Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?


Paul Rigby

Recommended Posts

Needs more work, frankly, as attempted explanations go. Perhaps Tarantino could shoot the covert remake of the Muchmore film?

I hear this nonsense from time to time and there are signs of such an attempt that it would surely be noticeable to the trained eye. The exact angle of the film - the panning/shaking of the film - the degree of blurring from frame to frame - are just a few things that would have to match perfectly when taking an object from one film and placing them into another. This of course in 1963 would need to be done the old fashion way and without computers. Maybe Paul could spend a little time posting how these obstacles might be overcome???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Chuckle Brothers have been conferring. Amnesia and obfuscation resulted:
Also, it is quite possible that the date of the Russian TV film appearance is in error or the reporter's characterization of it weeks later is simply wrong.

As Mack well knows - it's been on this forum before at least once - Tass stated flat out that Soviet viewers had been shown footage of the actual shooting, and contemporaneous Foreign Office files, inspected years later, confirmed it. Links to both:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/worldreaction.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...lmson%20TV.html

I note with a smirk that one G. Mack, no less, assured Ian Griggs, the man responsible for the fine piece of research at the other end of the first link above, that "the Muchmore Film had been shown on a New York TV station, and probably others, on the 25th. He added that since the film was owned by UPI, it was likely to have been distributed to other news outlets and so it was quite possible that the film shown on Soviet TV was Marie Muchmore’s footage."

Awesome.

Paul

*****************

I came across this document it maybe of some use to you..........

B......

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Bill, but I've accidentally sent my only pair of reading specs to Jim Fetzer. Please remind me of the page reference and/or footnote in Trask's Pictures of the Pain wherein he explicitly states that Muchmor's film was shown on WNEW-TV on 26 November 1963 at, well, anytime? I would hate readers of this thread to be left with the impression that you've just made this up and that, in fact, there is no such claim made by Trask anywhere in the book.

Paul

PS Check your pants aren't aflame. I fear a conflagration.

Paul, you're joking - right? Trask's book tells of the sale of the film - date - etc.. I then went to Gary Mack to find out that the details of the Muchmore film showed up in the press. That article told of the showing of the Muchmore film (I believe the night before). Maybe if you'd get all the facts before drawing your conclusions, then possibly you'd better understand my position. Here is Mack's email address ... feel free to learn as much as you can on the matter - GMack@JFK.Org

Bill,

You claimed Trask's Pictures of the Pain as the source for WNEW-TV showing Muchmore's film not long after midday on November 26 - it does no such thing. If you wish to persist in the untruth, that's, er, great!

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By coincidence, November 25 was not only the day that Rather offered his two descriptions, but also the day on which Time-Life initiated a survey/reconstruction; and, late in the afternoon, that the same organisation felt belatedly compelled to buy the film rights to Z (or so the received version has it). Even more interestingly, it was the same night that Russian TV viewers were treated to a film of the actual shooting, a film that could not – because of the time differences involved – have been the Muchmore film.

All in all, then, for the Zapruder film, a very event-filled day, November 25.

Paul.

Some days can, in retrospect, seem a little too eventful for their own good. Never fear, a helping hand is always at the ready. First Stolley, then the historian:

Richard Stolley, “The Greatest Home Movie Ever Made,” Esquire, November 1973, (Vol LXXX), p.135:

“On Monday morning, as thousands of grieving Americans filed by Kennedy’s coffin in the Capitol rotunda, the film was shown to Time Inc. executives in New York, Life’s publisher, the late C.D. Jackson, was so upset by the head-wound sequence that he proposed the company obtain all rights to the film and withhold it from public viewing at least until emotions had calmed.”

Perfect timing for a C.D. Jackson intervention on November 25, after the cinematic bird had, temporarily at least, flown the cage. Enter a man with a net:

“According to later reports, LIFE publisher C.D. Jackson, upon seeing a projection of the film on Sunday, November 24 was shocked and repulsed at the possibility of its morbid and graphically bloody scenes being shown to the public. For this reason, as well as to keep it from his competitors and to control all rights to this historic film, Jackson authorized that Time Inc. attempt to purchase all rights. These instructions were forwarded to Stolley in Dallas,”

Richard B. Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), p.132.

And by way of confirming the date of the first of the "fact finding" recreations/surveys:

“Secret Service at Scene,” The Dallas Morning News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, section 4, p.7:

“Onlookers lined the wreath-covered area on Elm Street Monday to watch Secret Service men check trajectory of bullets that killed President Kennedy on Friday. Agent in street, lower arrow, stands at spot where the President was shot. Upper arrow marks window from where assassin fired.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, you're joking - right? Trask's book tells of the sale of the film - date - etc.. I then went to Gary Mack to find out that the details of the Muchmore film showed up in the press. That article told of the showing of the Muchmore film (I believe the night before). Maybe if you'd get all the facts before drawing your conclusions, then possibly you'd better understand my position. Here is Mack's email address ... feel free to learn as much as you can on the matter - GMack@JFK.Org[/b]

Mack email to me, Education Forum message:

Films and Fotos, Feb 20 2007, 09:58 PM

Paul,

Obviously, you do not know the documentation behind the Muchmore film. It was delivered to the Dallas UPI office on Monday, November 25, and sold to them outright. The film was processed almost immediately at Kodak in Dallas and placed on the next flight to New York, where 24-hour labs were and still are common, and a 16mm print was ready for the news media the next day, which was Tuesday, November 26. Afternoon newspapers that day gave a scene by scene description, including the right turn onto Houston Street which, of course, Zapruder never filmed.

Soviet news accounts included early descriptions of the Z film contents, which originated with Dan Rather's Monday afternoon report on CBS television and radio as well as descriptions furnished by one or two other reporters who, by then, had also seen the Z film.

It's remarkable how much information came out in the early days and it's all accessible in those 43-year-old newspapers.

Gary Mack

Mack email to me arising from exchange #42933 on JFK Lancer website, 19 January 2006:

“Muchmore’s [film] debuted 11/26/63 as proven by contemporary New York newspaper accounts which describe the very scenes her film contained.”

Bill Miller on behalf of Gary Mack, JFK Lancer, 15 January 2006: The Shifting TV debut day of Muchmore:

“Update information from Gary Mack:

‘The New York newspaper account of the Muchmore film appeared in an afternoon edition of November 26, 1963. It referred to the film being shown on WNEW-TV earlier that day.

In 1963 the afternoon New York papers were the Post, the World-Telegram and the Journal-American. I’ll let you know when I locate the information.’”

Two years have passed, and still nothing from Mack in support of his repeated claims that there exists a clipping from a New York afternoon newspaper, dated November 26, 1963, that confirms the showing of the Muchmore film earlier that day. Could it be that no such clipping exists? Or does the first cited email above suggest it does exist, but contains information not entirely helpful to the anti-alterationist case?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Films and Fotos, Feb 20 2007, 09:58 PM

Paul,

Obviously, you do not know the documentation behind the Muchmore film. It was delivered to the Dallas UPI office on Monday, November 25, and sold to them outright. The film was processed almost immediately at Kodak in Dallas and placed on the next flight to New York, where 24-hour labs were and still are common, and a 16mm print was ready for the news media the next day, which was Tuesday, November 26. Afternoon newspapers that day gave a scene by scene description, including the right turn onto Houston Street which, of course, Zapruder never filmed...

Gary Mack

Or does the first cited email above suggest it does exist, but contains information not entirely helpful to the anti-alterationist case?

Paul

Some mistakes are worth their weight in gold: In the above email of late Feb last year, in the course of dismissing my very different history of the Muchmore film, Gary Mack described a November 26, 1963, NY newspaper description of the...Zapruder film.

Thank you. I knew we'd get there. Eventually.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some mistakes are worth their weight in gold: In the above email of late Feb last year, in the course of dismissing my very different history of the Muchmore film, Gary Mack described a November 26, 1963, NY newspaper description of the...Zapruder film.

Thank you. I knew we'd get there. Eventually.

Paul

Well Paul ... you should be famous soon for exposing another big break-through in the case. I'm willing to bet that it doesn't even get picked-up by the tabloids and another side bet that you don't lift a finger to see that it does. The reason is quite simple - I don't believe that you even buy the stuff you post.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afternoon newspapers that day gave a scene by scene description, including the right turn onto Houston Street which, of course, Zapruder never filmed...

By the 26th of November, Life Magazine had published stills from the Zapruder film. There had also been numerous witness descriptions of the event reported in the news media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two years have passed, and still nothing from Mack in support of his repeated claims that there exists a clipping from a New York afternoon newspaper, dated November 26, 1963, that confirms the showing of the Muchmore film earlier that day. Could it be that no such clipping exists? Or does the first cited email above suggest it does exist, but contains information not entirely helpful to the anti-alterationist case?

Paul

Paul, could you please tell us what you have done to find the article or to prove that it doesn't exist. I am always seeing where you guys sit back and do nothing while complaining that someone hasn't hand delivered evidence to you. Maybe one could take the position that because you fear that Mack is correct, then you choose not to risk finding out that he was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, could you please tell us what you have done to find the article or to prove that it doesn't exist.

And exactly what technique does one use to prove a negative?

Gary Mack claims it does exist...so Mack should be the one to substantiate his claim. Of course, I'd also suggest he stop using you for a "sock puppet" and make his own posts, but apparently the two of you enjoy that relationship too much to end it. Mack speaks, and Miller's lips move...

C'mon, Gary...enough with the ventriloquism act. It's getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, could you please tell us what you have done to find the article or to prove that it doesn't exist.

And exactly what technique does one use to prove a negative?

Gary Mack claims it does exist...so Mack should be the one to substantiate his claim. Of course, I'd also suggest he stop using you for a "sock puppet" and make his own posts, but apparently the two of you enjoy that relationship too much to end it. Mack speaks, and Miller's lips move...

C'mon, Gary...enough with the ventriloquism act. It's getting old.

This has been addressed many times in the past, but for those short on memory - I will say it again. Because Mack works for the Museum ... he can answer JFK related questions, but must remain neutral, thus not be posting to JFK forums. In this case, Mack isn't offering an opinion, but offering data that he has seen in his own research. If you are really interested in getting a more exact answer, then email Mack or send him a PM.

A long time ago and before much of the foolishness on this subject was introduced by a select few on this forum .... I went to Mack with my own questions pertaining to Muchmore's film. I learned of Muchmore's film being shown on TV. I am going from memory here, but it seems that Mack had seen an article mentioning the broadcast of that film the night before. Most libraries carry the major newspapers of the time on micro-film and can be researched by the public. I know this to be so because I have done it myself. Many of the posters on this forum do not have a million things a day to do as say ' a curator of a museum', thus possibly instead of sitting around waiting to be spoon-fed ... just maybe one of them could at least attempt looking for the article in one of their major local libraries.

Now this is just my opinion, but if I had Mack's job and was sitting on a wealth of JFK assassination history ... I'd not be so quick to risk losing that position just because there are a few arm-chair researchers who don't care to follow the leads that he was kind enough to introduce. And so we are straight ... I ask Mack for any information that he may have so I can be more informed. I then pass it on to a forum such as this where there might actually be a couple of students of the assassination who might appreciate getting these details. Mack does not ask me to be his mouth-piece. Those who take such an ignorant position are the same people who I would not risk my employment at the Museum over. The way I see it ... If these people don't care to get off their tails and do a little follow-up research of their own, then someone like Mack would be a complete idiot to risk his job for those who obviously aren't that interested in the first place.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by using Miller as his mouthpiece, Mack can "remain neutral" while still having his say?

Bill, Gary Mack has in the past tried to use me to put forth his messages, as he is using you.

But since Mack made the claim that he'd seen something in a newspaper, it should be incumbent upon MACK to either produce the information--or a link thereto--or retract his [heretofore] unproven [unprovable?] assertion. That's the way the world works, Miller: if you make a claim, it's up to you to either back it up or back off. You don't seem to have a problem with this approach when dealing with Healy and others on the film alteration topic; so why are the rules different where Mack is involved?

As far as proving a negative goes, let me give you a little story which involved Mr. Gary Mack. Some time back, I saw information from a source I cannnot recall today, which stated that the FBI made an audio tape of the Dictabelts, etc., of the Dallas Police radio traffic of November 22, 1963. I asked whether anyone had located a source where one could find such a tape today. Gary Mack was very helpful in referring me to possible sources, but in the end we concluded that, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the tape no longer exists. That doesn't mean that the tape ABSOLUTELY no longer exists; it just means that we were unable to find it through the sources we used. But we failed to prove a negative, namely that the tape absolutely no longer exists anywhere on the face of the earth. We merely proved that we failed to find it.

While I'll always be thankful for his suggestions, I still think that Gary Mack needs to decide whether he's "above" these discussions or not. If he is, then he needs to abstain from using the ventriloquism act to circumvent his position. If he's not, then he needs to speak for himself. For Mack to continue to employ "sock puppets" is ridiculous.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since Mack made the claim that he'd seen something in a newspaper, it should be incumbent upon MACK to either produce the information--or a link thereto--or retract his [heretofore] unproven [unprovable?] assertion. That's the way the world works, Miller: if you make a claim, it's up to you to either back it up or back off. You don't seem to have a problem with this approach when dealing with Healy and others on the film alteration topic; so why are the rules different where Mack is involved?

First of all, if Mack didn't say anything, then he'd be equal to Healy. I assume we are talking about 'I have not seen proof of alteration' Healy. You could add all his post together for the year and not find any JFK assassination data in them.

Mack had told me where he recalled seeing the article and left it up to me to find it. To date, I had never gotten around to doing it ... mostly because of opportunity when the idea had crossed my mind. I cannot fault Mack for my lack of effort.

While I'll always be thankful for his suggestions, I still think that Gary Mack needs to decidse whether he's "above" these discussions or not. If he is, then he needs to abstain from using the ventriloquism act to circumvent his position. If he's not, then he needs to speak for himself. For Mack to continue to employ "sock puppets" is ridiculous.

It appears that comprehension is not one of your strong qualities. Mack can and will discuss most anything to anyone who contacts him personally so to stay within the guidelines of his employment. Then one can relay what they learned from Mack to any interested parties ... such as on an Education Forum such as this. Many of us cite quotes from books and yet no one complains that we do it, so what difference does it make if we cite something Mack has said to us??? I personally see such complaining about it as meaningless rebuttal.

By the way ... no time to go to your local library to look for the article I take it.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way ... no time to go to your local library to look for the article I take it.

Funny you should mention it...but I wasn't the one who claimed it exists. That distinction would go to one Gary Mack, in Paul Rigby's post. So I have no reason to try to support a claim that I didn't make.

Here's Paul Rigby's post:

Bill Miller on behalf of Gary Mack, JFK Lancer, 15 January 2006: The Shifting TV debut day of Muchmore:

QUOTE

“Update information from Gary Mack:

‘The New York newspaper account of the Muchmore film appeared in an afternoon edition of November 26, 1963. It referred to the film being shown on WNEW-TV earlier that day.

In 1963 the afternoon New York papers were the Post, the World-Telegram and the Journal-American. I’ll let you know when I locate the information.’”

Oh, NOW I get it. Since it was in a Miller "sock-puppet" quote of Gary Mack, then Mack never really said it, and Mack therefore has no responsibility to support "his" statement. And since Miller was only [allegedly] quoting Mack, he bears no responsibility to support this "heresay" either.

Must be a wonderful world you live in, Miller...where you and Gary Mack can make any claims you want, without either of you having the responsibility to back any of it up. So when do those same rules start applying to the rest of humanity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...