Paul Rigby

Mr. Rigby, I find it amusing that you believe people who do historical research on this case are members of one tribe or another. You ask, “Is there a prose style and mode of disputation common to all the prominent anti-alterationists?” How puerile of you even to ask the question.

Peculiar, this, as you’re well-known as a very active and prominent participant in precisely the tribal warfare you now claim to be above. But if it helps your self-image – a subject Gumshoe reveals you to be obsessed with - then please, by all means, pretend you’ve never got down and dirty with Fetzer et al.

Kemp Clark, senior neurosurgeon, probably had the most educated eye of anyone who looked at the Kennedy head wound.

Decoded: I’m going to pretend Kemp Clark’s testimony does for my case what McClelland’s patently did not (see below).

You don’t refer to his testimony but it's right there, cited on the page before McClelland’s…

Nope, and hardly surprising is it, Prof, because I was talking about your gross abuse of McClelland’s testimony in Six Seconds? Can’t blame you for switching docs, though, however transparent the manoeuvre. As I’ve noted elsewhere, vigorous substitutionism is a defining – and very necessary - characteristic of film anti-alterationists. As is, alas, incompetence:

…where Kem Clark says, “I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound but I felt it was a tangential wound” (6H21). When I looked at the other medical descriptions including that coming from McClelland, it seemed to me that Dr. Clark had gotten it about right.

Let me see if I have this straight.

In Six Seconds in Dallas you twist McClelland’s WC testimony to transform the wound of exit at the right rear of the President’s head into an entrance wound on the right front. Now, when confronted with this blatant deceit, you hastily dump McClelland, and substitute instead Kemp Clark’s Warren Commission testimony to justify this absurdity? OK, I follow. So now to the next “minor” problem: You’ve just repeated the deception all over again. How so?

The truth is that Clark made no mention at either the Parkland press conference, or before the Warren Commission, of any wound in the location – right front – you manufactured for Six Seconds in order to render your account of Kennedy’s head wounds congruent with the cartoonic absurdity created for the Zapruder fake. In the section of Clark’s Warren Commission you cite, he was, quite contrary to your latest spin, still talking about the rear head wound when used the epithet “tangential.”

Dr. Clark:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed… 6H20

Mr. Specter:

What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?

Dr. Clark:

I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound,” 6H21.

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page20.php

Three strikes and you’re out.

Paul

From Lancer's archives:

>Moscow is eight hours ahead of New York. If Mr. Griggs was

>accurate in his note-taking – and what self-respecting

>ex-Peeler isn’t? – Gary Mack was here claiming the Muchmore

>film had debuted on U.S. television screens not “on Tuesday

>morning” (Mack to Fetzer, 1998), or “at midday on Tuesday”

> Mack to Rigby, 2005), but a day before, on Monday, 25

>November. A portable debut, indeed.

>

>I feel sure there is an innocent explanation for this

>“confusion.” Gentlemen? Mr. Peters? Anyone?

I too had consulted Gary Mack on Muchmore's film as I methodically traced its steps after the assassination. The purpose for my investigation was to see if there was a window of time that it could have been altered in any way before being showing to the American public. The newspaper article was written after the showing at some point. In other words if the showing was the evening of the 25th - the article was written for a newspaper that was going on on the following day. One would have to actually read the article to see how it referenced the Muchmore film's showing on TV.

I am not familiar with the information Ian speaks of so to compare notes, but I am sure he can answer any questions that someone may have pertaining to it. The point I made was that once Muchmore's film was shown to the public, there was no turning back ... it was fixed in stone. I might also add that it was the showing of her film on television is how the Feds became aware of it, thus they never knew it existed at that point to even consider altering it to fit the events seen on the Zapruder film.

Update information from Gary Mack ..

"The New York newspaper account of the Muchmore film appeared in an afternoon edition on November 26, 1963. It referred to the film being shown on WNEW-TV earlier that day, not on the 25th.

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."

I have responded to Gary asking if they gave a specific time for the early hours of the 26th for 1am could mean the same thing. The assassination covereage went on non-stop that weekend or so I thought. Maybe someone here remembers for sure? Anyway, the film arrived in NY undelveloped - had to be processed and then viewed to see what they had. Then it would need to have been sent to whatever department who would prepare it for showing on television. The window for altering the film was simply not long enough even if the Feds had known about it IMO ... not to mention that no one knew at that point if any more films were still floating around at that time.

Bill

Bill,

Delighted to see my insistence upon open, readily verifiable and accurate sourcing is catching on among the anti-alterationists. Keep up the good work. Now, about that clipping Mack insisted he had...

Paul

Paul

...Now today when I tried to get some information from Mack ... Gary said that he had two interviews to do and couldn't take time now to assist me. So aside from not being a 'Go-Fer' for any researcher beckons ... Mack also has one hell of a lot of responsibility through-out the day and a private life at the end of the day. Yet the people he has offered these sources to investigate have time to xxxxx and continually use an Internet forum through most of the day.

So sit there with your baited breath, Paul ... until someone does it for you.

Bill,

A cut-out-and-keep - or cut-and-paste - feature to follow. Use it whenever necessary in future. I confine myself to observing that Mack must have lead an extraordinarily busy life since January 2006:

Update information from Gary Mack..

“The New York newspaper account of the Muchmore film appeared in an afternoon edition on November 26, 1963. It referred to the film being shown on WNEW-TV earlier that day, not on the 25th.

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

Bill Miller on JFK Lancer website, 15 January 2006

Forum name: JFK Assassination Research

Topic subject: RE: The shifting TV debut day of Muchmore

Topic URL:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=s...amp;page=#42836

If memory serves, by 1967 Dr. McClelland had already said that note involved a mistake... like substituting left for right or perhaps that he never observed any entry hole in JFk's temple but heard about it. And I think.. if you look into it... that is what Dr. McClelland has been saying for forty years.

And now with respect to Chaney?

Is there a prose style and mode of disputation common to all the prominent anti-alterationists? I'm beginning to think there is.

Your reply is simply silly. You claimed McClelland - admirably positioned, according to Six Seconds, when it suited your purposes - was describing an impact wound when he was unmistakably describing an exit wound. The witless fib exposed, you now avoid that unflattering fact, and proceed to insist McClelland couldn't tell his left from his right. Oh dear. Curiously common problem, this:

1) Elm St eyewitness:

Norman Similas: “I could see a hole in the President's left temple...,” Jack Bell, “10 Feet from the President,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5, citing Toronto Star.

2) Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

3) Parkland non-medical staff:

Father Oscar Huber: “terrible wound” over Kennedy's left eye [AP despatch, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, 24 November 1963]*

4) Bethesda: Drs. Humes & Boswell:

“The autopsy documents also provide some cryptic indications of damage to the left side of the head. The notorious face-sheet on which Dr. J. Thornton Boswell committed his unfortunate 'diagram error' consists of front and back outlines of a male figure. On the front figure, the autopsy surgeons entered the tracheotomy incision (6.5 cm), the four cut-downs made in the Parkland emergency room for administration of infusions (2 cms. Each), and a small circle at the right eye, with the marginal notation '0.8 cm,' apparently representing damage produced by the two bullet fragments that lodged there. Dr. Humes testified that the fragments measured 7 by 2 mm and 3 by 1 mm respectively (2H354). Although he said nothing about the damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at that site, labeled '0.4 cm' (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.45). Neither Arlen Specter, who conducted the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, nor the Commission members and lawyers present asked any questions about this indication on the diagram of damage at the left eye.

Turning back to the male outline of the figure – the one Dr. Boswell did not realize would become a public document even though it had to be assumed at the time of the autopsy that findings would become evidence at the trial of the accused assassin – we find a small circle at the back of the head about equidistant from the ears and level with the top of the ears. Apparently this represents the small entrance wound which the autopsy surgeons and the Warren Commission say entered the back of the head and exploded out through the right side, carrying large large segments of the skull. but an arrow at the wound on the diagram points to the front and leftand not to the front and right.

A forensic pathologist who was asked to interpret this feature said that it signified that a missile had entered the back of the head traveling to the left and front. As if in confirmation, an autopsy diagram of the skull (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.46) shows a large rectangle marked '3 cm' at the site of the left eye, with a ragged lateral margin, seemingly to indicate fracture or missing bone.

The autopsy surgeons were not questioned about any of the three diagram indications of bullet damage at the left eye or left temple. Nevertheless, when Dr. Jenkins testified that he thought there was a wound in the left temporal area, Arlen Specter replied, 'The autopsy report disclosed no such developments,'” Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY, Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), pp.161-2.

As for your attempt to counter the Chaney problem, charity compels silence. For the moment.

Paul

Having access to a library and actually knowing how to use it might be the problem for them, Ray. I'm in BC, but upon my return to the states, I will make it a point to take on this easy task to see if I can locate it.Bill

Bill,

If the task is so "easy" how to explain Mack's failure to undertake it? Are there no reference libraries in Dallas? Do inter-library lending loans cease at the Texan border? More mysteries. Happily, Hercule Miller is on the case. The solution is surely only a matter of days away. Can't wait. The clock ticks. Breath is baited.

Paul

Often times, you and Fetzer try to make it seem that my book was solely (or principally) about the Zapruder film. It wasn't. It was an attempt to synthesize what evidence we had in 1967 into a whole picture. The Zapruder film, then as now, was important but surely not the only focus of Six Seconds.

Thompson “synthesizing” evidence in Six Seconds: Or, How to make an exit wound into an entrance wound…

Yet our most detailed description of the Kennedy head wound appears in the testimony of Parkland Physician Dr. Robert N. McClelland:

“As I took the position at the head of the table…I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded through the scalp …posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”

Dr. McClelland is quite clearly describing an impact on the right-hand side of the head that blasted backward… (1)

Er, was he really? Not according to the Admission Note made out by McClelland on the afternoon of the coup, which is to be found within the Warren Report itself (2):

Cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple (3)

As Thompson knew full well, when asked by Arlen Specter whether he stood by this verdict – the heroic lawyer, it should be noted, could not bring himself to specify out loud what that verdict was – McClelland replied in the affirmative” (4).

(1) Six Seconds in Dallas (Bernard Geis Associates, 1967), p.107, citing 6WCH33.

(2) Warren Report, Appendix VIII, Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., p.527.

(3) In Commission Exhibit 392, the two-page submission from McClelland, timed at 4:45pm on 22 November 1963, referred to in 2) is again reproduced in17WCH12.

(4) 6WCH35.

I love a good synthesis as much as the next man - but is that quite the right term here?

Paul

Why would Sorrels lie?

Jack,

I have just received an urgent email from a man calling himself "De Uncle." According to my mysterious source, there was a communist conspiracy abroad in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963, one involving Sorrels, Chaney et al, designed to cast doubt on the validity of the film record of the assassination. Following the logic of the anti-alterationists, this must be true, as there is no supporting proof whatsoever.

I am glad to have helped clear this one up.

Paul

If in fact alterations other than those referenced above can be demonstrated to have been made, then the Z-film becomes of critical importance to the struggles to answer the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions.

C.,

Is there a translation available for "Dixie" speakers? I'd hate you-know-who to go off on a tangent and show us yet another illegible survey.

Paul

Surely there is someone in the U.S. who a/ dupports the alteration theory and

b/ has access to a decent library.

and C. cares enough to check it out.

If not, then the alteration theorists cannot expect to be taken seriously.

You know, I could have sworn it was the Mack brigade which founded its claim upon the appearance of said clipping. Just goes to show.

Still, no matter, the idea's fine by me. Let the hunt begin.

As the ghastly Mrs Thatcher once remarked, "They're frit!"

Paul

Is there not a main library in your area where you could inquire about seeing those particular news papers or are you not really that interested?

Try Colindale - the British newspaper library in north London - and you'll find no holdings of the three NY afternoon papers in question. Which is why I bought a job lot from the States, as stated above. And found...nada, except for the NYHT piece cited earlier in the thread.

Still no clipping, I see.

Paul

Bill Miller:"...no one start posting how the CIA altered my memory."

Don't worry, Bill, the thought never occurred. After all, you can't alter what doesn't exist.

Paul

Inquiry is unneccessary if you have no doubts about what the truth is.

A direct quote from a Warren Commissioner, perhaps?

Incredible.

Actually a paraphrase of Charles Sanders Peirce. Way over your head, old boy.

Only incredible to someone unfamiliar with the LOGIC of inquiry.

J. Raymond Carroll, “Grounds of Validity of the Laws of Logic: Further Consequences of Four Incapacities,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (2008), 193-208.

On page 195, we find the following legendary syllogism:

“Gary Mack is truth personified. Bill Miller is not Larry Peters. The showing of the Muchmore film is confirmed by a newspaper clipping that none of us can find. Need I say more?”

On page 201:

“In the matter of photographic alteration, assertion is proof. I rest my daguerreotype.”

On page 209:

“The more absurd my argument, the better to associate it with someone famous, preferably a thinker. That way, no one will ever twig that I’ve just uttered a lot of tosh.”

J. Raymond, truly, we anti-alterationists are not worthy.

Paul

I don't think the ball is in Gary's court here.

Gary Mack emailed me:

The clipping I read a couple years ago must have appeared in a newspaper that has not yet been cataloged at the Museum. I have so far been unable to find it. What struck me was the precise, scene-by-scene description of the Muchmore film we're all familiar with. For that matter, there are many references to the WNEW broadcast on 11-26-63, so there's certainly no mystery afoot.

Gary Mack

For those who really don't believe that the film was shown on t.v. in New York, Gary has done you the favor of telling you where you need to look if you sincerely want to test your own doubts.

J. Raymond Carroll imitating Bill Miller, who defers to Gary Mack, whose explanation entirely satisfies J. Raymond Carroll, who agrees with Bill Miller, who defers to Gary Mack...and so on and so forth.

End result:

Still no clipping.

Splendid.

PATIENCE PAUL AND MYRA: Experience has shown that it's a rather long-- and indirect-- shot from the Sixth Floor Museum.

Indirect, and non-positive - no wonder the anti-alterationists can't hit the proverbial barn door.

Paul

Inquiry is unneccessary if you have no doubts about what the truth is.

A direct quote from a Warren Commissioner, perhaps?

Incredible.

I misstated the data...

A common theme in the work of the leading anti-alterationists. Here's Josiah Thompson suffering precisely the same ailment:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:

“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

News to the FBI, evidently:

Mr. Specter:

How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination," 5WCH140.

Same subject, same outcome:

JFK Lancer: 2064, Why all the assassination films are authentic!

Posted by Josiah Thompson, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM

Wed Apr-30-03 08:37 AM

Richard Trask wrote about this in both his book, “Pictures of the Pain,” drawing on an earlier article by UPI’s Maurice Schonfeld in the “Columbia Journalism Review.” According to Trask, Marie Muchmore walked into the Dallas office of United Press International (UPI) and sold her film to them UNDEVELOPED for $1000 on Monday, November 25th. UPI immediately took it to Kodak for processing. UPI then shipped either the original 8mm film or a 16mm print to UPI's home office in New York City. Further research by Gary Mack, has shown that Muchmore's film first was shown in New York around midday Tuesday, November 26th on WNEW-TV.

As we have seen in this thread, Mack has proved unable to do anything of the sort, despite repeated requests to do so, over an extended period.

But note the trick - the inter-locking, mutually-reinforcing...bluff.

Nobody lied, Professor Fetzer. You have simply chosen to interpret certain witnesses’ words to suit your purposes.

Josiah Thompson on the Muchmore film:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:

“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

News to the FBI:

5WCH140

Mr. Specter:

How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.

And again:

JFK Lancer: 2064, Why all the assassination films are authentic!

Posted by Josiah Thompson, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM

Wed Apr-30-03 08:37 AM

Richard Trask wrote about this in both his book, “Pictures of the Pain,” drawing on an earlier article by UPI’s Maurice Schonfeld in the “Columbia Journalism Review.” According to Trask, Marie Muchmore walked into the Dallas office of United Press International (UPI) and sold her film to them UNDEVELOPED for $1000 on Monday, November 25th. UPI immediately took it to Kodak for processing. UPI then shipped either the original 8mm film or a 16mm print to UPI's home office in New York City. Further research by Gary Mack, has shown that Muchmore's film first was shown in New York around midday Tuesday, November 26th on WNEW-TV.

Sad to report, Mack has been unable to do any such thing, despite repeated opportunities to do so, most recently on the thread on this forum devoted to the subject.

Nobody lied, Professor Fetzer. You have simply chosen to interpret certain witnesses’ words to suit your purposes.

Well, you're the expert, sir. Here's Chaney himself on the afternoon of the assassination:

From: Richard Trask. That Day in Dallas: The Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, expanded edition, 2000), p.115 & p.119:

At about this time Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney, recording his activities for a broadcast over WFAA television. Chaney recalled of the motorcade incident:

“I was riding on the right rear fender. We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and, uh, I looked back over to the left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then the, uh, second shot came, well then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the – to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re going to have to move out. [The shot,] it was back over my right shoulder” (24).”

(24) Bill Lord interview of James Chaney for WFAA-TV, 11/22/63.

Chaney did get ahead of the presidential limousine, and said so himself: "I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." So who is being selective here? It isn't Fetzer, it's you. The films don't show Chaney's true progress because the films are co-ordinated fakes.

Something very interesting was going on with the assassination films on November 25-26, 1963. What it was, and why, offers the potential to shed important light on much more than just the history of the films.

So to the hypothetical.

What factors might have prompted the highest echelon of the conspirators to intervene, however clumsily, to suppress the first public version of the Zapruder film (Zpv1)?

Three reasons in particular suggest themselves. The existence of any one of the following, given widespread public familiarity with the material, would be sufficient. A combination would be devastating and cause Z(pv1) - unless suppressed, reworked, and buttressed by, for example, public amnesia and further filmic props - to be transformed from asset to liability:

1. Error(s) or oversight(s) in the original;

2. Film or photographs which contradicted Z(pv1);

3. Authoritative (expert) testimony that did likewise.

We have evidence of all three:

1. Rather’s descriptions, as offered on both CBS television and radio on Nov 25, of Connally’s posture when shot in Z(pv1) aligns him with neither a shot from the rear, nor one from the knoll;

2. Altgens #4, the most widely distributed single image of the actual shooting sequence;

3. The Parkland doctors’ press conference, which was extensively televised.

Gary Mack has his own large collection of JFK assassination evidence, which I believe to be in storage. I have asked the same of him as you have, but I understood how it may be easier for him to offer you the lead rather than he go on a huge search for an article that could be stored anywhere inside a larger collection. I hope this little bit of added insight and common sense was of some benefit to you.

Bill Miller

Not really, Bill. I'd much prefer the evidence alleged to underpin his claim. His repeated failure to produce it strongly suggests it doesn't exist - much like your claim that Trask's Pictures of the Pain contains reference to Muchmore's film being shown on WNEW-TV on Nov 26.

Paul

"Dear Citizens of America,

In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.

Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

...

19. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad."

http://starrgazr.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/...ter-to-america/

We're working on it John. Glad you're not buying the official story.

British democracy, Myra, is currently as vibrant as the Norwegian Blue in the Python sketch.

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.

Happy to oblige, Bill.

I did two things.

First, I rang a former managing editor of the New York World-Telegram & Sun. I asked him if he thought it probable or likely that a film shown on a New York-based TV station - according to Mack, at, well, let us fix upon just one of the timings offered, just after midday on Nov 26 - was likely to have made it into his former paper, or the other two NY afternoon papers, that same day. He said he thought it highly unlikely, and that a far more likely proposition was the NYT of Nov 27.

I then bought a stack of NY papers covering the period 25-28th Nov 1963, and went through them. The only report I could find was that by Doan in the NYHT of Nov 27 (see previous postings in this thread). I found nothing in the purchased editions of the Journal American, the Post, or the Telegram & Sun of Tuesday, Nov 26. Nor in the NYT of Nov 27.

I cannot absolutely preclude the possibility for the simple reason that I couldn't afford, even assuming they were available for purchase, to buy every single edition of the three afternoon papers from the date in question. (I would urge any US readers with the time, access and inclination to investigate further.)

But I'm very sceptical. If such a report does exist, why Mack's reluctance to produce it? After all, as Mark Knight has rightly pointed out, it's Mack who claims it exists; and on its existence, rests his case.

Paul

... the current philosophical imperialism expressed by Bush and Blair.

A very grand way of describing robbery with extreme violence!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...huttoreport.pdf

Do YOU have any evidence (other than the clearly interested and unsupported claims by the PPP) which would impugn the honesty of the experts sent out from Scotland Yard, or is this just another "they're from the government so they must be bent" rant?

Further evidence of the Metropolitan Police's unremitting probity:

Sean O’Neill, “Judges condemn police lies after 9/11 attacks that ruined pilot's life,” The Times, 15 Feb 2008

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle3368163.ece

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