Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiSoxFHyjGY

That's a short clip of Dan Rather a few days after the Kennedy assassination.

Are there any inaccuracies with what he said that anyone can point out?

Who cares? He saw the film, not the assassination. He was there, he was standing on the other side of the overpass waiting for a film drop off, he discusses it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnJsGPVn9CY

Around 3:12 he mentions that he didn't hear any shots, which he should have if there was someone behind the picket fence.

In this second piece he repeatedly states that he only got the view the film ONE TIME (at 4:13)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIBNuxzN15M

Plus, if you're taking Dan Rather's word as gospel then you've got a problem because he says Oswald did the shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lmyrsBTBh4

I was a JFK conspiracy loon for over 20 years, you are just not very good at this at all.
 
He's chosen the childish "head down" way- when he can see only his feet, he preserves the illusion that stubbornly digging in his heels is actually getting him someplace.

Does every CTist think they've come up with this novel approach? Can't they even be honest with themselves?
 
Does every CTist think they've come up with this novel approach? Can't they even be honest with themselves?

They are, in a way. I think they see their role as holding the mainstream's feet to the fire, and appointing skeptics the proxy for the mainstream. But also yes, every conspiracy theorist thinks the approach is novel, or at least self-evidently valid. It's ironic (referring to another active thread) that psychologists are best able to taxonomize conspiracy theorists precisely because of this patterned approach. Not only do all conspiracy theorists think this is a novel approach, they all reinvent the same approach.
 
Dear lord; and this is from (believe it or not) one of the more rational CTists here- taking refuge in a simple-minded, obstinate demand for an explanation that disproves a non-specified claim; and can't even seem to see the problem with this approach.

How can I be 'obstinate' when asking for the patient explanation you described to show that "the shots couldn't have come from behind the board fence on the knoll"?

I had assumed by your comments that an explanation for no shots coming from the knoll would be elucidated upon if inquired. I have repeatedly requested said explanation.

If you do not have an explanation to give, fine. But if you do, I'd like to discuss that -- why gunshots could not have come from the knoll.

And thank you for the compliment.
 
Jango, are you pretending not to see the simple questions asked of you? They aren't trick questions or gotcha games. Do you care at all about your own credibility here? Everyone sees them as well as you ignoring them. It's not a good look for you.
 
Jango, are you pretending not to see the simple questions asked of you?

No.

They aren't trick questions or gotcha games.

Sure they aren't.

Do you care at all about your own credibility here?

Should I?

Everyone sees them as well as you ignoring them.

Sweet.

It's not a good look for you.

Thanks for the fashion advice.

As to the question you've hounded me about: no, I have not had the pleasure of visiting Dallas, Texas yet.
 
Thanks but it was indeed a simple, relevant question that you didn't need to drama queen over. I'll elaborate, but I'm hopping on a long flight. Maybe others will comment in the meantime.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiSoxFHyjGY

That's a short clip of Dan Rather a few days after the Kennedy assassination.

Are there any inaccuracies with what he said that anyone can point out?


Yes, there is one, and it's long been obsessed over in the conspiracy literature. Rather, after viewing the film one time, went on the air and narrated what he saw.

He said the President's body went forward after the final shot. Critics argue one of two things in the conspiracy literature:

1. Rather lied, and was part of the cover-up (that dastardly media!) to deceive the American public.

2. Rather saw a different version of the Zapruder film, which is proof the Zapruder film has been altered at least once.

Of course, they are obsessing over the ten frames or so where JFK visibly moves backward (after initially being propelled forward by the head shot), and arguing "How could Rather miss THAT?"

To which my response is always the same. Rather got one thing wrong that critics want to literally tar-and-feather him for (see the comments section of your link). Let's see how well you would do. You've seen the Zapruder film how many hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of times?

This is on the honor system. Don't narrate it while watching it and freeze-framing it and inching along. Don't look at it again to refresh your memory. You've got far more viewings of the Z-film in your memory bank than Rather did. Do it the way Rather did - from memory.

Tell us what you saw. 3-2-1, GO.
 
Last edited:
That's my take as well.

For the most part, if someone isn't trained to deal with a violent encounter they do one of two things 1) freeze in place, or 2) bolt in any direction away from what they perceive to be the threat.

Her reaction is a textbook example of the latter.

Rather's cited narration, of course, ignored this possibility entirely. Most probably as an editorial decision to paint the former First Lady as heroically helping the Secret Service agent onto the car, rather than trying to get the heck outta Dodge.

Hank
 
Yes, there is one, and it's long been obsessed over in the conspiracy literature. Rather, after viewing the film one time, went on the air and narrated what he saw.

He said the President's body went forward after the final shot. Critics argue one of two things in the conspiracy literature:

1. Rather lied, and was part of the cover-up (that dastardly media!) to deceive the American public.

2. Rather saw a different version of the Zapruder film, which is proof the Zapruder film has been altered at least once.

Of course, they are obsessing over the ten frames or so where JFK visibly moves backward (after initially being propelled forward by the head shot), and arguing "How could Rather miss THAT?"

To which my response is always the same. Rather got one thing wrong that critics want to literally tar-and-feather him for (see the comments section of your link). Let's see how well you would do. You've seen the Zapruder film how many hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of times?

This is on the honor system. Don't narrate it while watching it and freeze-framing it and inching along. Don't look at it again to refresh your memory. You've got far more viewings of the Z-film in your memory bank than Rather did. Do it the way Rather did - from memory.

Tell us what you saw. 3-2-1, GO.

I'll try.

* He's waving to people and smiling.

* A road sign obstructs the view for a moment but when President Kennedy is seen again, he is reacting to being shot the first time by bringing both of his hands up to his neck/throat area -- the Governor also reacted as he too was shot at this time.

* There is a pause where Mrs. Kennedy is checking on him and IIRC, this is when the Secret Service driver begins turning his head around to see what is happening.

* The head shot follows that pause.

* When he is hit in the head, he does ever so slightly lurch forward as his right arm jerks up and then he falls back and to the left. IIRC, the Governor lurches forward and his wife somewhat lays on top of him.

* Mrs. Kennedy scrambles unto the trunk to retrieve the ejecta from the back of President Kennedy's head.

* A Secret Service agent is trying to get up on the trunk himself.

* The limousine starts to accelerate.
 
I'll try.

* He's waving to people and smiling.

* A road sign obstructs the view for a moment but when President Kennedy is seen again, he is reacting to being shot the first time by bringing both of his hands up to his neck/throat area -- the Governor also reacted as he too was shot at this time.

* There is a pause where Mrs. Kennedy is checking on him and IIRC, this is when the Secret Service driver begins turning his head around to see what is happening.

* The head shot follows that pause.

* When he is hit in the head, he does ever so slightly lurch forward as his right arm jerks up and then he falls back and to the left. IIRC, the Governor lurches forward and his wife somewhat lays on top of him.

* Mrs. Kennedy scrambles unto the trunk to retrieve the ejecta from the back of President Kennedy's head.

* A Secret Service agent is trying to get up on the trunk himself.

* The limousine starts to accelerate.


And you saw all this in the Zapruder film? I emphasized the questionable statement above.

Can you tell me specifically (where & in what frames) you see ejecta on the trunk, or damage to the back President Kennedy's head? I believe a strong case can be made that you got at least as much wrong as Rather.

And a conservative guess would be you've seen it a couple hundred times - often stabilized, zoomed-in, and in slow-motion? Right?

Rather had none of those advantages. Cut the man some slack.

What was your point in bringing up what Rather said?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Thanks but it was indeed a simple, relevant question that you didn't need to drama queen over. I'll elaborate, but I'm hopping on a long flight. Maybe others will comment in the meantime.

If I may, I will comment on the relevance of an actual visit to the crime scene. I have been there. Stayed longer than expected and received a parking ticket to prove it.

What impressed me immediately is that the place was much smaller than expected. The plaza photographs large, but in fact is a very tight space.

I walked the grounds, and visited the Sixth Floor museum. At that time the location of the bubble top at the time of each known shot was marked on the pavement, making reconstruction easy for visitors. The shot set-up from the sixth floor is quite good. At the time of the last shot the distance to target is not great, target is moving almost directly away from the shooter at low speed. This is not a difficult shot.

By contrast, the behind the fence location is much more problematic. It is actually quite exposed. The shooter would have been visible from several angles. Not a location a professional would have chosen, in my opinion. This is a "passing shot", with the target moving laterally, with a variable speed. At the time of the final shot a shooter at that location would have been at a high angle to the right of target, giving a trajectory that does not match the injuries to the head.

My opinions on the shooting aspects are based on my experience as a trained military shooter, weapons and tactics NCO and civilian small arms instructor.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, but I have to ask. I've dealt with dozens upon dozens of conspiracy theorists, and only a small handful of them will say, "Now here's what I think happened..." Most instead adopt the useless and self-indulgent position of, "How can you possibly defend the conventional narrative in light of these anomalies?"

Despite the decades of study and discussion of the ballistics of the Kennedy assassination, somehow I have to revisit all of that because of some reporter's uninformed knee-jerk assessment. It's not the first time nor the first conspiracy theory that has tried to spin the fog-of-war early reports as somehow more intrinsically reliable than conclusions drawn after careful collection of data, diligent study, and thorough discussion.

I can provide a real world example of mistaken reporting, by a professional.

mvc131s.jpg


26 July 2010. this photo is my 2004 Yamaha R1 after I was rear ended.

The officer in the photo wrote the accident report.

The officer stated in their report that "Vehicle 1 was out from under Vehicle 2 when I arrived at the scene."

This is demonstrably wrong, but that's how the officer wrote the report. This was a near -0- stress situation for the officers, as there was no injuries and everyone involved was sober, cooperative and had all the documents required by law.

It does not surprise me that someone that isn't conditioned through training and experience will make mistakes in reporting of events that are several magnitudes more stressful than my little bike accident.
 
If I may, I will comment on the relevance of an actual visit to the crime scene. I have been there. Stayed longer than expected and received a parking ticket to prove it.

What impressed me immediately is that the place was much smaller than expected. The plaza photographs large, but in fact is a very tight space.

I walked the grounds, and visited the Sixth Floor museum. At that time the location of the bubble top at the time of each known shot was marked on the pavement, making reconstruction easy for visitors. The shot set-up from the sixth floor is quite good. At the time of the last shot the distance to target is not great, target is moving almost directly away from the shooter at low speed. This is not a difficult shot.

By contrast, the behind the fence location is much more problematic. It is actually quite exposed. The shooter would have been visible from several angles. Not a location a professional would have chosen, in my opinion. This is a "passing shot", with the target moving laterally, with a variable speed. At the time of the final shot a shooter at that location would have been at a high angle to the right of target, giving a trajectory that does not match the injuries to the head.

My opinions on the shooting aspects are based on my experience as a trained military shooter, weapons and tactics NCO and civilian small arms instructor.

Thank you. This is what I was getting at, that anybody who had ever been to Dealey Plaza would know right away that no sensible conspiracy would ever put a shooter there. Why would they put someone they wanted fingered as a patsy up in a not-easily-seen location like the Book Depository, and the actual shooter that they wanted concealed in a place he'd almost certainly be seen? This is an aspect of CTism that fascinates me- in an effort to make a conspiracy, they make one that makes no sense. Anything but the evidence-backed mainstream narrative is to be preferred, even if it's something that no reasonable conspirator would have any part of. There's something almost religious about this thought process...
 
Thank you. This is what I was getting at, that anybody who had ever been to Dealey Plaza would know right away that no sensible conspiracy would ever put a shooter there. Why would they put someone they wanted fingered as a patsy up in a not-easily-seen location like the Book Depository, and the actual shooter that they wanted concealed in a place he'd almost certainly be seen? This is an aspect of CTism that fascinates me- in an effort to make a conspiracy, they make one that makes no sense. Anything but the evidence-backed mainstream narrative is to be preferred, even if it's something that no reasonable conspirator would have any part of. There's something almost religious about this thought process...

Didn't people see LHO in the window though? Also, wasn't there reports of people smelling gun powder near the knoll/at ground level?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom