Paul Mandel

[Michael Hogan]

I didn't read the article as an attack, FWIW. It was more like a call for peace. Peter Mandel was disturbed to find that his long-dead father has been implicated in some conspiracy theories. He apparently thinks (or wants to believe) these theories are groundless. But he didn't insinuate or claim that everyone holding these theories is mentally ill, etc, or should be shunned, a la some of the rave reviews of Bugliosi's book. He just said we should all move on.

Mandel allowed that some of the conspiracy theorists' claims claims might be true. Apparently he did not reject all of them out of hand.

I began to brood over my dad's demise -- something I hadn't done for years -- and I got angry, flipping between trying to "correct" some of the claims on conspiracy websites and worrying that what they said might, in fact, be true.

After months of this, I couldn't take it anymore. There was too much frustration and pain. The only person who might be able to answer these questions was gone.

[Guest Tom Scully]

No one else is to be scolded that this is Paul W Mandel's legacy. His name is on it forever. It was written less than two weeks after President Kennedy was killed and it was published by an extremely compromised corporation that had purchased the Zapruder film and the rights to it with the intent to suppress most of the film and to interpret with almost no accountability or challenge, the information in the film frames.

LIFE - Dec 6, 1963 - Page 53

books.google.com/books?id=T1IEAAAAMBAJ

Vol. 55, No. 23 - Magazine - Full view

[Guest Robert Morrow]

"There's a war going on, and this is one of the first salvoes." I agree with Jim DiEugenio. 49 1/2 years of very fine JFK research; maybe 30 high quality JFK researchers the Huffington Post could ask to write a piece on the JFK assassination... and they put this whiny garbage up by an author's whose message is go find something else to do than research and tell the truth.

Like DiEugenio says, notice how Huff Post did not reprint the original article which would have been a highly informative thing to do.

The last "hit job" for the lone nutters that the Huff Post did was by reprinting AP Allen Breed's article and titling it "JFK Assassination Leads to Countless Works about 'Truth' and Conspiracies."

Web link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/jfk-assassination-50-years_n_3259817.html?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Tom Scully]

Robert,

Was it not the responsibility of Peter Mandel to provide accompaniment to his simple text? All Huff Post provided was a

platform for Peter to vent.

Jim,

A war? It is all mere happenstance, Jim. You're imagining things.....nothing matters, ten degrees of separation, nothing is relative, everyone lived in a vacuum, back then. No sense in even trying to connect the dots. LBJ's immorality, greedy Texas oil men, and Jack Valenti's fake parentage are all we need to focus on.

Harvard Magazine - Volume 61 - Page 302

books.google.com/books?id=t6wTAAAAIAAJ
1958 - Snippet view - More editions
With Life, but never on its foreign service,

Paul W. Mandel '51 came to his current post of assistant
editor in the science department up the ladder whose bottom rung was carrying pictures up and down in
elevators, and whose middle steps were reportorial. The literary basement from which he rose to grasp
the first of the rungs of Life's ladder was ghost-writing for an industrial designer. Harvard pushed
Mandel out in the world with dire forebodings. On a hot June day in 1951 I waited in the larger Lowell
House courtyard for my diploma. Somewhere between the Yard and the courtyard I had lost my cap and
gown. I had also made the disconcerting discovery that I was wearing a gray flannel jacket belonging to
Bayley F. Mason '51, who was (but not is) fatter than I am, and a pair of gray flannel trousers
belonging to Peter B. Taub '51 who was (and is) shorter. I received my diploma despite this spectacular
disarray, and as I carried it away one of the Lowell House tutors — a crusty sort — took me by the
elbow and led me aside.

"Mandel," he said, "you face an unprofitable and shabby future." It has not, Mandel insists, been
shabby. After a year in the Law School, he was whisked off to Navy Officer Candidate School. "It was no
great change. The two institutions are closely akin in their educational philosophies. I thought the
Law School was a shade up in drudgery, while the OCS had the edge in navigation and close-order drill."
Other Navy schools followed, one of which — "confirming the finity of the universe" — turned out to be
a law school, and at length Mandel received his orders to a landlocked air station in the Florida
swamps. Eventually he served with a jet squadron. "I have," he writes, "an amiable and fearfully
intelligent son; a delightful wife; an apartment in Greenwich Village; no money; and a bright hope for
the future. And I waggle my finger at that Lowell House tutor, whoever he was."

New Executives Take Over Crimson Today | News | The Harvard ...

www.thecrimson.com/article/.../new-executives-take-over-crimson-today...‎

With today's issue of the CRIMSON the 1951-52 Executive Board takes office. ... Business Manager; Paul W. Mandel '51, Editorial Chairman; Roger M. Burke '52, Photographic Chairman; Bayley F. Mason '51,

http://www.lowell.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k69091&pageid=icb.page416066

By BAYLEY MASON '51

......

The author, Bayley Mason, is a 1951 graduate of Harvard College (Lionel Hall and Lowell House, where he is a longtime member of its Senior Common Room). He was Associate Managing Editor of the Crimson and a sports correspondent for Harvard Magazine's predecessor, the Harvard Alumni Bulletin. He is active in the Friends of Harvard Football and a founding director of the Crimson hockey team's youth summer program.

Called to active duty for the Korean War after his first year at Harvard Law School, he served a Lieutenant in Naval Intelligence in Japan and Korea for three years. Mason is a graduate of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and later served as an associate dean for development of both the Harvard Medical School and Kennedy School.

Mason was Administrative Vice President of Oberlin College and Vice President of Boston University......

New York Magazine - Mar 22, 1982 - Page 8

books.google.com/books?id=6OcCAAAAMBAJ

Vol. 15, No. 12 - Magazine - Full view

The two C.I.A. ex-directors have lent their names to the efforts of the school's associate dean, Bayley Mason, to raise $50,000 to establish a Richard S. Welch Memorial Fund at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Center

Fund Established at K-School To Honor Slain CIA Officer | News ...

www.thecrimson.com/article/.../4/.../fund-established-at-k-school-to-hon...‎

Apr 9, 1982 – The $50,000 fund, in memory of Richard S. Welch '51, will probably go ... Bayley F. Mason '51, the K-School's associate dean for resources, .

The Spectator - Volume 213 - Page 426

books.google.com/books?id=hyU-AQAAIAAJ

1964 -

....There is no sense in being a subscriber as a private person since this would mean never receiving the paper until the following Tuesday. ☆

I am told that a little while ago Mr. Mark Boxer, editor of the Sunday Times colour supplement, met

Mr. Paul Mandel of the Observer colour supplement at a cocktail party.

Boxer said to Mandel: "How much money are you losing?' Mandel replied: T have no idea: David never talks to us about money.'

Boxer said : 'We have just been costing your second colour supplement; would you like me to send you a copy ?

Mandel did not seem to be interested and wisely, too, perhaps, for the figure of loss for the second issue was put at £24,000.

This comes out at about £1,200,000 per annum. And the Observer advertising seems to have slumped with every issue.

It has fallen 13J pages in colour advertising and 6 1/5. pages in black and white since the first issue. I am told that Mr. David Astor has put a lot of his own money into this new venture. Some say a quarter of a million; some say half a miillion....

Brave New Words: Is Technology the Saviour of Free Speech? - Page 160

books.google.com/books?isbn=1446241491

Jo Glanville, Index On Censorship - 2010 - Preview - More editions

John Sutherland quotes David Astor, the liberal editor of the Observer, as saying that publishing Encounter was exactly what the CIA should have done, and of course Encounter's harshest critics have had propaganda aims of their own.

Ethics for Journalists - Page 275

books.google.com/books?isbn=0203698827

Richard Keeble - 2008

Bagpipes in Babylon: A Lifetime in the Arab World and Beyond - Page 184

books.google.com/books?isbn=1845111516

Glen Balfour Paul - 2006

Mattachine Review - Volumes 9-12 - Page 24

books.google.com/books?id=0gMdAAAAYAAJ

1963 - Snippet view - More editions

... column of revitws of fiction and non-fiction books on thomos of sex variation GENE DAMON An unusual amount of wasted labor went into Paul Mandel's Mainside (Random, 1962, Avon, 1963). This lengthy novel is based on an untenable principle: at all costs a nan's reputation and his family's must be made to suffer on the grounds that the man was a homosexual and that this justifies the suffering caused. ... This is Mandel's first novel and this reviewer fervently hopes it is his last.

The blameless are not going to culled from the participants in the late November, 1963, Dallas murders and in the ensuing cover up if we are dismissive of new information. I am disappointed in Stephen Roy's reaction to my post about Andrew Heiskell's background because I believe as he researcher, he knows better. I doubt I can ever persuade Robert Morrow that posting gossip and book titles and authors everywhere, emphaszing sexual conduct, and blaming the obvious suspect, LBJ, is going to be a substitute for finding and sharing new details.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Pat Speer]

Geez. A little-known author posts a little-read article on the Huffington Post about how he found out his long-dead dad had been criticized on the internet. He said this upset him, and that he ultimately concluded it was beyond his abilities to get to the bottom of the situation, and hoped it would all go away.

Such an article has no impact on society, and its views on the assassination.

If we convince ourselves this is the opening salvo of a war, well, we already lost the war.

[David Lifton]

In the New York Times a few days after the assassination, Kemp Clark is quoted as saying that Kennedy was struck by 2 bullets, and he specifically mentions one bullet that entered the throat ,"ranged downward and did not exit." This corroborated Perry's thrice mentioning that the throat wound was one of entrance at the Parkland press conference. Mandel might have been referencing Clark's remarks and took them as gospel, at least so far as the throat wound was concerned. He may have then reasoned that Kennedy must have been turned around to receive the throat wound, since he also took as gospel that all shots were fired from the sixth floor. IF MANDEL REGARDED BOTH ASSUMPTIONS AS TRUE-- AND AT THAT EARLY TIME AFTER THE ASSASSINATION ONE COULD HARDLY BLAME HIM FOR THAT--WHAT ELSE would he be EXPECTED TO SAY? So far as the head shot, if he assumed the shot came from the sixth floor, then he is reading into the Parkland testimony a meaning not present in any of the contemporaneous record; he may have simply deduced that the doctors must have believed that because, well, the shots came from behind. All this is a bit slippery of him, but who would know at that early date how convoluted this case would become? He did get his hand caught in the cookie jar, but the anomalies of the case weren't understood when he wrote.

FWIW, here's what I posted in the "Comments" section of the Huffington Post yesterday:

When I was writing Best Evidence (circa 1977-1979), I tried to contact Paul Mandel about his story in Life magazine (12/6/63 “End to Nagging Rumors, The Six Critical Seconds”) which said that the Zapruder film showed that JFK turned almost all the way around, exposing his throat to the alleged “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and that was why President Kennedy had an entry wound at the front of his throat. How could he write such a thing, I wondered, since the published Zapruder frames showed no such “turn.” So I wanted to speak with Mandel and publish his explanation. Unfortunately, I soon learned he had died more than 10 years before. I concluded that someone gave him false information as to what the film showed. I am well aware of Paul Mandel’s fine credentials as a writer–and am left (along with many others) to wonder just how such a serious error was made–and without any published explanation in the days, weeks, and months following (and not even after the Warren Report was published in September, 1964). Given the reliance the American people placed on what they read in Life magazine, some sort of “errata” should have been published at the time.

I think the failure of LIFE to publish a correction notice (as I indicated in my comment, above), is a dead give-away as to their lack of ethics or responsibility. It is absurd for a magazine which controlled such a critically important piece of evidence to have misinformed the public, and then simply stay mute.

What kind of people were in charge at Life magazine, at the time, and who gave them the right to lie to the American people?

I don't know why Paul Mandel wrote what he did, but he's responsible for what he did, and as soon as it became clear he was in error, it was his responsibility to issue a correction notice.

But neither he (nor LIFE) did anything of the kind.

DSL

5/23/13 - 4:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 23, 2013 by David Lifton

[David Andrews]

Geez. A little-known author posts a little-read article on the Huffington Post about how he found out his long-dead dad had been criticized on the internet. He said this upset him, and that he ultimately concluded it was beyond his abilities to get to the bottom of the situation, and hoped it would all go away.

Such an article has no impact on society, and its views on the assassination.

If we convince ourselves this is the opening salvo of a war, well, we already lost the war.

Well, the part about how we should all go on with our lives because conspiracy theorists have found nothing to controvert the official investigation seems like rather bad advice.

If we are going to object to anything, perhaps it ought to be this new conclusion. So, Mandel is correct: Let's live for the new.

Edited May 23, 2013 by David Andrews

[David Andrews]

Doubled, sorry.

Edited May 23, 2013 by David Andrews

[Pat Speer]

In the New York Times a few days after the assassination, Kemp Clark is quoted as saying that Kennedy was struck by 2 bullets, and he specifically mentions one bullet that entered the throat ,"ranged downward and did not exit." This corroborated Perry's thrice mentioning that the throat wound was one of entrance at the Parkland press conference. Mandel might have been referencing Clark's remarks and took them as gospel, at least so far as the throat wound was concerned. He may have then reasoned that Kennedy must have been turned around to receive the throat wound, since he also took as gospel that all shots were fired from the sixth floor. IF MANDEL REGARDED BOTH ASSUMPTIONS AS TRUE-- AND AT THAT EARLY TIME AFTER THE ASSASSINATION ONE COULD HARDLY BLAME HIM FOR THAT--WHAT ELSE would he be EXPECTED TO SAY? So far as the head shot, if he assumed the shot came from the sixth floor, then he is reading into the Parkland testimony a meaning not present in any of the contemporaneous record; he may have simply deduced that the doctors must have believed that because, well, the shots came from behind. All this is a bit slippery of him, but who would know at that early date how convoluted this case would become? He did get his hand caught in the cookie jar, but the anomalies of the case weren't understood when he wrote.

FWIW, here's what I posted in the "Comments" section of the Huffington Post yesterday:

When I was writing Best Evidence (circa 1977-1979), I tried to contact Paul Mandel about his story in Life magazine (12/6/63 “End to Nagging Rumors, The Six Critical Seconds”) which said that the Zapruder film showed that JFK turned almost all the way around, exposing his throat to the alleged “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and that was why President Kennedy had an entry wound at the front of his throat. How could he write such a thing, I wondered, since the published Zapruder frames showed no such “turn.” So I wanted to speak with Mandel and publish his explanation. Unfortunately, I soon learned he had died more than 10 years before. I concluded that someone gave him false information as to what the film showed. I am well aware of Paul Mandel’s fine credentials as a writer–and am left (along with many others) to wonder just how such a serious error was made–and without any published explanation in the days, weeks, and months following (and not even after the Warren Report was published in September, 1964). Given the reliance the American people placed on what they read in Life magazine, some sort of “errata” should have been published at the time.

I think the failure of LIFE to publish a correction notice (as I indicated in my comment, above), is a dead give-away as to their lack of ethics or responsibility. It is absurd for a magazine which controlled such a critically important piece of evidence to have misinformed the public, and then simply stay mute.

What kind of people were in charge at Life magazine, at the time, and who gave them the right to lie to the American people?

I don't know why Paul Mandel wrote what he did, but he's responsible for what he did, and as soon as it became clear he was in error, it was his responsibility to issue a correction notice.

But neither he (nor LIFE) did anything of the kind.

DSL

5/23/13 - 4:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

FWIW, Mandel's article--originally entitled End to Nagging Rumors, was retitled First Answers to Nagging Rumors when re-printed in Life's special JFK memorial edition, but a week or two later.

it seems clear from this that SOMEONE caught Mandel's error or errors. He had, after all, failed to mention the back wound, that would soon become common knowledge. Life didn't print a correction notice about that, either.

In fact, very few members of the media--any kind of media--ever corrected their mistakes regarding the assassination. They just reported their new version of events, and moved on.

[Chris Davidson]

I would recommend studying CE884 and looking at the extant Z film (207 splice), before making a judgement on Mandel's article.

chris

[Michael Hogan]

I couldn't disagree more with Pat and Mike.

About what?

Mandel allowed that some of the conspiracy theorists' claims claims might be true. Apparently he did not reject all of them out of hand.

I began to brood over my dad's demise -- something I hadn't done for years -- and I got angry, flipping between trying to "correct" some of the claims on conspiracy websites and worrying that what they said might, in fact, be true.

After months of this, I couldn't take it anymore. There was too much frustration and pain. The only person who might be able to answer these questions was gone.

[Michael Hogan]

What you wrote above had nothing to do with what I wrote.

[John Simkin]

On 29th November, 1963, Life Magazine published a series of 31 photographs documenting the entire shooting sequence from the Zapruder film. It was only later discovered that the critical frames that depicted the rearward motion of Kennedy's head had been printed to indicate a forward motion. James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, realized that a mistake had been made: "I asked about it when the stills were first printed, (they didn't read right) and then duped for distribution to the European and British papers/magazines. The only response I go was an icy stare from Dick Pollard, Life's Director of Photography. So being an ambitious employee, I had them distributed."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwagenvoord.htm

[Ken Davies]

I have a copy of that issue. The colour photos are good quality. The deliberate switching/deletion of frames was an obvious attempt to avoid questions about the direction of the head shot. Who had the power to control the "press" among the usual suspects? Hmm, it narrows the list of proposed suspects considerably, doesn't it?

[Ken Davies]

That's my laugh for the day, Jim!