Dan Rather's Description of Zapruder Film Corroborated by Witness

[Vince Palamara]

 

[Michael Griffith]

If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. 

[Vince Palamara]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. 

Good point. See my latest book- the tally is actually over 70 (!)

[David Andrews]

18 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

 Instead of cutting a few frames or some other nonexistent alteration, they would simply have destroyed the film.

I'm thinking the involvement of Time Life, a major corp, propaganda outlet, and otherwise CIA cooperator, meant they had to be paid off with Zapruder frame stills.  It wasn't until 1975 that the powers had to contend with a release of the altered original.

[Allen Lowe]

9 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I'm thinking the involvement of Time Life, a major corp, propaganda outlet, and otherwise CIA cooperator, meant they had to be paid off with Zapruder frame stills.  It wasn't until 1975 that the powers had to contend with a release of the altered original.

I’m sorry but that makes no sense because if they had destroyed it they never would’ve had to release it. I’ve read all the interviews with Brugoni; and there’s very little there there. And I’ve watched the film over and over and the car slows down significantly. It’s hard to see because the angle changes. But it’s there.

[Allen Lowe]

Here; at about .43 in this; it is brief, but the car stops briefly and has clearly been slowing down prior to this: you have to follow several links;

 

[David Andrews]

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

I’m sorry but that makes no sense because if they had destroyed it they never would’ve had to release it.

...And they're going to convince Time Life, which acquired the film, to surrender it, losing newsstand sales and ad revenues?  There was a budget to compensate Henry Luce for that?  Seems a naive, and monolithic, view of the culture of the times.  The stills were used to bolster the shot-from-behind story; the film (whatever you believe it to be) did not emerge to be argued over for another dozen years.

[Pat Speer]

19 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. 

Oh my. Zapruder was panning along with the car as it slowed down, so the car does not slow in the film. As the car slowed as it was getting closer to him (when it would normally be speeding up in comparison to the background), moreover, it did not slow down in comparison to its background. It is only when it takes off after the head shot that you realize it has slowed. 

When one watches the Nix and Muchmore films, which match up precisely to the Z-film, the slowing down is more noticeable. Now, that said, what is really noticeable is that the sudden tapping of the brakes by Greer led to a chain reaction, where Hargis, Chaney and Jackson slammed on their brakes. Naturally, those witnessing the bikes just behind the limo come to a sudden stop would be prone to thinking the limo also came to a sudden stop. But the films prove it did not. 

As far as the 40 or 70 or 100 witnesses to a limo stop, that has been debunked dozens of times. Many of those witnesses were back on Houston and said the motorcade stopped--which it did. Not only did the bikes behind the limo stop, so did a number of the press cars...so that people could get out. So the "motorcade stopped" witnesses support the authenticity of the films. The same goes for the "limo slowed" witnesses. And when you deduct the "motorcade stopped" and 'limo slowed" witnesses from the list, there's only a few left, many of whom changed their story later, or were vague from the beginning. So there's no there there.

This reminds me, moreover, of a number of prominent CTs, who just can't stop stating that the medical witnesses who described or pointed out a wound on the top right rear of Kennedy's head support that there was a large blow-out wound on the middle of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Harper fragment was occipital bone. This is the worst kind of garbage. It's like using those who remember Jackie's pink outfit as white as evidence her outfit was really blue.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Griffith writes:

Quote

the most egregious case of witness-described actions missing from the Z film is the limo stop, described by over 40 witnesses from all over the plaza.

As Pat points out, the limo-stop witness evidence is very weak.

Most of the 59 witnesses who supposedly claimed that the limo stopped, actually claimed that the limo slowed down, just as we see in the home movies. The witnesses' statements are examined here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street

A few points from that article:

• No more than 13 witnesses claimed unambiguously and consistently that the car stopped.
• Of these 13 witnesses, probably no more than five would have had a clear view of the car.
• 44 credible witnesses either claimed that the car merely slowed down or failed to state whether the presidential car, as opposed to other cars in the motorcade, slowed down or stopped.
• More than half of these 44 witnesses either had a clear view of the car or were passengers in the car.
• Of the 59 supposed witnesses, 31 either had an unobstructed view of the presidential car or who were in the car themselves. Of these 31 witnesses, fewer than one in six stated unambiguously that the car stopped.
• Not included in the list of 59 are several witnesses who were well placed to notice the car's movements and who gave official statements or testimony, but who did not mention anything about the car slowing down or stopping.
• Well over 80% of the witnesses who had a clear view of the car did not notice that it had stopped.

It isn't just the Zapruder film that must have been altered to conceal the limo stop. The Nix and Muchmore films also show the limo at the time of the fatal head shot, when some of the limo-stop witnesses claimed that it stopped. But the limo doesn't stop in those films either. The movement of the limo in the Nix and Muchmore films appears to match what the Zapruder film shows.

As far as I'm aware, no-one has yet come up with a plausible explanation of how all three home movies might have been altered, or when this might have happened, given that the Muchmore film was sold to UPI, unseen and undeveloped, on Monday 25th.

Some of the limo-stop witnesses claimed that it stopped before, not after, the head shot, and that it pulled to the left-hand curb as it stopped. These witnesses' claims are contradicted not only by the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films, but also by the Bronson film, the Moorman photo, and the Altgens 7 photo.

That makes a total of four home movies and two photographs that must have been altered. Again, we are still awaiting a plausible explanation of how all of this might have been done, and in particular how it was done in the very limited time available. The Altgens photo was distributed all over the world shortly after 1pm, just half an hour after the assassination. The Moorman photo was shown on TV shortly after 3pm, and was distributed to journalists that afternoon (see another current thread for evidence that this happened). Any alterations must have been made before then.

There is no good reason to suppose that the limo stopped. It's just an example of the uncontroversial fact that witnesses make mistakes sometimes.

Quote

There is also the problem of the vanishing explosion of blood and brain. The spray of particulate matter disappears far too quickly. In the current film, it is there in one frame but gone in the next frame. Ballistics tests have proved that the spray should be visible for at least six frames.

The spray is not "there in one frame but gone in the next frame." It's visible not only in frame 313 but also in frames 314, 315 and 316:

• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
• https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

There's a hint of spray in frame 317 too. And that's in a relatively poor-quality edition of the film. A better-quality copy may well show the spray in more detail and in more frames.

Quote

In addition, no spray is seen blowing backward. Yet, we know that two of the trailing patrolmen and the follow-up car were sprayed with blood and brain matter. Hargis said the spray hit him such force that he thought he himself had been hit.

There's no good reason to suppose that the film must have shown this. Zapruder's camera had an expsoure cycle of approximately 1/18 second, during which time the shutter was open for 1/40 second and closed for a little longer than 1/40 second. The horizontal debris had more than enough time ("the spray hit him such force") to reach the police motorcyclists while the shutter was closed.

David Andrews writes:

Quote

It wasn't until 1975 that the powers had to contend with a release of the altered original. ... the film (whatever you believe it to be) did not emerge to be argued over for another dozen years.

Although the Zapruder film wasn't widely watched as a movie by the general public until the famous TV broadcast in 1975, there were a number of bootleg copies in circulation from the late 1960s onwards. Many thousands of people watched these bootlegs at informal gatherings and organised events during the late 60s and early 70s.

The bootlegs appear to have come from two main sources: the copy of the film used in the Clay Shaw trial, and copies made for the personal use of Time-Life executives. See David Wrone, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, pp.59-61, for an account of the surprising extent of public access to the film during the period when it was supposedly locked in a vault, unseen by anyone. 

The Zapruder film was kept partly away from public view because it contradicts the official explanation, not because it had been altered to support the official explanation.

[Allen Lowe]

On 8/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, David Andrews said:

...And they're going to convince Time Life, which acquired the film, to surrender it, losing newsstand sales and ad revenues?  There was a budget to compensate Henry Luce for that?  Seems a naive, and monolithic, view of the culture of the times.  The stills were used to bolster the shot-from-behind story; the film (whatever you believe it to be) did not emerge to be argued over for another dozen years.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the CIA have the original? And even if Timelife had it, why would they have to surrender it? They were quite willing to remain silent as they did until Geraldo showed it on TV. All they had to do was keep quiet.  As for me being naïve about the culture of the times, I have a pretty detailed knowledge of the history, politics, and culture of the 1960s. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Allen Lowe]

On 8/21/2022 at 3:45 AM, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. Zapruder was panning along with the car as it slowed down, so the car does not slow in the film. As the car slowed as it was getting closer to him (when it would normally be speeding up in comparison to the background), moreover, it did not slow down in comparison to its background. It is only when it takes off after the head shot that you realize it has slowed. 

When one watches the Nix and Muchmore films, which match up precisely to the Z-film, the slowing down is more noticeable. Now, that said, what is really noticeable is that the sudden tapping of the brakes by Greer led to a chain reaction, where Hargis, Chaney and Jackson slammed on their brakes. Naturally, those witnessing the bikes just behind the limo come to a sudden stop would be prone to thinking the limo also came to a sudden stop. But the films prove it did not. 

As far as the 40 or 70 or 100 witnesses to a limo stop, that has been debunked dozens of times. Many of those witnesses were back on Houston and said the motorcade stopped--which it did. Not only did the bikes behind the limo stop, so did a number of the press cars...so that people could get out. So the "motorcade stopped" witnesses support the authenticity of the films. The same goes for the "limo slowed" witnesses. And when you deduct the "motorcade stopped" and 'limo slowed" witnesses from the list, there's only a few left, many of whom changed their story later, or were vague from the beginning. So there's no there there.

This reminds me, moreover, of a number of prominent CTs, who just can't stop stating that the medical witnesses who described or pointed out a wound on the top right rear of Kennedy's head support that there was a large blow-out wound on the middle of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Harper fragment was occipital bone. This is the worst kind of garbage. It's like using those who remember Jackie's pink outfit as white as evidence her outfit was really blue.

Pat I always worry when, on this subject, my perception is different from yours because you have so much more comprehensive knowledge of the subject. But in the Zapruder  film that I have seen the car stops just before the headshot. Or comes almost to a stop.  Now this wouldn’t be the first time I have hallucinated, but I don’t think I am.

[Joseph McBride]

I remember that Congressman Jack Brooks, who was in the

motorcade, said that the presidential limousine "just jumped

out of the road like a striped-ass ape." It maintained a

speed of 70 mph on the road to Parkland after the

Secret Service ordered it to go "fast but safe." I drove

that route in a convertible many times at 70 mph and just about always made

it to Parkland in four minutes.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Allen Lowe]

On 8/20/2022 at 7:32 AM, Michael Griffith said:

If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. 

that's exactly my point; I will say:

1) if you view it at a slower speed, it is still correct in relative terms; when it visibly comes to a stop, slowing it down hasn't created that stop, it just made it easier to discern. It is still a stop.

2) But you can disregard #1 because even at regular speed I can see the slow, slow, slowing down of the car. I can see it, and I've had surgery around my eyes. LOOK AT THE GROUND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR. You can tell it stops.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[David Lifton]

On 1/3/2015 at 10:06 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

I just saw that Mr. Holland corroborated another thing Dan Rather claimed to have seen. While we see JFK going back and to his left, Mr. Holland describes seeing JFK in this way, "I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over." As the floor could only be ahead of the seat, Holland is NOT describing JFK going back and to the left.

Dan Rather's description of the JFK head shot, "His head could be seen to move violently forward."

FWIW: I used to believe Dan Rather's account was a slam dunk.  But then I read the account he provided in a book that he wrote:  (Not "The Camera Never Blinks." ) I'll have to retrieve my copy, excerpt the quote, (and present it here); but I remember thinking that  it raised serious questions about my previous interpretation.