Why transcript 1327C is a fraud

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Paul, Since you own MURDER, I must ask, Have you read it? Because I have already explained the parts that you should read to get up-to-speed on the throat wound, the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., on the limousine and the Altgen's photo, David Mantik's synthesis of the medical evidence, plus the sections on Jim Lewis's travels through the south firing high-velocity bullets throug the windshields of junked cars to see if he could hit dummies in the back seats from the distance to the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass. The last part is not in every printing of MURDER, however, but only the last few. Guess what? When a high-velocity bullet passes through the glass on one of these cars, it makes the sound of a firecracker! Do you know why that is important? On the existence of the throat wound per se, you should also read sections of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), including Tom Wicker's report of the wounds appears on page 15; Bob Livingston's report on pages 165-166; the article by Richard Dudman on page 167; Crenshaw's diagrams are Appendix A and The Parkland Press Conference is Appendix C. I don't mean to be impatient with you, but you haven't done your homework. I have given hundreds of presentation in which I explain these things in considerable detail. You might want to visit my new blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com for my most recent lecture using Powerpoint, which I converted into a chapter for a new book on JFK. Have you spent any time at assassinationscience.com or assassinationresearch.com? The first is my public issues site, which has a lot on JFK; the second the on-line journal for advanced study I co-edit with John Costella. Let me know when you have had the chance to review the material I am citing and I would be glad to discuss it further with you. In extending my hand, I am overlooking the absurd remark, "That book which you 'edited', Jim, is part of the reason I no longer believe in a conspiracy. In particular, the section dedicated to Jack White is laughable." There is no section that is "dedicated" to Jack White, but there is a section by Jack White. My inference is that photographic studies are beyond you. But the 16 "smoking guns" of the Prologue and the chapter on Oswald should not be. I would ask you to justify your rejection of conspiracy in relation to those chapters, which I authored. Get back to me when you are able to defend yourself. Two shots, by the way, were widely reported on radio and television the evening of the assassination: one to the throat, the other to the right temple. See if you can track down the NBC footage, for example, featuring Chet Huntley and Frank McGee, among others. If you follow my advice, you just might learn something about the death of JFK. Good luck!

How can Paul Baker qualify as an "experienced member" and be so massively ignorant? Paul, if you have never read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), then your education about the assassination has been severely lacking.

I don't believe, in asking those simple questions, that I've marked myself as an idiot. Can you answer them? Come on, you call yourself a scientist, why not demonstrate some of that cognitive power you're supposed to have. Are they stupid questions? Anyone? If they are, tell me why. No problem. Regardless of experiments undertaken, surely - given the choice - a sniper would position himself behind the limousine. Is that not a simpler, less risky place to fire from?

I own a copy of Murder In Dealey Plaza. It was one of the first books I bought about the assassination, and at the time I suppose I was in the CT camp. That book which you 'edited', Jim, is part of the reason I no longer believe in a consipiracy. In particular, the section dedicated to Jack White is laughable.

Finally Jim, if it says 'experienced member' beneath my name I suspect that's simply based on the number of posts I've made. I wouldn't necessarily describe myself as such, though in terms of JFK assassination research, I believe I have made more of a contribution towards discovering the truth than you have.

Paul.

Edited December 10, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Paul Baker]

Paul, Since you own MURDER, I must ask, Have you read it? Because I have already explained the parts that you should read to get up-to-speed on the throat wound, the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., on the limousine and the Altgen's photo, David Mantik's synthesis of the medical evidence, plus the sections on Jim Lewis's travels through the south firing high-velocity bullets throug the windshields of junked cars to see if he could hit dummies in the back seats from the distance to the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass. The last part is not in every printing of MURDER, however, but only the last few. Guess what? When a high-velocity bullet passes through the glass on one of these cars, it makes the sound of a firecracker! Do you know why that is important? On the existence of the throat wound per se, you should also read sections of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), including Tom Wicker's report of the wounds appears on page 15; Bob Livingston's report on pages 165-166; the article by Richard Dudman on page 167; Crenshaw's diagrams are Appendix A and The Parkland Press Conference is Appendix C. I don't mean to be impatient with you, but you haven't done your homework. I have given hundreds of presentation in which I explain these things in considerable detail. You might want to visit my new blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com for my most recent lecture using Powerpoint, which I converted into a chapter for a new book on JFK. Have you spent any time at assassinationscience.com or assassinationresearch.com? The first is my public issues site, which has a lot on JFK; the second the on-line journal for advanced study I co-edit with John Costella. Let me know when you have had the chance to review the material I am citing and I would be glad to discuss it further with you. In extending my hand, I am overlooking the absurd remark, "That book which you 'edited', Jim, is part of the reason I no longer believe in a conspiracy. In particular, the section dedicated to Jack White is laughable." There is no section that is "dedicated" to Jack White, but there is a section by Jack White. My inference is that photographic studies are beyond you. But the 16 "smoking guns" of the Prologue and the chapter on Oswald should not be. I would ask you to justify your rejection of conspiracy in relation to those chapters, which I authored. Get back to me when you are able to defend yourself. Two shots, by the way, were widely reported on radio and television the evening of the assassination: one to the throat, the other to the right temple. See if you can track down the NBC footage, for example, featuring Chet Huntley and Frank McGee, among others. If you follow my advice, you just might learn something about the death of JFK. Good luck!

I'm not sure which edition of MIDP I have, and I read it when I first got it several years ago when I first became unnaturally interested in the assassination. Forgive me Jim, I should have written 'the section dedicated to Jack White's work'. I still maintain that that part is absurd, and I don't have to be a photographic expert to appreciate that - that is how bad it is.

I'll take a closer look at my copy in any case. Isn't it fair to say, though, that regardless of any experiments have been undertaken regarding the bullet through the windshield scenario, it is a much simpler undertaking to shoot JFK from behind, where there are no obstructions and a few tall buildings to fire from?

I've listened over and over to radio and TV footage from the day. Some might say obsessively. I can almost play the NBC audio in my head. I thought three shots was the general consensus on the day. There are many inaccuracies in the live reports, which is understandable under the circumstances, so I wouldn't place undue reliance on them anyway.

Paul.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I don't believe, in asking those simple questions, that I've marked myself as an idiot.

Paul.

No Paul, indeed you have not. Sometimes the simple questions are the ones we fail to ask. I kinda gave up on JFKR about a year ago, as all I seemed to be doing was circling round and round the same airport with no permission to land. the simple questions in the case appear, to me at least, to be these.

1, Could LHO have performed the shooting feat seen that day?

2, What was Oswalds motive for assassinating Kennedy?

3, What evidence is there of a wider plot, that either (a) involves Oswald, or ( has him as the "patsy"

4, Was Jack Ruby part of the wider plot, or, what was his motive for killing Oswald.

And thats it, simple, simple questions, so simple that not one of us can answer them.

[Paul Rigby]

Attached File(s)

Attached File moore_pkld_pressconf_2__1.jpg ( 13.01K ) Number of downloads: 0

Attached File moore_pkld_press_conf_marsh1.JPG ( 25.23K ) Number of downloads: 0

Bernice, thank you for posting these two images and I assume you are saying they were made during the Clark/Perry press conference at Parkland, although I don't see Perry in the picture and don't recognize anyone else.

These images LOOK like stills made from videos, as opposed to still photos, but I am not an expert.

While no television cameras are visible, it certainly looks as though there are microphones present. It also looks like someone is holding a small tape recorder, though I am not sure if modern hand-held tape recorders were available in 1963.

I must admit I am baffled by all this. Is it possible that that the images you posted are from a different press conference?

Gary Mack copied me on an email he sent to Paul Rigby:

The Kilduff announcement was made at 1:30 but it lasted only a few minutes. Cameras and microphones were present. Then, as I explained, the broadcast media left and were gone by 2:16 when Perry and Clark spoke. Is that easier to understand? You are welcome to examine the exact same photographs I did. They are at the University of Texas at Arlington, Texas in their Fort Worth Star-Telegram collection. I studied a few prints and contact sheets. One of those pictures is the same photograph that appears in Best Evidence.

Gary Mack

Jay,

A brief recap is perhaps in order:

1) The timing issue: The transcript I have of the original Parkland doctors’ press conference specifies “3:16 P.M. CST” at its head. So those responsible for its preparation were demonstrably not unmindful of the distinctions between EST, CST etc. I can’t help but note that this mistiming of the conference’s commencement is of considerable utility to those such as Mack who would have us believe the assembled news crews simply packed up during the hiatus and went elsewhere.

2) The Secret Service reported to the WC not that the doctors’ press conference went unfilmed, but, instead, that no recordings survived. Not much doubt in the SS’ mind, then, that the comments of Perry and Clark were filmed!

3) A Fort Worth paper of 23 November listed the commencement of said conference as 1:40 p.m. – much earlier than commonly supposed, but corroborated by the fact that the AP was reporting Perry’s comments at just after 2 p.m. (For sources of both claims, see earlier in this thread.)

4) What Perry initially said, as reported in newspaper editions of 22/23 November, was both strikingly different from the version offered in 1327C, and strikingly similar to Kilduff’s famous comment - attributed, entirely plausibly, to Dr. Burkley - that it was “a simple matter of a bullet through the head.” So what was that crucial observation of Perry’s according to the earliest press accounts? “The entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head.” This comment is nowhere to be found in transcript 1327C.

4) The unwieldiness of the camera equipment in use in 1963 is a powerful, perhaps even dispositive, argument against the notion advanced by Gary Mack that the crews who filmed Kilduff simply packed up and moved on at the end of his announcement.

5) To further dispel this curious (and convenient) argument of Mack’s, consider the sheer newsworthiness of a press conference fronted by the medical personnel who attended the assassinated President.

6) The newsmen who filmed, photographed and recorded Kilduff’s announcement requested Hawks bring attending physicians before them to answer their questions. How do we know this? Try the opening to transcript 1327C: “You wanted to talk to some of the attending physicians. I have two of them here, Dr. Malcolm Perry…and then Dr. Kemp Clark.” So were newsmen and their film crews intent upon leaving Parkland after Kilduff’s announcement? Hardly, as we have just seen.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

I believe JFK was shot in the throat through the windshield.

Hell of a shot, as Paul Baker has not unreasonably pointed out elsewhere in the thread, and not self-evidently necessary when there were much closer armed men at hand.

Johnson's later disavowing of the Castro animus and any Cuban invasion plans - are they indicative of Cuba being only an impetus to cause persons to kill Kennedy, while not being the determining motive for the hit? Or was the evil sufficient to the day, in the end?

If by this you mean that the anti-Castro Cubans were just scenery and/or patsies, I agree.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In response to some questions I sent him, Gary Mack has sent me this email about the Perry/Clark press conference, which he says is based on "information I’ve learned over the years from those who were there."

Most local TV film cameras at the time did not have sound capability; the stations had only a few sound cameras in their Dallas and Fort Worth newsrooms. Those cameras used b&w 16mm film and only on extremely rare occasions did one of them, WBAP, use color film. Unlike today, TV news in the 60s was concerned more with visual content, not audio. I can, however, confirm that there was one TV film camera at part of the Perry-Clark press conference.

WFAA had a photographer there who filmed the very beginning of the event. That film runs 37 seconds and it shows White House staffer Wayne Hawks at the blackboard, then Malcolm Perry walks in and starts to speak….and that’s where it ends. The entire film is silent, but its whereabouts are unknown. The Sixth Floor Museum has the original 11-22-63 video tape of the film, though the actual film was edited before broadcast. The unknown photographer also shot scenes of the crowd outside Parkland reacting to the terrible news. That footage is also silent.

None of the WFAA press conference scenes show a film or video camera in the background, though quite a few reporters can be seen watching Perry . What struck me about the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photos of the doctor is that many show the desk behind which Perry stood. No microphones are visible anywhere on or near it. That tells me there were no TV or radio reporters present or, if they were, they weren’t recording sound.

Also, there were no TV video cameras at the Perry-Clark press conference. WBAP’s remote truck blew the engine a few miles from the station’s east Fort Worth studio and it was later towed to the Dallas Police station. The WFAA and KTVT trucks arrived outside Parkland minutes before the hearse left with Kennedy’s body at 2:05. Their video cameras, however, weren’t set up inside Parkland until after the Perry-Clark conference ended. KRLD’s truck arrived even later, but their camera (and WFAA’s) caught most of Dr. Robert Shaw’s press conference around 3:30pm.

The two frame grabs posted by Bernice, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the Perry-Clark press conference. They come from news film of the Sunday, November 24, press conference held by Dr. Tom Shires to discuss the death of Lee Harvey Oswald. On Friday, Shires was 300 miles away in Galveston, Texas and, according to his WC testimony, he did not return to Parkland until after 3pm. Shires immediately went to assist Governor Connally.

Gary Mack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

1) The timing issue: The transcript I have of the original Parkland doctors’ press conference specifies “3:16 P.M. CST” at its head.

Paul

Paul: Forgive me if I do not reply to each of the points made in your last post. I am not here to defend the Secret Service and I do not know whether the Perry/Clark press conference was never recorded or whether the Secret service confiscated any recordings that were made.

I do know that if you simply change "3.16 Central Standard Time" to 3.16 Eastern Standard Time, the timing problem disappears.

I also know that the existing transcript is powerful evidence that JFK was shot from the front, so if the existing transcript WAS tampered with, the tamperers screwed up BIG TIME.

[Like the supposed tamperers with the Zapruder film, which also proves shots from the front, any supposed transcript tamperers were just wasting their time]

Edited December 11, 2009 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Paul, let me see if I can answer your questions. I am a former Marine Corps officer who used to supervise recruit training at the same recruit depot (San Diego) and marksmanship range (Edson Range at Camp Pendelton) where Lee Oswald took his training. I was in the capacity of commanding 15 DIs and 300 recruits through the training cycle in 1964-65. Lee was there in 1957. He fired a 212 as the culmination of his marksmanship training, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". (There are three classifications, "Marksman", which requires between 190 and 209 points out of 250 for five combinations of position and distance, each of which allows up to 50 points to be earned, "Sharpshooter" between 210 and 219, and "Expert" 220 to 250.) I have myself qualified with 212, so that was competent marksmanship. However, in 1958, he did not qualify, which is a violation of a general order that applies from the highest ranking general down to the lowest ranking recruit. So something very odd was going on. Most of us, myself included, believe he was on a special assignment that exempted him from qualifying that year, probably taking Russian language training at the Armed Forces Language Institute in Monterey, CA. In 1959, he again qualified, but with only a 191, which means that his marksmanship ability had dropped 21 points in the intervening two years. We have no evidence that he was practicing his marksmanship between 1959 and 1963, so there is no telling how poor a shot he could have been by then. [incidentally, if you read my chapter on Oswald in MURDER--but also the "smoking guns"--you will learn that the Mannlicher-Carcano he is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed the president. Those, according to THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), and even articles published in the Journal of the AMA in 1992, were high-velocity, but the Mannlicher-Carcano, which has a muzzle velocity of only 2,000 fps, is not high-velocity, as many authors in the past have observed. So he cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, even if he had been on the 6th floor at the sniper's lair, which he was not, as I have also explained in that chapter. So he had neither the means nor the opportunity to kill John Kennedy. And his wife, Marina, observed that he admired JFK and thought well of him, so he lacked all three: motive, means, and opportunity. Under these circumstances, I am a bit baffled that reading MURDER turned you off to conspiracy, since I explain these things in that chapter and elsewhere. Oswald cannot have done it.]

Now in relation to the choice of shots, Oswald was not trained to use a telescopic sight, which enhances accuracy (when it is properly aligned, as this one was not) but at the expense of time. He was also not trained to fire at a moving target or down from a tall building. The bolt action on this weapon was so difficult that it threw the shooter's aim off the target, which would have to be reacquired, which consumes time. (The official timeline, which is based upon 2.3 second per bolt action, is therefore ridiculous, since that would only accommodate working the bolt and pulling the trigger, not actually sighting in on the intended target!) The best possible shots would have been as the vehicles moved toward the Book Depository on Houston, where the body and head are getting close and closer, visually larger and larger. Even with his mediocre ability with a rifle, if Lee had been there and had a half-way decent weapon, such as the Mauser that was also found in the building, then even he might have been able to shoot and kill JFK. But it didn't happen that way. According to the official account, he waited until the limousine had turned the corner and he had to shoot through a rather large tree, whose branches and limbs obfuscated his target. It is an absurd scenario. Just to illustrate the difficulty of the shots, in "JFK Reloaded", an interactive internet game, the shooter (you, for example) is provided with a far superior weapon with a properly aligned scope, which does not throw the shooter off the target when it is fired. Thousands of person tried to replicate Oswald's feat under these (far more convenient) conditions. No one was able to do it. The highest score was about .795 out of 1.000 for perfect replication (presumably, hitting the base of the back of his neck and then the back of his skull, while missing one shot and injuring a distant bystander). I have explained these things in so many places that I (mistakenly, it appears) took for granted that you knew what I am explaining here. But no matter. The irony of all this is that a producer for Jon Stewart's "The Today Show" wanted to send a member of their staff to interview me about "JFK Reloaded". Maybe I should have done it, but I knew the idea was to lampoon me in the same mode the show has lampooned so many others. I suppose I thereby forfeited my claim to fame. But there it is. The shots from the rear were far more difficult than would have been shots from the front. I hope with this understanding you can return to MURDER and give it another go. If you only study the 16 "smoking guns" and my chapter on Oswald, I think you will appreciate why the official account cannot be sustained and Lee Oswald was indeed the "patsy" he described himself as being. Good luck!

Paul, Since you own MURDER, I must ask, Have you read it? Because I have already explained the parts that you should read to get up-to-speed on the throat wound, the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., on the limousine and the Altgen's photo, David Mantik's synthesis of the medical evidence, plus the sections on Jim Lewis's travels through the south firing high-velocity bullets throug the windshields of junked cars to see if he could hit dummies in the back seats from the distance to the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass. The last part is not in every printing of MURDER, however, but only the last few. Guess what? When a high-velocity bullet passes through the glass on one of these cars, it makes the sound of a firecracker! Do you know why that is important? On the existence of the throat wound per se, you should also read sections of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), including Tom Wicker's report of the wounds appears on page 15; Bob Livingston's report on pages 165-166; the article by Richard Dudman on page 167; Crenshaw's diagrams are Appendix A and The Parkland Press Conference is Appendix C. I don't mean to be impatient with you, but you haven't done your homework. I have given hundreds of presentation in which I explain these things in considerable detail. You might want to visit my new blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com for my most recent lecture using Powerpoint, which I converted into a chapter for a new book on JFK. Have you spent any time at assassinationscience.com or assassinationresearch.com? The first is my public issues site, which has a lot on JFK; the second the on-line journal for advanced study I co-edit with John Costella. Let me know when you have had the chance to review the material I am citing and I would be glad to discuss it further with you. In extending my hand, I am overlooking the absurd remark, "That book which you 'edited', Jim, is part of the reason I no longer believe in a conspiracy. In particular, the section dedicated to Jack White is laughable." There is no section that is "dedicated" to Jack White, but there is a section by Jack White. My inference is that photographic studies are beyond you. But the 16 "smoking guns" of the Prologue and the chapter on Oswald should not be. I would ask you to justify your rejection of conspiracy in relation to those chapters, which I authored. Get back to me when you are able to defend yourself. Two shots, by the way, were widely reported on radio and television the evening of the assassination: one to the throat, the other to the right temple. See if you can track down the NBC footage, for example, featuring Chet Huntley and Frank McGee, among others. If you follow my advice, you just might learn something about the death of JFK. Good luck!

I'm not sure which edition of MIDP I have, and I read it when I first got it several years ago when I first became unnaturally interested in the assassination. Forgive me Jim, I should have written 'the section dedicated to Jack White's work'. I still maintain that that part is absurd, and I don't have to be a photographic expert to appreciate that - that is how bad it is.

I'll take a closer look at my copy in any case. Isn't it fair to say, though, that regardless of any experiments have been undertaken regarding the bullet through the windshield scenario, it is a much simpler undertaking to shoot JFK from behind, where there are no obstructions and a few tall buildings to fire from?

I've listened over and over to radio and TV footage from the day. Some might say obsessively. I can almost play the NBC audio in my head. I thought three shots was the general consensus on the day. There are many inaccuracies in the live reports, which is understandable under the circumstances, so I wouldn't place undue reliance on them anyway.

Paul.

Edited December 13, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...it's the JON DAILY SHOW not the TODAY SHOW.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

For once I am in complete agreement with Gary Mack, who writes:

quibbling about the time of the Perry-Clark press conference is silly for the simple fact that, as Lifton pointed out in Best Evidence 28 years ago, Perry's watch shows the time of day to be 2:18 when the Star-Telegram photo was taken. I've seen a nice, clear 8x10 print and Lifton was correct.

Someone made a mistake and my guess it was the man who made transcript. He was a White House staffer, which means his watch was likely on EST, but as he sat in Dallas, he typed CST because he knew he was in the Central time zone. Under the stress and shock of what had just happened, who’s surprised?

Further corroboration comes from the timing of Robert MacNeil's phone call to NBC reporting on the press conference. McNeil's call was logged at 2.40 CST, as I recall.

[Will Emaus]

For once I am in complete agreement with Gary Mack, who writes:

quibbling about the time of the Perry-Clark press conference is silly for the simple fact that, as Lifton pointed out in Best Evidence 28 years ago, Perry's watch shows the time of day to be 2:18 when the Star-Telegram photo was taken. I've seen a nice, clear 8x10 print and Lifton was correct.

Someone made a mistake and my guess it was the man who made transcript. He was a White House staffer, which means his watch was likely on EST, but as he sat in Dallas, he typed CST because he knew he was in the Central time zone. Under the stress and shock of what had just happened, who’s surprised?

Further corroboration comes from the timing of Robert MacNeil's phone call to NBC reporting on the press conference. McNeil's call was logged at 2.40 CST, as I recall.

Is this is the NBC clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F11n4INGqKE

[Paul Rigby]

For once I am in complete agreement with Gary Mack, who writes:

quibbling about the time of the Perry-Clark press conference is silly for the simple fact that, as Lifton pointed out in Best Evidence 28 years ago, Perry's watch shows the time of day to be 2:18 when the Star-Telegram photo was taken. I've seen a nice, clear 8x10 print and Lifton was correct.

Someone made a mistake and my guess it was the man who made transcript. He was a White House staffer, which means his watch was likely on EST, but as he sat in Dallas, he typed CST because he knew he was in the Central time zone. Under the stress and shock of what had just happened, who’s surprised?

Further corroboration comes from the timing of Robert MacNeil's phone call to NBC reporting on the press conference. McNeil's call was logged at 2.40 CST, as I recall.

Problems, problems.

The still photograph in question does NOT tell us anything about the commencement time of the initial Parkland doctors' press conference: It merely tells us, assuming the photograph is genuine (and I know no reason to doubt it), that Perry and Clark stood before the press at 2:18 CST. Was this only two minutes into the press conference? How one can positively insist that this is the case on the basis of one photograph is, well, mystifying.

We are still left with the countervailing evidence, none of which has been addressed by Gary Mack, presumably because he can't.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The still photograph in question does NOT tell us anything about the commencement time of the initial Parkland doctors' press conference:

THis just in from Gary Mack:

The Perry-Clark photo published by Lifton is one of around 20 images and the contact sheet of the original negative strips awaits any researcher who visits the UTA Library. That particular image, as best I recall, was one of the first the Star-Telegram photographer shot.

Gary also adds the following, but I am not sure that the fact no radio tapes exist is PROOF that they were not confiscated by the Secret Service.

While I’m thinking about it, none of the surviving radio station tapes include that press conference. Original, and first-generation copies of tapes for all or most of the WFAA, KRLD, KLIF, WBAP, WRR, KBOX and KXOL broadcasts still exist. I’ve heard all but WRR and none have the press conference either live or excerpted in later broadcasts. Granted, there were other radio stations, but these are the ones with the largest news departments and they are the ones with the equipment and extra people who could have carried it either live or delayed.

That, along with the apparent lack of visible microphones or film/TV cameras in the Star-Telegram series of photos convinces me that, despite what people may have thought, there never were any sound recordings of Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark addressing the media.

Gary

[Guest Tom Scully]

At 8:02 into the CBS news video linked below, Walter Cronkite fixes the time since the president was shot. He looks up at his studio clock and states that, "it seems almost inconceivable that this whole, tragic set of circumstances has taken place in these last three hours only. It was 12:25 EST, 11:25 in Dallas when the shots rang out on that Dallas street..."

53 seconds later, at 8:55 in the same CBS news video linked here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFAIKbzkmE

...Walter Cronkite announces that word is "just in" of Dr. Perry's remarks about the president's two wounds, and that he performed a tracheotomy. This segment comes just after Cronkite reports that the White House has advised that LBJ will soon be sworn in as president.

At about 6:10 into the video linked here,

....Cronkite is reporting that Dallas police have taken a 25 year old man into custody, and abruptly cuts this announcement short to say that he has just received confirmed word from Dan Rather in Dallas that the president is dead.

At 1:07 into the video linked here,

...Dan Rather announces from Dallas that he just got word that the "fatal shot" that hit the president "entered at the base of the throat and came out at the base of the neck, on uhh, the back side."

The video then cuts (interrupts Dan Rather?) to Cronkite and he says (at 1:21 into the video) , "we just got the word that Lyndon B. Johnson has been sworn in as the president of the United States. He was sworn in at 1:38 CST, (Cronkite then looks up at the clock in his studio) ...and that's almost an hour and a half ago, now, if this time is correct here..."

So Cronkite, at the point he was making this announcement of LBJ's oath taking, he fixed the time at approximately 3:05 pm, CST.

If Cronkite was accurate in his comments quoted in the first paragraph in this post; that about 3 hours had transpired since the shooting, we can reasonably conclude that Dr. Malcolm Perry had described the entrance wound to the president's neck to assembled members of the press, no later than just before 2:25 pm, CST....

Edited December 12, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

The still photograph in question does NOT tell us anything about the commencement time of the initial Parkland doctors' press conference:

THis just in from Gary Mack:

The Perry-Clark photo published by Lifton is one of around 20 images and the contact sheet of the original negative strips awaits any researcher who visits the UTA Library. That particular image, as best I recall, was one of the first the Star-Telegram photographer shot.

Gary also adds the following, but I am not sure that the fact no radio tapes exist is PROOF that they were not confiscated by the Secret Service.

While I’m thinking about it, none of the surviving radio station tapes include that press conference. Original, and first-generation copies of tapes for all or most of the WFAA, KRLD, KLIF, WBAP, WRR, KBOX and KXOL broadcasts still exist. I’ve heard all but WRR and none have the press conference either live or excerpted in later broadcasts. Granted, there were other radio stations, but these are the ones with the largest news departments and they are the ones with the equipment and extra people who could have carried it either live or delayed.

That, along with the apparent lack of visible microphones or film/TV cameras in the Star-Telegram series of photos convinces me that, despite what people may have thought, there never were any sound recordings of Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark addressing the media.

Gary

Mr. Carroll,

Gary Mack is a member of this forum. He does not post publicly. As many have posted, Mr. Mack "lurks" here, presumably reading every post and responding with private messages and or emails, as most of us can personally atest to.

By conducting his "business" on this forum, in this way, Mr. Mack can "use" any other co-operative forum member to publicly convey anything he wishes to the discussions here.

This leaves Mr. mack the option of denying he ever said the things you have posted in his name. Why not let Mr. Mack either post his opinions and "facts" personally here, or, not at all?

Dr. Malcolm Perry's testimony, for whatever it was worth, since he dug his own grave, as far as his reputation for testifying truthfully, had this to say. If you believe that Gary Mack was not aware of this when he funneled through Mr. Carroll, the comments displayed in bold text above, consider that I think it is probable that Dr. Perry's remarks, in this instance, are more reliable than Mr. Mack's are.:

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page375.php

(Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Perry)

...Mr. Specter.

What would the trajectory, or conceivable course of one bullet have been, Dr. Perry, to account for the injuries which you observed in the President, as you stated it?

Dr. PERRY. Since I observed only two wounds in my cursory examination, it would have necessitated the missile striking probably a bony structure and being deviated in its course in order to account for these two wounds.

Mr. Specter.

What bony structure was it conceivably?

Dr. PERRY. It required striking the spine.

Mr. Specter.

Did you express a professional opinion that that did, in fact, happen or it was a matter of speculation that it could have happened?

Dr. PERRY. I expressed it as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark and I emphasize that we had no way of knowing.

Mr. Specter.

Have you now recounted as specifically as you can recollect what occurred at that first press conference or is it practical for you to give any further detail to the contents of that press conference?

Dr. PERRY. I do not recall any specific details any further than that--

Representative Ford.

Mr. Specter was there ever a recording kept of the questions and answers at that interview, Dr. Perry?

Dr. PERRY. This was one of the things I was mad about, Mr. Ford. There were microphones, and cameras, and the whole bit, as you know, and during the course of it a lot of these hypothetical situations and questions that were asked to us would often be asked by someone on this side and recorded by some one on this, and I don't know who was recorded and whether they were broadcasting it directly. There were tape recorders there and there were television cameras with their microphones. I know there were recordings made but who made them I don't know and, of course, portions of it would be given to this group and questions answered here and, as a result, considerable questions were not answered in their entirety and even some of them that were asked, I am sure were misunderstood. It was bedlam.

Representative Ford.

I was thinking, was there an official recording either made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government agency?

Dr. PERRY. Not to my knowledge.

Representative Ford.

A true recording of everything that was said, the questions asked, and the answers given?

Dr. PERRY. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Dulles.

Was there any reasonably good account in any of the press of this interview?....