Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Mr. Lamson

And are you claiming Dan Rather was able to see this one frame phenomenon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Mr. Rheberg

To quote from the "Lone Nut Quick Response Handbook", Dan Rather was:

a) Confused

B) Mistaken

c) Lying

d) Mis-remembering (my personal favorite)

e) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame

f) All of the above

you're going to do just fine around here, Robert. :)

Why, thank you, sir. Your compliment is indeed the high point of my day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Mr. Lamson

And are you claiming Dan Rather was able to see this one frame phenomenon?

Learn to read bob.

Let me post what I said again.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Now I know reality is a tough one for you, and you always over-reach when you get your hat handed to you, but that's not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Mr. Lamson

And are you claiming Dan Rather was able to see this one frame phenomenon?

Learn to read bob.

Let me post what I said again.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Now I know reality is a tough one for you, and you always over-reach when you get your hat handed to you, but that's not my problem.

Mr. Lamson

Verbose discharges and profane remarks are no substitute for answers to legitimate questions.

The VERY big problem I see is that Mr. Rather claimed to have seen this forward motion of JFK's head.

Do you think Mr. Rather was capable of seeing this forward motion of JFK's head, if it took place in one frame of the Zapruder film?

(Hint: One frame = 1/18.3 second)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Verbose discharges and profane remarks are no substitute for answers to legitimate questions.

The VERY big problem I see is that Mr. Rather claimed to have seen this forward motion of JFK's head.

Do you think Mr. Rather was capable of seeing this forward motion of JFK's head, if it took place in one frame of the Zapruder film?

(Hint: One frame = 1/18.3 second)

How YOU things is your big problem bob. Always has been , and it looks like it continues here.

I was not there, I don't know how Rather viewed the film, so I don't have a clue what happened.

He said he did. YOU can choose to believe him or not. Thats your option. I really don't care because:

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Let me refresh your memory for you. Read the quotes from you and Mr. Rheberg below, if you please:

Mr. Rheberg stated, describing Dan Rather's observations:

"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."

To which you replied:

"Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward...."

Wouldn't you say, that you are implying Mr. Rather was able to see this one frame, 1/18.3 second forward movement of JFK's head in the Zapruder film? And, that being so, shouldn't the onus be on you to explain to this forum how you felt Mr. Rather was able to see this forward motion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Let me refresh your memory for you. Read the quotes from you and Mr. Rheberg below, if you please:

Mr. Rheberg stated, describing Dan Rather's observations:

"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."

To which you replied:

"Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward...."

Wouldn't you say, that you are implying Mr. Rather was able to see this one frame, 1/18.3 second forward movement of JFK's head in the Zapruder film? And, that being so, shouldn't the onus be on you to explain to this forum how you felt Mr. Rather was able to see this forward motion?

Give it up bobby, you lost a few posts back and now you simply look very desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days....

The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo!

Uh Davie you were CC;ed most of my correspondence with Zavada. If you think I made up any of the rest you can ask him if he really said what I quoted him as saying. Ditto my exchanges with Ray Fielding, you know the expert YOU kept citing who ended up saying what you and your buddies proposed was impossible at the time. I have no idea who "Moe" is, are your years catching up with you?

Len (compatriot of Craigster), you'll notice my above comment was toward Lampoon Lamson, not you. Having said that, I do recall you nominating yourself spokesperson for Rollie Zavada and his new and improved, rewritten Zavada Report. Which was to shortly appear right here on the Education Forum. Of course we know what happened. It should be noted that the Gang of 8, of which you were sniffing around its edges at the time, did not heartedly endorse Rollies new venture, in fact, they tried to dissuade him with much vigor. Which the gang of 8 finally succeeded. The was no reissue of the Zavada report, which is a damn shame.

For the record your "exchanges with Ray Fielding and Rollie Zavada are irrelevant, especially after your admission you knew nothing about optical film printing. It was then you attained the rank of Tink's cheerleader in my eye. Nice enough guy, aren't all Redd Foxx fans nice guys?

My, we have a crowd gathering Len... :)

Moe? My-oh-my. Ask Groden, Len. Without Moe and his goodies they'd probably be no Z-film controversy.

Sorry Davie the experts have spoken and they aren’t buying your bill of goods; let’s see there are Zavada, Ryan, Weitzman, Grodon, Oliver Stone and Mark Sobel. All that your side has are “the Hollywood 4”, who IIRC were only shown low resolution B&W stills, and you. A VIDEO editor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 quite MANY posts ago.

Mr. Lamson

I don't suppose you could verify for us that Mr. Rather was awarded the privilege of viewing the Zapruder film at anything other than normal speed?

Even if Mr. Rather watched the Zapruder film in frame by frame stop action, it is inconceivable that he would have been able to discern the small forward action of JFK's head in the single frame, z312. This motion was only discerned years after the assassination, when technology was developed to allow enhancement of the Zapruder film for analytical purposes. And, small and brief as the forward movement was, it is inconceivable that Mr. Rather would have described it as a "violent forward motion".

That being said, we are still left with the question you CANNOT or WILL NOT answer; how was Mr. Rather able to see the forward motion of JFK's head in z312, if that entire forward motion of JFK's head took place in just one frame of the Zapruder film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 quite MANY posts ago.

Mr. Lamson

I don't suppose you could verify for us that Mr. Rather was awarded the privilege of viewing the Zapruder film at anything other than normal speed?

Even if Mr. Rather watched the Zapruder film in frame by frame stop action, it is inconceivable that he would have been able to discern the small forward action of JFK's head in the single frame, z312. This motion was only discerned years after the assassination, when technology was developed to allow enhancement of the Zapruder film for analytical purposes. And, small and brief as the forward movement was, it is inconceivable that Mr. Rather would have described it as a "violent forward motion".

That being said, we are still left with the question you CANNOT or WILL NOT answer; how was Mr. Rather able to see the forward motion of JFK's head in z312, if that entire forward motion of JFK's head took place in just one frame of the Zapruder film?

What part of these words is beyond your ken?

Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather.

And of course he DID get it correct regardless of how he viewed the film. JFK's head DID move violently forward.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...