Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Look at the far side of this image on our left. You see the two street lights down from the obelisk. It does not show the freeway sign, but mentally, you can see it in your mind's eye. It's just a little further down and a little deep to the sidewalk. 

Zapruder is further down the road yet and deeper yet, and he's pointing his camera up the street. 

So, on the street, it goes obelisk, light post, light post, freeway sign. That's the order. Obviously, Zapruder could not capture the first light post and the freeway sign- not by zooming and not by anything else. And if he positioned his camera to start with the second light post, it wouldn't look like this because the second light post was not up by the intersection.  

 I'll circle the second light post. 

So that circled light post can't be the one in the Zapruder frame because the one in the Zapruder frame is close to the intersection. 

It has to be the first light post. But then it gets to the freeway sign.

So, it goes from the first light post to the freeway sign with the second light post vanished? That is a physical and photographic impossibility. What explains it? 

What explains it is a gross manipulation of the Zapruder film, in which, if you divided it up into segments, it went Segment A, Segment B, Segment C, and they cut out Segment B and cinched up A and C. 

It was extremely difficult to do. Here is a picture of Saigan nightlife.

I selected this because it is so visually cluttered and noisy, I thought it might be easy to get away with it. And, I removed just a little sliver, not a big chunk, like they did. 

It isn't all that bad. At the top and in the middle, it blends and transitions quite nicely. But, it does have problems, particularly at the crosswalk. That's where you really see the break. It screams at you. 

And this is just a still picture. They had to blend disparate pieces not of a still image but a movie. It probably took them years to do it. That's why they couldn't show the Z-film to the public until 1975. 

On November 25, 1963, after watching the Zapruder film, Dan Rather went on national television to describe it. Now, did he see the real, unaltered Z-film or had they already done things to it? That I do not know. 

But, he began by saying that about 35 yards from the intersection JFK got hit for the first time, and that's exactly what I'm saying. 

 He said that JFK brought his hand to his temple, and he demonstrated.

 We don't see that in Zapruder film today. Rather said, and I quote:

"Just as President Kennedy put his hand to the side of his head, you could see him lurch him forward. The first shot had hit him."

THAT WAS THE BACK SHOT! THE Z-FILM CAPTURED JFK BEING SHOT IN THE BACK. NOW, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAD TO CUT IT OUT AND DO THE ELABORATE, PAINSTAKING, SURGERY ON IT? 

So, Dan Rather and I agree that JFK got hit in the back high on the hill, just 35 yards from the intersection. But, Dan Rather was describing a part of the Zapruder film that they later cut out. 

And remember that the official story became that JFK wasn't hit until he was hit, supposedly, with the Single Bullet, but really it was just the throat shot. And his reaction to that, as seen in the Z-film, was nothing like what Rather described. JFK was in a state of panic, and he brought his hands up to his throat to clear his airway. 

Rather said that Mrs. Kennedy was looking another direction when JFK was first hit. And we know what direction it was. She was working the other side of the street, the south side. So, she was looking over there. And when she did turn and look at JFK, she saw that he had a "quizzical look." That's according to her Warren Commission testimony.

But, getting back to Rather, then he talked about Connally. He said that it appeared that Connally sensed that something was wrong. He turned  around to look at the President or ask him something, exposing his white shirt. Rather said that that's when Connally was shot. And of course, it was a separate shot. In other words, Rather said that he saw Kennedy and Connally react to being shot at different times. 

Then, Rather described the third shot which struck JFK's head. According to Rather, JFK's head could be seen to move "violently forward" in response to it. (But, what about "back and to the left"? How did Rather miss seeing that?) Then, Rather said that Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately. He said that JFK leaned her way and might have brushed her legs. Then, he described Jackie getting on the trunk on all fours and "reaching out for the Secret Service man" who pushed her back into the car. Then, Rather described seeing the Secret Service man in the front seat on the phone as the car picked up speed and disappeared beneath the underpass. 

You can watch it for yourself here. Notice that Rather had something in front of him that he was looking at. I don't know if it was text or images. 

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

But, the bottom line is that Rather described JFK being shot for the first time high on the hill, and that had to be the back shot. He said nothing about a throat shot and JFK reacting by bringing his hands up to his throat. So, how did he miss that? Then he described the last shot as hitting JFK in the head but without describing the back and to the left motion that we see in the Zapruder film today. 

So obviously, what Rather saw was very different from what we see today in the Zapruder film. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they altered it already before showing it to him. But, undoubtedly, vast changes to the Zapruder film were yet to be done. There is no way to reconcile what Rather said then with what we see today.