Ask The Experts

[Ken Rheberg]

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.

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson

Do you totally discount the testimonies of:

a) Amos Lee Euins ?

Howard Leslie Brennan ?

c) Buell Wesley Frazier ?

d) George deMorenschildt ?

e) James Earl Jarman ?

f) William Eugene Newman ?

g) Gayle Newman ?

h) Harold Norman ?

i) Linnie Mae Randle ?

j) Bonnie Ray Williams ?

k) Abraham Zapruder ????

I don't take ANY testimony at face value and as a general rule don't pay much attention to any of it.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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

Ok, and this statement about what Huffaker & Rather did was made how many decades after the assassination?

And has what corroboration?

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.

What evidence is there that Rather obtained a copy of the z-film from any source on Monday, and what evidence is there that Rather saw the film multiple times (other than Huffaker's statement)?

I see nothing in that statement that is believable -- as it conflicts with all the evidence made contemporaneous to the assassination. For example, the known evidence indicates Zapruder did not provide a copy to CBS or any television station. And Rather & CBS (or KRLD), having this blockbuster film on hand and available for viewing, did NOT broadcast the film, but instead, only put Rather on the air to describe it? That makes no sense to me.

For those reasons, I find it difficult to put much credence in Huffaker's claims.

Hank

Mack says that the FBI/SS watched a 16mm print at KLRD screened by Huffaker. Tke it for whatever that is worth.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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?

The bold-faced statement above is incorrect. All it took Professor Feynman was a ruler and a copy of the WC volume showing the Z-film frames.

He noted to Lifton the head moves forward after the bullet strikes. All this was covered in Lifton's tome, Best Evidence.

It took the development of no technology that wasn't available in 1963.

In 1967, Josiah Thompson put a nice little chart in an appendix to his book, Six Seconds in Dallas, graphically showing the movement of the head relative to fixed points in the limo. Again, this took only some push pins and a ruler, according to Thompson.

I fail to see what technology you are speaking of. Could you elaborate? It's not a ruler or push-pins, I don't think.

Hank

Mr. Sienzant

Well, that certainly solves the mystery of when the forward head movement was first discovered. I had assumed it had occurred much later and required enhancement of the Zapruder film with more modern technology.

That being said, it still does not help us solve the mystery of how Dan Rather was able to see a forward head movement of JFK in the Zapruder film in November of 1963.