The "other" film?

[Richard Hocking]

...

It's clear why Duncan felt it necessary to quote Richard out of context. How much extra effort would it have been to post the quote in full? None.

Duncan prefers to misrepresent what Richard wrote in a clumsy effort to mask his own nonsense, to borrow his word.

It was the entire quote that Duncan called "nonsense." Even though Trask affirmed what Richard wrote.

Trask trumps MacRae every time. Duncan's lame attempts may work on his forum, but they won't work here.

This is why attempting to discuss things with guys like Duncan is a waste of time. He can't bring himself to stick to what was actually said.

Duncan's arguments are often childish and this episode has been no exception.

Michael, I appreciate your effort to place my quote in original context.

In the interest of removing distractions and keeping this thread on theme, I have edited the relevant section of my original post.

It now reads:

" Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". Although JFK's head does move forward a couple inches between Z 312 and 313, there is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows the dominant visible motion of JFK being knocked back and to his left."

In the same report on his observations of the film he saw the day after the assassination, Dan Rather also stated the film showed the Presidential Limo turning from Houston onto Elm Street. This does not appear on the extant Zapruder film. These anomalies are strong indications that Rather saw either a different film or an un-edited version of the current film.

[David Lifton]

...

It's clear why Duncan felt it necessary to quote Richard out of context. How much extra effort would it have been to post the quote in full? None.

Duncan prefers to misrepresent what Richard wrote in a clumsy effort to mask his own nonsense, to borrow his word.

It was the entire quote that Duncan called "nonsense." Even though Trask affirmed what Richard wrote.

Trask trumps MacRae every time. Duncan's lame attempts may work on his forum, but they won't work here.

This is why attempting to discuss things with guys like Duncan is a waste of time. He can't bring himself to stick to what was actually said.

Duncan's arguments are often childish and this episode has been no exception.

Michael, I appreciate your effort to place my quote in original context.

In the interest of removing distractions and keeping this thread on theme, I have edited the relevant section of my original post.

It now reads:

" Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". Although JFK's head does move forward a couple inches between Z 312 and 313, there is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows the dominant visible motion of JFK being knocked back and to his left."

In the same report on his observations of the film he saw the day after the assassination, Dan Rather also stated the film showed the Presidential Limo turning from Houston onto Elm Street. This does not appear on the extant Zapruder film. These anomalies are strong indications that Rather saw either a different film or an un-edited version of the current film.

Richard Hocking is correct. When viewed in motion, JFK's head appears to be thrown violently left and to the rear. Speaking for myself, it wasn't until I had the meeting at Cal Tech with physicist Richard Feynmann (in the Spring of 1966) that--just as I described in Chapter 2 of Best Evidence--I learned that there was a very small forwrd motion between frame 312 and 313.

But Dan Rather wouldn't have seen that when (just two days after the assassination) the film was projected at normal speed. So I conclude that he either saw a different film (which I doubt) or deliberately lied, or made a major error and misreported what he saw.

At different times, over the years, I have entertained each of these different possibilities.

But one thing seems certain: Dan Rather was not accurately describing the film, when viewed in motion, that we have today.

In this same vein, it is hard to believe that the 14 staff attorneys for the Warren Commission could have repeated viewings of the film, and not one of them (as far as we know) ever raised a question about the violent backward motion. You would think one of them would have written a memo to the file, or to J Lee Rankin requesting an explanation, and that the backward motion would have raised serious questions about the integrity of the autopsy conclusions they were provided.

DSL

5/4/11; 2:20 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Daniel Gallup]

Is JFK's forward head motion the artifact of an edit-obscured limo stop?[/b][/size]

I would say yes. Perry et al. reported the bones in the back of Kennedy's head were sprung open -- an avulsive wound indicating a great deal of brain and blood exited the back of Kennedy's head. The gif you posted shows no such exiting matter. I do recall Bill Miller's explanation: the ejecta left the back of Kennedy's head too quickly to be captured by the camera. That explanation was a year to two ago and I don't know if Bill still believes this. I would invite anyone who believes the extant film to be genuine to tell me how all trace of what had to be a large amount of blood and brain from the back of Kennedy's head could disappear this fast so as to escape detection by the camera. This argues strongly along with the limo stop that the current film cannot be genuine.

[Pamela Brown]

...

It's clear why Duncan felt it necessary to quote Richard out of context. How much extra effort would it have been to post the quote in full? None.

Duncan prefers to misrepresent what Richard wrote in a clumsy effort to mask his own nonsense, to borrow his word.

It was the entire quote that Duncan called "nonsense." Even though Trask affirmed what Richard wrote.

Trask trumps MacRae every time. Duncan's lame attempts may work on his forum, but they won't work here.

This is why attempting to discuss things with guys like Duncan is a waste of time. He can't bring himself to stick to what was actually said.

Duncan's arguments are often childish and this episode has been no exception.

Michael, I appreciate your effort to place my quote in original context.

In the interest of removing distractions and keeping this thread on theme, I have edited the relevant section of my original post.

It now reads:

" Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". Although JFK's head does move forward a couple inches between Z 312 and 313, there is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows the dominant visible motion of JFK being knocked back and to his left."

In the same report on his observations of the film he saw the day after the assassination, Dan Rather also stated the film showed the Presidential Limo turning from Houston onto Elm Street. This does not appear on the extant Zapruder film. These anomalies are strong indications that Rather saw either a different film or an un-edited version of the current film.

Regarding the head movement. Dan Rather saw a copy of the Z-film(s) before anyone else in the press and while it was being suppressed from the public. As it is difficult to know what version he saw, we can't really draw firm conclusions without his help. It does not seem that he was forthcoming. He may have been told that his statements would be believed without question. It was his job to tell the public what to think. The curious tidbit about the turn onto Elm, however, could have just slipped out by mistake. Or he could have been mistaken.

[Greg Burnham]

Regarding the head movement. Dan Rather saw a copy of the Z-film(s) before anyone else in the press and while it was being suppressed from the public. As it is difficult to know what version he saw, we can't really draw firm conclusions without his help. It does not seem that he was forthcoming. He may have been told that his statements would be believed without question. It was his job to tell the public what to think. The curious tidbit about the turn onto Elm, however, could have just slipped out by mistake. Or he could have been mistaken.

Pamela,

In all due respect, Rather was not mistaken about the content regarding the turn onto Elm. Reality dictates that the limousine did, in fact, turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street irrespective

of whether or not any film shows the turn. However, he may have embellished the circumstances under which he claims to have seen the film. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether

or not he even saw the film at all! Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not he was even in DALLAS at the time he claims to have been there!

But, I digress. If he really did see a film of the event--and it was an un-altered version--then it showed the turn onto Elm Street.

[Jack White]

Regarding the head movement. Dan Rather saw a copy of the Z-film(s) before anyone else in the press and while it was being suppressed from the public. As it is difficult to know what version he saw, we can't really draw firm conclusions without his help. It does not seem that he was forthcoming. He may have been told that his statements would be believed without question. It was his job to tell the public what to think. The curious tidbit about the turn onto Elm, however, could have just slipped out by mistake. Or he could have been mistaken.

Pamela,

In all due respect, Rather was not mistaken about the content regarding the turn onto Elm. Reality dictates that the limousine did, in fact, turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street irrespective

of whether or not any film shows the turn. However, he may have embellished the circumstances under which he claims to have seen the film. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether

or not he even saw the film at all! Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not he was even in DALLAS at the time he claims to have been there!

But, I digress. If he really did see a film of the event--and it was an un-altered version--then it showed the turn onto Elm Street.

Rather's tale of waiting for a "film drop" west of the underpass is ludicrous and false. This puts in doubt other statements.

However, I believe he was in Dallas and played some active role...we just do not know what. What we do know is that

in the Dallas aftermath, he rose from obscurity to the CBS network, perhaps on the basis of what he DID KNOW.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Regarding the head movement. Dan Rather saw a copy of the Z-film(s) before anyone else in the press and while it was being suppressed from the public. As it is difficult to know what version he saw, we can't really draw firm conclusions without his help. It does not seem that he was forthcoming. He may have been told that his statements would be believed without question. It was his job to tell the public what to think. The curious tidbit about the turn onto Elm, however, could have just slipped out by mistake. Or he could have been mistaken.

Pamela,

In all due respect, Rather was not mistaken about the content regarding the turn onto Elm. Reality dictates that the limousine did, in fact, turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street irrespective

of whether or not any film shows the turn. However, he may have embellished the circumstances under which he claims to have seen the film. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether

or not he even saw the film at all! Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not he was even in DALLAS at the time he claims to have been there!

But, I digress. If he really did see a film of the event--and it was an un-altered version--then it showed the turn onto Elm Street.

Rather's tale of waiting for a "film drop" west of the underpass is ludicrous and false. This puts in doubt other statements.

However, I believe he was in Dallas and played some active role...we just do not know what. What we do know is that

in the Dallas aftermath, he rose from obscurity to the CBS network, perhaps on the basis of what he DID KNOW.

Jack

Hi Jack,

That sounds reasonable to me, too. I remember meeting with J Harrison (former DPD Criminal Intelligence Division officer; and former Office of Naval Intelligence Officer) in Dallas back in 2000. He was

convinced that it was impossible for Rather to have been in Dallas at the time he says he was there. I don't have my notes handy right now, but Rather was covering a story elsewhere. The location was

too distant for him to have arrived in Dallas by the time he claims to have been there. I remember J saying that, "Perhaps if he had access to a fighter jet, he could have done it. But, short of that, it

was impossible..."

FWIW

[Glenn Viklund]

Hi Jack,

That sounds reasonable to me, too. I remember meeting with J Harrison (former DPD Criminal Intelligence Division officer; and former Office of Naval Intelligence Officer) in Dallas back in 2000. He was

convinced that it was impossible for Rather to have been in Dallas at the time he says he was there. I don't have my notes handy right now, but Rather was covering a story elsewhere. The location was

too distant for him to have arrived in Dallas by the time he claims to have been there. I remember J saying that, "Perhaps if he had access to a fighter jet, he could have done it. But, short of that, it

was impossible..."

FWIW

Greg,

When was it that you watched this film you've referred to? Already back in the seventies?

Edited May 6, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Richard Hocking]

On the evening of November 22, 1963, an amateur 8 mm film of the assassination was delivered to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. Expert CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon viewed the film at least 10 times, concluding that there had been 6-8 bullet impacts on JFK and Connally and that the shots were fired from 3 different directions.

These observations are supportive of McMahon having seen a film that was different from the current Zapruder film.

[Glenn Viklund]

On the evening of November 22, 1963, an amateur 8 mm film of the assassination was delivered to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. Expert CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon viewed the film at least 10 times, concluding that there had been 6-8 bullet impacts on JFK and Connally and that the shots were fired from 3 different directions.

These observations are supportive of McMahon having seen a film that was different from the current Zapruder film.

Richard,

McMahon himself being the only source for this?

[Michael Hogan]

On the evening of November 22, 1963, an amateur 8 mm film of the assassination was delivered to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. Expert CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon viewed the film at least 10 times, concluding that there had been 6-8 bullet impacts on JFK and Connally and that the shots were fired from 3 different directions.

These observations are supportive of McMahon having seen a film that was different from the current Zapruder film.

Richard,

McMahon himself being the only source for this?

Doug Horne wrote this in his blog, an entry entitled Horne Rebuts Costella --- With Vigor:

.....Second, Costella is apparently outraged that I did not make a big deal out of the fact that McMahon said he believed President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times, based on his examination of the film. In my defense, I did report that statement in the Meeting Report I wrote for the ARRB, and I did report it in my book, as well. In the opinion of Jeremy Gunn and myself (after all, we were at the interview), that was the least credible thing McMahon said. I chose not to make a big deal about it in my book because I did not find it credible; and I still don’t. That was an entirely subjective opinion on McMahon’s part, and is not supported by ANY VERSION of the medical evidence. However, when McMahon spoke about matters involving film, and about what he did himself with the Zapruder film when making internegatives and prints for briefing boards, he was very, very, credible, in our judgement. I am free to make any personal judgment or assessment about any statement by any witness that I want to, and I need apologize to no one.

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/4078.html

[Richard Hocking]

On the evening of November 22, 1963, an amateur 8 mm film of the assassination was delivered to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. Expert CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon viewed the film at least 10 times, concluding that there had been 6-8 bullet impacts on JFK and Connally and that the shots were fired from 3 different directions.

These observations are supportive of McMahon having seen a film that was different from the current Zapruder film.

Richard,

McMahon himself being the only source for this?

McMahon said he was never left alone with the film. So there was at least one other person present, possibly more. He said it was delivered to him by "Bill Smith" of the "Secret Service".

McMahon gave his interview to Doug Horne and Jeremy Gunn.

I am unaware of any other witness present to come forward to verify McMahon's story, so you have to make a judgement based on his qualifications and credibility.

At the very least, McMahon should be included in any discussion of another film or possible alteration to the Zapruder film.

[Michael Hogan]

McMahon said he was never left alone with the film. So there was at least one other person present, possibly more. He said it was delivered to him by "Bill Smith" of the "Secret Service".

McMahon gave his interview to Doug Horne and Jeremy Gunn.

I am unaware of any other witness present to come forward to verify McMahon's story, so you have to make a judgement based on his qualifications and credibility.

At the very least, McMahon should be included in any discussion of another film or possible alteration to the Zapruder film.

Bill Kelly posted a transcript of McMahon's ARRB interview. An excerpt:

HM: Well. (Ha, ha,)…Well, Eastman Kodak had contracts with the US government, and if you want to know, you can go to the CIA and they will tell you who told him, but he got the film processed, and he brought it to us, and he and three other people timed the film, for through observation you can tell where the gunshots actually caused the hits and slumps. We didn't know anything about any audio, it was just visual, and we timed it, and determined the time - physically timed it with a stop watch, where the gunshots hits hit. And we went from I think maybe two frames before the first hit and then we hit every single frame thru….He only counted three hits, possibly four. I couldn't tell I think, when Connally got hit. It was obvious when he got hit the first time, and then the second time he got hit, going off into an angle up, and…..

DH: Could I break in and ask you a question? When you say he and three others timed the film, does this mean that you people viewed it as a motion picture?

HM: Yes, we were in a briefing room, with a camera and a large screen - you said I could use Ben Hunter's name? I worked with Ben Hunter, Ben Hunter I think he was a GS 7 and he was working with me as a trainee at the time in the color lab, and Bill Smith, ah,….excuse me, there were three of us, including myself (ha, ha), that's it. To the best of my knowledge.

DH: So the total number of people are - yourself, Ben Hunter and Bill Smith?

HM: Yes. That's all that were involved to my knowledge.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15387&view=findpost&p=181342

[Greg Burnham]

Hi Jack,

That sounds reasonable to me, too. I remember meeting with J Harrison (former DPD Criminal Intelligence Division officer; and former Office of Naval Intelligence Officer) in Dallas back in 2000. He was

convinced that it was impossible for Rather to have been in Dallas at the time he says he was there. I don't have my notes handy right now, but Rather was covering a story elsewhere. The location was

too distant for him to have arrived in Dallas by the time he claims to have been there. I remember J saying that, "Perhaps if he had access to a fighter jet, he could have done it. But, short of that, it

was impossible..."

FWIW

Greg,

When was it that you watched this film you've referred to? Already back in the seventies?

Yes.

[Glenn Viklund]

On the evening of November 22, 1963, an amateur 8 mm film of the assassination was delivered to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. Expert CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon viewed the film at least 10 times, concluding that there had been 6-8 bullet impacts on JFK and Connally and that the shots were fired from 3 different directions.

These observations are supportive of McMahon having seen a film that was different from the current Zapruder film.

Richard,

McMahon himself being the only source for this?

McMahon said he was never left alone with the film. So there was at least one other person present, possibly more. He said it was delivered to him by "Bill Smith" of the "Secret Service".

McMahon gave his interview to Doug Horne and Jeremy Gunn.

I am unaware of any other witness present to come forward to verify McMahon's story, so you have to make a judgement based on his qualifications and credibility.

At the very least, McMahon should be included in any discussion of another film or possible alteration to the Zapruder film.

Thanks, Richard and Michael.

EDIT: OK, thanks Greg, had missed your answer.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Glenn Viklund