Dan Rather's account from November 25, 1963 

Violently backward and to the left. Obvious frontal headshot

@@vernpascal1531 Same for the THROAT shot (not the back of the neck!), and the shot through the FRONT windshield, the shot that hit a curb, throwing a piece of it into James Tague face drawing blood, etc., etc., etc.! Very few people mention Tague as the THIRD person wounded (or killed) by the attack, so another shot had to be taken, destroying the nonsense of the "lone nut" single shooter on the 6th floor, SE corner. And the Z-film destroys the Oswald crap from a single viewing. No wonder the conspirators successfully hid the Z-film to show the public (only individual frames were previously published by Jan. 1964, with some critical frames reversed in the time order). Only after a copy was obtained by Geraldo Rivera's staff to show the public the whole 26-second film in Mar. 1975, on Rivera's late-night tv show, did a nation-wide audience finally see the violent, natural movement (to the rear) of his body, resulting in more people realizing it had to be a conspiracy from the frontal shots!

@@freeguy77 thanks for the details sir

Rather apparently had a limited viewing of the film and was now going by memory. Comparing his recollection of what he saw with the actual Zapruder film demonstrates how memory of specific movements is imprecise, even for a news reporter. Bill and Gale Newman the couple on the grass with their children were interviewed on live TV less than 30 minutes after the shooting, parts of their description doesn't match the Zapruder film exactly. Bill Newman said the president lifted up in his seat, when the film shows that only Kennedy's arms raised up. Frame by frame analysis shows that Kennedy's head initially snapped forward a small distance when the bullet struck, followed by the longer and slower rearward movement. The forward movement is too brief to be noticed at regular playback speed, unlike the very visible rearward movement. Dan Rather therefore incorrectly remembered seeing the head move forward because he would not have been able to see the initial forward motion assuming he watched the film at full speed.

@@StevePemberton2 This is not some innocuous event that Rather was trying to recall. He was watching a video of the President of the United States being assassinated, something very few other people had access to. There is no possible way you could watch such a monumental video in the days (hours?) after the assassination and get something like that wrong. At no point in the video does the president move forward anywhere close to the degree Rather describes...the president's movement is of course in the opposite direction, and violently. Also, given the circumstances of Rather's eventual dismissal from CBS, he is not owed the benefit of the doubt.

He did not lie. He simply misinterpreted what he saw which was easy to do at this point when interviews weren’t conducted and released yet.

@@counseling8266 back and to the left. anyone can see that with that type of head reaction the shot came from the front.

@@alci720 Actually, the head went forward and to the left but I don’t argue about this topic anymore. To each his own.

@@counseling8266 yeah..sure

@@alci720 you're a loon

Corben Exactly. He's a pos.

If it did, the secret service car 5 feet behind it would have either rear ended the limo or at least pinned Clint Hill.

Likely the CIA Strongly urged the company owners to force him to say that

He was weak and easy to manipulate and Thusly he capitulated

@@deconstructingthematrix793 Or threatened (blackmailed) or just bribed for $ and increased publicity, higher credibility by a deceived public. Same for Cronkite (a vicious One-World Government promoter, as he did in speeches), with his huge support for the mastermind, #36; until his Vietnam War boondoggle finally got "Uncle Walter" to realize he had been duped, as Rather and most other media CIA supporters were, by Operation Mockingbird. A late-1940s inventive operation by CIA people to get critical media operatives to promote their view to the public. Pure political and government propaganda. Joseph Goebbels (German socialist-communist) propagandist for Hitler would have been impressed!

Interesting. yes that film has been compromised.

Sht up you pack of clowns..🤣🤣

Fair point

He was not an eye-witness! Therefore he is reading what was prepared for him to read !

He continued to lie 3 years later on the Whitewashed CBS special in 1967. Shame on CBS as well as the History Channel for continuing to lie for the Warren commission to this day .

Yup

Rather was a liar, just as the whole CBS network, which went along with the WC to this day.

Rather the slime that he was, was allowed to view the film where a gentleman’s agreement was made that it wouldn’t be discussed publicly. Eddie Barker broke the news that Kennedy was died, yet Rather took the credit

Made his career. Good point.

gemmrider GOT NEWS FOR YOU... thats a cia body double...after she slashs jfks throat she dropped knife on hood of car as she was passing to agent..

No hope with Trump in the WH. Yes, she was reaching for part of JFK's head.

I saw it on the BBC news the day it happened, she was reaching for the piece that had blown off. My father cried out, the only time I ever saw him cry.

You show your ignorance when a bullet enters your head from the rear going 2000 ft per second pieces of his head can go in all different directions

@@saskoilersfan what a kook hello again if i had knew you made this comment i would not have even responded to you youre sad buddy

As well, Rather reports that SS was riding on back or car.

On the right track. The Zapruder film was altered after he saw it. Dan saw the original. No one could made that mistake. Watch the following: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J_QIuu6hsAc.html Why did JFK's head move violently forward -- because the bullet entered in the front and exploded out the back. This was mentioned by the attending physicians at Parkland Hospital. The original film has frames cut out of it so JFK's head movement appears to move back and to the right. Again there is no way anyone could make a mistake like this. Watch the video I have supplied -- the guy at the lab describes what he saw -- same as Dan Rather -- and more details since he viewed frame by frame. No doubt. There was a coverup.

@@christopherl4249 Thanks for the info...I have spent years studying the assassination and Doug Horne's work is brilliant. I have also disgussed with someone who authenticated the 'Backyard' photos and you can prove it's not Oswald holding the rifle. Not sure if you know they found a bullet in JFK's skull but it was never made public knowledge and the bullet that hit Connally (the magic bullet) was still stuck in his thigh and not on the gurney. I have hundreds of details if interested.

@@MrBarrynicholas Hi Barry. Interesting. I did not know about the bullet found in the skull. Can you give me more information on this? I do know they "lost" JFKs brain. How convenient.

@@christopherl4249 copy and paste the following into google MD 176 - FBI Memorandum To: Mr. Tolson From: AH Belmont

HENRY LUCE BOUGHT THE FILM HE WAS SKULL AND BONES LIKE ALLEN DULLES. THEY EDITED IT. THEN YEAH NOT WELL. IDIOTS. LITTLE KNOWN FACT. CLARE BOOTH LUCE , HENRY'S WIFE, WAS JOHN WILKES BOOTHE'S NIECE..

Yeah, he knows... Could be he was told what it say........ or else someone could have an a really bad accident... If you know what I mean..

lol so Dan Rather was in on the cover up too? Lol. Don't over-think it or get too excited now. He ain't lying. He may not be correct, but he isn't lying.

@@casario2808 he looks like he's testifying in favor of his captors. Dan rather has never had a thought which lasted this long. He read ah edited script there!

It’s obvious he’s being controlled.

Dan lied - what a surprise. That wouldn't be the 1st nor last time Dan Rather lied.

There are a lot of mistakes he said here

He never mentioned how Jackie positioned Jack's head for the final shot nor how the Connelys turned back towards the front as if jack was gaging in the backseat!

If there were a conspiracy why let him view the film, to begin with? Why let anyone see it?

@@monitor1862 because Rather was on their team and would say whatever they wanted him to. There is a reason Rather's career skyrocketed after this.

@Alrifr my point is if there was a government cover-up why let the Zapruder film be seen by anyone at all? Wouldn't it have made more sense to destroy it? I used to buy into the conspiracy theories. Read the books, watched the documentaries. But after a while they became more and more silly. The CIA killed Kennedy or was it the FBI? The Soviets did it or Castro or organized crime. Maybe a combination of any or all. People claim that George H W Bush was involved along with Woody Harrelson's father. Others say it was JFKs limo driver, or a tiny rocket launcher hidden in one of the seats or the Umbrella man launched a dart into Kennedy to paralyze him. My favorite was he was accidentally shot by a Secret Service who was trying to return fire at Oswald. As I said it's all pretty silly.

Dan had a gun to his head, so to speak.

Originally it did but then he flew backwards as the second shot hit him from the front.

The Warren Report appendix includes the results of the paraffin test for nitrates conducted by the Dallas PD on Oswald’s cheeks the afternoon he was taken into custody. There were no nitrates. That proves he had not fired a rifle.

@@Cyallaire True but even after he tested negative for the paraffin test the Dallas chief of police was quoted saying “to my knowledge the test was positive”. And here you have another smoking gun proving a conspiracy within the investigation. He would have been charged with pergury if he would have said that to a grand jury. But it’s okay for him to blatantly lie to the national media reporting to millions of people. After most people heard this from the chief of police they never questioned the assassination again and they still reference the Warren report like it’s a non fiction story.

All the facts and proof only points too one man as the shooter, and that is LHO! No one else!!!

@@wallacebell4311 LOL and what “evidence” are you referring to??? No evidence was ever put forth because he was murdered in the police station to prevent a trial.

@@FLINTMICHIGANMEGABOWL Read the Warren Commission Report! You can thank me later!!!

Former U.S. senator Prescott Bush was on the board of directors of CBS back then during that time. That is why Dan Rather lied.

@@brianzybura8633 It’s like Dan Rather watched a different video

@@josephgeorge7385 Possibly Dan Rather did. One way or the other , he was part of the big lie--the big cover-up. Back in 1963, like today, the bankers, industrialists, and the mainstream media all work together. For example the president of CBS is a vice-president on one of the major banks and vice-versa. That is HOW--they work together. As for Dan Rather, I like many others in the comments section of this video, see that Dan Rather is NOT telling the truth about the assassination.

In other places, he says he saw the film only once. There was a lot to comprehend quickly and he did his best.

Interesting you mention that.there is a good book on the Z Film much better than the one by Z's Daughter, and that is by David Wrone. Officially, Rather couldn't have seen the film unless there was a 4th copy we don't know about.So we;ll just take his word for it when the film shows the opposite of what he says!

@@RealSpiritualTalkPodcast he deliberately misinterpreted

He saw the film.

@@voiceofREASONS yep. and then he formulated the narrative that he was told to report, much like what happens right now today.

He saw,it

right on😂😂😂

You mean the CAREER is in the mail...

Rather did not see this in person. He is speaking of the photos that he saw.

I saw z film many times and could not determine head going forward at all. He must have seen a different z film.

@@steveweingart9221David Belin, a staff. cover-up lawyer in the WC, saw the Z-film and exclaimed (not being a doctor), "neurospasm!" to explain the movement. Some people see a very small, incremental movement forward *before* the violent whole body movement backwards. Those people explain the very small forward movement as a result of a bullet. More likely, consistent with the numerous witnesses seeing the brake lights flash, the limo was slowing down, thereby with the laws of motion, a person naturally moves forward. That was what happened if those people insist they see a forward motion, but easily explained by the limo slowing, even lower than the minimum 11mph the Secret Service rules required for its drivers, when by then the limo had already slowed below the 11mph, with some witnesses insisting the limo actually stopped. Only until after the fatal head shot to his front, right temple (just above the right eye), did driver William Greer hit the accelerator and go to the hospital.

Rather wasn’t even close in his recollection ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9uj5k9PlY-4.html

He was right his head did go violently forward no doubt

@@randyharris3175 - You ought to get of the drugs, lying POS.

@@Woozler554Watch Vincent Buglishi prove it on the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald when you examine the individual frames the head goes forward 2.4 inches at frame 313.As far as anybody being on drugs you might as well be because you buy into the conspiracy kooks conspiracy bulkshit.Stop letting them lead you around by the nose and study the facts for Gods sake.

@@michaelwilson6935 You're right but he is right about the head going violently forward though I admit he probably got it right by mistake.Jeeo in mind he seen it once very quickly it had to be a great shock seeing that.

Hans Peterson - Yeah, he got that wrong. I wonder if someone told him to say that or if he just didn’t remember correctly. JFK’s head moved back and to the left. The fatal shot came from behind the stockade fence and hit JFK in the right temple.

@@swankybutters8371 - True.

The Z-film was not shown in public until years later! They had time to clip the first part and also remove frames to fit the one-shooter propaganda.

Dan Rather said the head moved violently forward. Yes it did! The Zapruder film was altered after he saw it. Dan saw the original. No one could made that mistake. And Abraham Zapruder and the lab tech Dino Brrugioni reported exactly the same thing Dan Rather reported. Watch the following: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J_QIuu6hsAc.html Why did JFK's head move violently forward -- because the bullet entered in the front and exploded out the back. This was mentioned by the attending physicians at Parkland Hospital. The original film has frames cut out of it so JFK's head movement appears to move back and to the right. Again there is no way anyone could make a mistake like this. Watch the video I have supplied -- the guy at the lab describes what he saw -- same as Dan Rather -- and more details since he viewed frame by frame. No doubt. There was a coverup.

Exposure I dont think he wanted to be caught

There IS no other film. You and Dan are fucking LIARS.

Approximately 17(!!) people were filming, but only the Zapruder footage has been "found"

You mean returned but the Nix film was looked at n published for ppl to view.

And Jewry knows that our people will do and say nothing.

Stratus Blue well said sir i also think they won't do shit

You’re full of it ! The gutter was less than 4 feet,did they call Willy Wonka to provide an Oompa Loompa assassin ?? And as for the rest of your comment,same unfounded bullshit !

They told him what to say... or he might go missing... so to speak...

It was a skull fragment she grabbed. She handed it to a doctor at Parkland Hospital.

@@Cyallaire Yes, I alluded to that.

@@Cyallaire thank u. some dont bother to research well. Thats exactly what happened.

She is a WOMAN ! perhaps in her mind she thought that they could put his brain back together again , hence her handing it to the surgeon at the hospital

The doctors at Parkland Hospital said that she gave them a small piece of her husband's brain! Who would do that? The wife or the husband are able to do that !

congrats Scott.

He's reading off of a report handed to him by his CIA masters. Even if you saw the Zapruder film only once, you wouldn't be so blind to say that JFK's head moved violently forward. It was clear the headshot came from the front.

Lone Star - That is NO EXCUSE.

Agreed, it was such a short film. Why not let them view it several times? More stupidity from authorities to make America wonder. Why the gap in z film between turn on elm to just behind the sign? Didn't see limo slow down in film as witnessed. Was zapruder trying to save on film? And did Dan ever explain the difference in the z film we saw and his report on violent foreword head movement he saw. Z film is suspect to me.

That could be plausible if he didn't recount all the other minute details and the one major unforgettable moment of the entire assassination, the violent headshot, he makes a mistake? Come on

Agree, people's recollections of something they cannot go back and check afterwards can show major variations from what actually occured. Especially if what happened was totally unexpected and came "out of nowhere" (when Rather saw the Zapruder film he knew about the assassination of course, but he had no idea just what it would look like up close: the headshot still feels like a shocking moment when watched sixty years later).

Is that you Dan?

Complete nonsence

@@timhorpo driver turns around at the same moment JFKs head explodes

@@FLINTMICHIGANMEGABOWL what about the nix film that shoes exactly the same as the zapruder film. That been doctored too?

@@timhorpo yes as a matter of fact when Orville Nix gave his film to the fbi it was much longer and showed the area behind the picket fence, etc. But when the fbi returned the film to the nix family the film was much shorter. The nix family filed a lawsuit against the government for the rest of the film.

@@FLINTMICHIGANMEGABOWL really........ And the Charles Bronson film. That doctored as well? And just exactly how we're the FBI or CIA or secret service supposed to know exactly who and how many people were filming that day, and then miraculously alter every known footage of them, so perfectly, that even after 60 years no evidence of alteration exists?

What a liar this guy is

@@thomassaehler9038 bro, I commented this 9 years ago.

Yep, if violently forward means “snapped backwards and to the left” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9uj5k9PlY-4.html

Dan Rather said the head move forward violently. Yes! The Zapruder film was altered after he saw it. Dan saw the original. No one could made that mistake. Watch the following: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J_QIuu6hsAc.html Why did JFK's head move violently forward -- because the bullet entered in the front and exploded out the back. This was mentioned by the attending physicians at Parkland Hospital. The original film has frames cut out of it so JFK's head movement appears to move back and to the right. Again there is no way anyone could make a mistake like this. Watch the video I have supplied -- the guy at the lab describes what he saw -- same as Dan Rather -- and more details since he viewed frame by frame. No doubt. There was a coverup.

Wrong, Rather saw the film on November 25, 1963. danratherjournalist.org/ground/crises-and-conflicts/kennedy-assassination/video-rather-describes-zapruder-film

It took 12 years??

Had to lie...

Good editing on whoever changed it, you have to admit. Pretty well done.

@@swankybutters8371 i learned later in life long after I retired from the Air Force, they created one story board from the Zapruder film. Then that film supervisor found out somebody created a alternet story bord . That board went on to hide the real shooters and shots.

There were bone fragments, blood, and brain matter on the Queen Mary. A shot from the rear would have driven matter forward, not backwards. One of the motorcycle cops to the left rear of JFK was splattered with blood, he immediately thought he had been hit.

After the fact, but YUP!

I corrected this etf

And he can have this played over and over in front of him for eternity ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9uj5k9PlY-4.html

Yup, it was the driver. And the video was evidence and somehow was allowed to get locked into a vault for years!

The US is a land of miracles

🙄😁😁😁😁

"Both hands went up to his throat--not to the back of his neck," Actually neither hand went to his throat. His right hand made a fist pressed against his mouth with his left fist pressed against his right, as if he was coughing up blood which he almost certainly was. "supposedly where the shot entered, but it never came from the rear from the TSBD. One shot elsewhere from the rear hit the president in his mid-back, that was a minor wound, barely penetrating him there." If that is true, then it would mean a different bullet entered the front of his throat but also didn't exit. What, two bullets fired from opposite directions, one into his back and the other into his throat and neither one exits? What would have slowed down the velocity of these two bullets sufficiently for that to happen? You've got two bullet's behaving more "magically" than anything ever attributed to the single bullet. "The one shot from the NW corner (opposite the supposed Oswald location in the SE), came from Malcolm (Mac) Wallace, an LBJ-hired paid hitman, who was proven there by his fingerprint ID'ed on one of the boxes in the NW corner." Oh dear, the Mac Wallace fingerprint myth again. In 1998 Nathan Darby claimed to have proven a "match" between a latent fingerprint found on a box on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination and a known fingerprint of Wallace's from 1951. But the majority of the fingerprint experts who have examined those two prints since have not agreed with Darby's original conclusion, so that by now it cannot be truthfully claimed that the fingerprint on the box is a "proven" print of Wallace's. In fact, it has still never been proven that Wallace was even in Dallas at all that day, much less that he ever went inside the TSBD in his entire life.

@@Caeruleo Yeah, the myth also of no George H.W. Bush at Dealey Plaza, and no LBJ or mistress Madeleine Brown, Richard Nixon, J.E. Hoover, at Clint Murchison's house meeting the night before to go over what to say and do Fri afternoon, it was all just a dream from some "conspiracy theorists" scenario in refusing to believe the always-truthful government! And Mac Wallace was never a hired gunman to get rid of 7 people (before Kennedy) who got in LBJ's way. LBJ never ducked before his limo got to Elm Street fearing a double-cross, never wanted to be president at all costs, never took any kickbacks or bribes, never blackmailed Kennedy to be his VP in July 1960, the Z-film was never altered or Kennedy having two brain exams with conflicting photos and x-rays, etc. LHO lied on not claiming he did it, or shooting anyone that evening. Yeah, right, all those points were a huge mistake in not believing the official narrative, that only a minimal marksman who had not shot a gun in 4 1/2 years (May 1959) could do it when no FBI EXPERT shooters could replicate his shooting! Any other fairy tales you want to believe, in addition to the government narrative lying scumbags; prime example staff lawyer Arlen Specter who dreamed up the nonsensical, never proven "magic bullet" THEORY and Rep. Gerald R. Ford who inexplicably moved UP 5 inches the mid-back wound to the neck area in his report, to make that nonsensical magic bullet" THEORY plausible! LHO passed a paraffin (nitrate) test, proving he shot no guns that day! More "lies" from the "conspiracy theorists" who just can't take at face value without always questioning the government gods whatever the government says is the honest truth! Yeah, right!

@@freeguy77 "Yeah, the myth also of no George H.W. Bush at Dealey Plaza," Yep, that one's definitely a proven myth. You didn't know that? You didn't know that the photograph which supposedly "shows" him in front of the TSBD moments after the shooting is most definitely not him? You didn't know that the same photographer, William Allen of the Dallas Times-Herald, took a second photo showing the same man, but much closer up, and in the second photo it is quite obvious that it isn't Bush? Look it up if you don't believe me. I found both photos, and the name of the photographer, and the name of the newspaper, no more than three days after the first day in my life that I saw the claim that that first photo shows Bush. And yet there are people who still claim that that's him after more than three YEARS? What does that tell you? Quite obviously that the people who falsely claim that that's him in the first photo aren't even TRYING to find out the real truth. "and no LBJ or mistress Madeleine Brown, Richard Nixon, J.E. Hoover, at Clint Murchison's house meeting the night before to go over what to say and do Fri afternoon, it was all just a dream from some "conspiracy theorists" scenario in refusing to believe the always-truthful government!" No, it was all just a dream concocted by an obvious fraud, Madeleine Brown. You give the impression that you've done almost no research at all into her credibility, or more properly, severe lack of it. It has never been proven that she ever met LBJ even once in her life, much less was his "mistress." Perhaps you could research more than one percent of the evidence about her before you ever again mention her in any context? "And Mac Wallace was never a hired gunman to get rid of 7 people (before Kennedy) who got in LBJ's way." Strawman. I never said he hadn't committed murder before. I merely said that in the case of the JFK assassination only, nothing else, he has never actually been proven to have been involved, and the fingerprint has never actually been proven to be his. See the difference? In the future, perhaps you could consider arguing with what I actually DID say, rather than arguing with something I NEVER said. "LBJ never ducked before his limo got to Elm Street fearing a double-cross," I've seen this claim before and I've never seen it actually proven to be true. Rufus Youngblood got on top of LBJ after the first shot was fired. I've never seen any proof that LBJ ducked before the first shot was fired. So you appear to be mindlessly repeating yet another myth. "the Z-film was never altered" Prove it. Prove the film was altered in any SIGNIFICANT, IMPORTANT way, aside from a few frames being snipped out here and there. Produce the link to the "original, unaltered" film so we can all see with our own eyes what the SIGNIFICANT alterations were that would change the overall picture of when the shots were fired, how many there were, which direction they came from, etc. Oh, you can't find a link to it? Which means you haven't seen the "unaltered original" either? Which means you have no proof whatsoever that the film was altered in any SIGNIFICANT way in the first place? "Yeah, right, all those points were a huge mistake in not believing the official narrative, that only a minimal marksman who had not shot a gun in 4 1/2 years (May 1959)" ROFL, neither you or any other human on this planet has any possible way of knowing whether or not Oswald had not shot a gun since May, 1959. What a silly claim. "could do it when no FBI EXPERT shooters could replicate his shooting!" Where on earth are you getting this MYTH from? What's so hard about firing three shots at a slowly moving target, with the longest shot being a mere 88 yards, and hitting the target two out of three times? The majority of shooters who have tested that Carcano or a similar Carcano have replicated that just fine. "LHO passed a paraffin (nitrate) test, proving he shot no guns that day!" Wow, your research is extremely shabby. He tested positive on his hands. You didn't know that? And also, you didn't know that it is a well-known fact that those tests are not always reliable anyway, that there are plenty of documented cases of people testing negative who had just fired a gun only minutes earlier, and of people testing positive when they've never fired a gun? Good gawd, I knew this way back in 1988. And it's 2002 and you STILL didn't know it? A negative test does NOT prove the person shot no guns that day. Talk about mindlessly repeating a proven conspiracy myth. "More "lies" from the "conspiracy theorists" who just can't take at face value without always questioning the government gods whatever the government says is the honest truth!" Another strawman. I never said, or even indirectly implied, that the government tells the truth 100 percent of the time. I have never been under any such delusion. I know perfectly well that the government has lied many times. I also know perfectly well that the government also SOMETIMES tells the truth. But you're quite obviously the one going by very unreliable sources who are telling lies at least as often as the government does, if not more often.

Dan Rather said the head move forward violently. Yes! The Zapruder film was altered after he saw it. Dan saw the original. No one could made that mistake. Watch the following: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J_QIuu6hsAc.html Why did JFK's head move violently forward -- because the bullet entered in the front and exploded out the back. This was mentioned by the attending physicians at Parkland Hospital. The original film has frames cut out of it so JFK's head movement appears to move back and to the right. Again there is no way anyone could make a mistake like this. Watch the video I have supplied -- the guy at the lab describes what he saw -- same as Dan Rather -- and more details since he viewed frame by frame. No doubt. There was a coverup and the guy in the video was an unwitting part of it. Watch then make your reply.

@@christopherl4249 there is no explosion or damage to jfk's back of head. His head was turned to the right when he was hit. All the damage is at the front and side. There was no mistake in reporting. He got to see the film once. You can't really tell what direction his head is moving anyway and it wouldn't matter because bullet impact won't move the head. No missing frames no conspiracy. Just one man with a plan and a really bad parade route. You were able to get away with it then because security was lax but not anymore.

@@n3d.studio Dr. Roobert McClelland and Dr Charles Crenshaw two of the three attending physicians in the trauma room where JFK was treated say otherwise. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lQ435lMaCng.html; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pPcH1RNMC6M.html I think I will believe the words of an unimpeachable eye witnesses. I would like to add I am not defending the JFK movie. In fact, Oliver Stone added a lot of his own BS to that movie. I refer to eyewitnesses like the attending physicians and Dino Brugioni. Are they all mistaken?

@@christopherl4249 The damage is on the top right side of his head. The bullet entered the back and blew out the top/right side. There's a diagram on this on Wiki that can show it better. If you pause frame 313 you can see the blood explosion which is mostly forward, not to the back of the car if he had been hit from the front. Also if he had been shot from the front there would be an entry hole there in his skull as well as more damage to the back of head. The back of his head was not blown out, only the top/right side. Check the autopsy photos. He was shot twice, first time when he is behind the sign out of view and the bullet entered his back. The 2nd shot missed him, the 3rd shot was fatal. The first two shots prove the 3rd shot also came from behind. It is far more plausible there was only one shooter. He had the perfect spot. Not on the grassy area in front of the car where they couldn't get a clear shot.

@@n3d.studio Did you view the videos of the attending physicians at Parkland? Why not? They saw Kennedy. McClelland and Creenshaw both describe what they saw with their own eyes. They have no reason to lie. Do they? The secret service took the body illegally from Texas where it was supposed to be given an autopsy by an independent pathologist. Why? Add to this that 7 out of 7 Hollywood film specialists have said that the Zapruder film has been altered. Finally, Dino Brugioni, the government specialist who was the first to received the Zapruder film saw the back of his head blow out. He has insisted that the frame-blow-ups that he made are not the ones at the Sixth Floor Museum. Now are all these people lying? or mistaken.