, was indicative of someone who was there alone. He had no connection whatsoever to Sitzman's kids who were also there by themselves.
-
There's absolutely no doubt that Hill was briefly in the street as the President's limo travelled down Elm. But by the time it reached her location, she was back in the grass as evidenced by her own placement of herself as well as the limo in the Warren Commission diagram following Specter's original request:
"Now, would you place with the letter 'A' where you were at the time the President went by?"
She placed herself up in the grass as the limo passed right in front of her. And she testified to this under oath only four months after the assassination when it was all still fresh in her mind.
-
David
I think she made the drawing during her WC interview with Specter...
and no, according to Moorman the girls were not back on the grass at the time of the Mormann photographs. Moormann says she was out on the street for 4 to 5 seconds and than did a picture...both were on the street for several seconds, Hill jumped back from the Lincoln Limo suddenly...(see the first post)
KK
I cannot believe that this nonsense has come up again, but not surprised by who is doing it, and certainly not surprised that the same old failed allegation doesn't mention the evidence against itself.
Jean Hill did step out into the street, but as she made it very clear to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio, Jean said that she had gotten back out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired. Two things support Jean on this issue.
1) Jean said JFK looked to her side of the street when she was off the curb and had yelled at him. This last look to Jean's side of the street by JFK came around the break in the film between Z155 and Z160.
2) Altgens photo taken by Z255/56 does indeed show Jean to be back on the grass as she claimed she had done during the interview with Osanic. Altgens had his photos developed and sent out on the wire immediately following the shooting.
So it is not a question of whether Jean stepped out into the street, but rather when she stepped back out of it. The first shot sounded just prior Z202, thus according to Jean Hill, she was already back out of the street before Altgens took his photo.
As far as Moorman being in the street, unless she held her camera high above her head, Moorman could only have only been in the grass because her lens height is approximately 54" off the ground and the top of the cycles shield is approximately 58" tall. Morroman's Polaroid shows Mary's lens to be elevated above the tops of the cycles shields.
To summarize: When a caller to Black Op Radio asked Jean about when it was she had gotten into the street, Jean broke it down to both when she entered the street and when she had gotten back out of it. Altgens photo supports what Jean had said about being back up in the grass before the first shot had been fired.
Moorman's Polaroid was filmed about 30 minutes post assassination and while she still had possession of her photograph, thus alteration cannot possible be remotely considered at this point.
When Fetzer and White attempted to show that Moormasn was in the street, they inadvertently did the opposite for their recreation photo showed a shifting from over the curb (Moorman's Polaroid) to being down in the street where Feter and White thought she was. That shift can be easily followed by the spacing between the reference points on the colonnade and the corner of the pedestal.
Bill Miller
What Jean Hill told Len Osanic about where she was standing is important. But what's the earliest story we have from her on this? The closer to the assassination the fresher the memory. Well, I suppose the earliest story is what Karl is referring to: her Warren Commission testimony on March 24, 1964. Unfortunately for Karl, he's misidentified the "X" or "cross" as he calls it. Karl says:
"She made her cross ON the street---"
But the cross isn't identifying Jean's location. It's identifying the President's.
On the diagram we're talking about, Arlen Specter first tells Jean to "place him [the President] with the letter 'X'." He then tells her to "place yourself with the letter 'A'."
The letter "A" in the diagram, meaning Jean, is clearly in the grass, not in the street. The "X" in the street is President Kennedy, not Jean. So Jean had indicated only four months after the assassination that she was in the grass, not in the street, when the President's limo passed by at or about the time of the Moorman photo.
Ken
-
[First off I cannot agree that the acceptance and even reality of the SBT removes a shooter from the grassy knoll blowing JFK's head off.... these two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive by any means.. and if you continue on from that sentence with Gary's POV... he gives strong credibility to the acoustics that place such a shot there... and in Badgeman who also would have shot JFK in the head from there if he actually exists... while at the same time carefully accepting and supporting the conclusions that keep him employed.
Amazes me how people such as yourself come to a thread, conclude that it's just another unecessary thread, read thru its posts and feel compelled to add a comment identifying it as such... DON'T view the Harris threads and DON'T involve yourself in threads you consider folly.... how hard is that? Instead, instigate and post responses that perpetuate the nonsense.
The "crap" Duncan refers to are things like Dean's comments because he doesn't like what Gary PMs him, or your insistence that GM has no redeeming value whatsoever...
Lee: "As far as I'm aware, Bill, Mr. Mack has said nothing publicly on any of those points in quite some time. Everything he says and does publicly - like on Inside the Target Car - supports the official story that Oswald acted alone. He might talk about the acoustics or badgemen or the fake SS agent in private but not at the museum or on the Discovery Channel. Which proves my point doesn't it?"
I believe this proves MY point Martin.... has VB, Myers, McAdams, Posner ever showed the slightest indication that something other than the WCR is gospel? Is it sad that he has to tow the company line? That the man has a DILEMNA that dove tails into OUR DILEMNA of not having a single, respectible, public CONVERT given the proponderance of evidence and that Gary may be the only chink in the armor at htis point....
Do you have anyone else in mind?
Finally, Robert's posts help identify what I saw as the problem/dilemna, that no one seems to want to address...
We still don't have a place that people can walk thru and experience that shows the 6th floor exhibits for what they are and presents the variety of Conspiracy ideas and the extensive evidence in their support....
We don't need conclusions in this museum... just the evidence.... a few "really? I didn't know that"'s and some coverage and who knows...maybe history does change.
Do you suppose they put up the proof that FDR/USA knew about Pearl Harbor at the Pearl Harbor museum? probably not
You've got than wrong, mate. Gary does not believe that the fatal shot came from the knoll. He believes that there might have been a missed shot from behind the fence.
For the exact quote, here's Gary Mack (at about the 5:50 mark) in JFK: Inside the Target Car. . .
"If anything, we found that, if there was a shot from the grassy knoll, that shooter missed."
-
As i understand it, Rather puts his position while waiting for the film toss as somewhere between the Daniel family and the west side of the underpass wall.
While going through Oswald's Ghost Bell frames, i found a frame that looks to show a man seen through the walkway in the underpass wall.
could this be Rather. ?
Click on thumbnail to view full size.
Dan Rather currently places himself at the base of the west side of the Triple Underpass when the shots were fired. It's the second -- and completely different -- version of where he was that day and what he did immediately thereafter. This story began at least in the early seventies. The first was told back in 1964. The two conflicting stories make Dan appear to be the only mentally competent American above the age of twelve at the time of the assassination who doesn't remember where he was or what he was doing when he found out about it. Yet he was in Dallas, coordinating CBS coverage of everything to do with President Kennedy, before and after this tragedy.
Dan couldn't have been in Dealey Plaza. He was at KRLD.
Kennedy Videos
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted