Jump to content

Why transcript 1327C is a fraud


Paul Rigby
 Share

Recommended Posts

So much, then, for the first, and least serious, of the pair of problems attending transcript 1327C. The second is much more fundamental in nature: It is not a true and accurate record of what Perry had to say. More specifically, it entirely misrepresents what Perry and Clark said at the press conference about the number and locations of the wounds.

How different were the actual questions and answers at the doctors’ press conference at Parkland, as opposed to those contained in the fictional 1327C? Are there any non-mainstream media sources we can turn to for guidance?

On the evening of December 10, 1964, Mark Lane, at the invitation of the British “Who Killed Kennedy?” Committee, delivered an “Extemporaneous Lecture” at University College, London. A tape recording was made of both Lane’s speech, and the subsequent question and answer session; and a transcript published in pamphlet form under the Committee’s aegis. On page 21 (of the 32pp pamphlet), we find the following:

Dr. Clark said: “I examined the President’s back”, but thereafter when it was pointed out that there was a wound in the back, he said: “Well, I didn’t turn him over”, but on November 22nd he said: “I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.” Now Dr. Kemp Clark is supposed to be a proficient physician, and he was feeling the President’s back to see if it was possible that there was a wound there. Now is it possible that a large wound in the President’s back, full of blood, the shirt’s absolutely drenched with blood now, is it possible that the doctor ran his hand up the President’s back – the President was wearing no shirt, no jacket and no braces at that time – and he didn’t notice there was any blood there, didn’t notice there was a hole in the President’s back? It is very difficult for me to accept that fact.

“I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.”

Try finding that sentence in 1327C! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.”

Try finding that sentence in 1327C! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

Has Mark Lane ever revealed the source of the transcript he was quoting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.”

Try finding that sentence in 1327C! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

Has Mark Lane ever revealed the source of the transcript he was quoting?

No, Jay, nor, disappointingly, is the pamphlet footnoted. It's one of the many curiosities of Lane's career - his pre-Rush To Judgment (1966) work is sprinkled with with quotes and statements utterly at variance with the drear orthodoxies embodied in that book.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
“As the official solution to Dallas was being assembled over the first weekend after the assassination, one major snag required immediate attention. An inconvenient obstacle to Katzenbach’s November 24 imperative that the public be satisfied that Dallas was the act of a lone assassin was the fast-breaking news stories. The one that captured the most national attention was the televised news conference with Drs. Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark at Dallas’s Parkland Memorial Hospital that took place several hours after Kennedy was pronounced dead,”

Gerald D. McKnight. Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University of Kansas Press, 2005), p.166.

It emerged, ostensibly, from the LBJ presidential library, in 1976 (1), and was received by pro-conspiratorialists like manna from heaven. It is not hard to see why. The hitherto elusive transcript, running to nine pages, of the first press conference conducted by Drs. Perry and Clark (2) – the former the attending surgeon responsible for the tracheotomy, the latter Parkland’s chief neurosurgeon - offered first-hand, expert evidence that the anterior, non-fatal throat wound was indeed a wound of entrance.

Question: Can you describe his neck wound?...

Perry: The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid-line (p.4).

Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At Him?

Perry: It appeared to be coming at him (p.5).

Question: Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?

Perry: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct (p.6).

Amid the widespread conspiratorialist delight at finding confirmation of what much of the US electronic media had reported at the time – and thus confirming their belief in one (or more) frontal shooter(s) - two inconvenient details were ignored and/or overlooked.

The first and least important of the pair concerned timing. The transcript bore the commencement time, near the head of its first page, of “3:16 P.M. CST.” That timing should have attracted scepticism from the outset because, according to Clark’s testimony before the Presidential Commission, the same first press conference had actually begun at least 45 minutes earlier at “approximately 2.30” (3); while Perry made offered an even earlier starting point, telling Specter that it “must have been within the hour” of the President’s death (4). The doctors, it turns out, were right: The transcript commencement time is at best a mistake, and at worst the product of intentional deceit. The utility of such an “apparent error”(5) to the conspirators is self-evident: It created doubt about the direct correlation between the press conference and the contemporaneous media reports of it, accounts which contained Perry’s repeated insistence that the wound in the front of Kennedy’s throat was one of entrance.

Photographic evidence corroborates the earlier start time offered by the Parkland doctors before the Warren Commission. In the unpaginated photographic section at the heart of Lifton’s Best Evidence, we find snap 14, capturing Clark and Perry – together with White House staff members Wayne Hawkes and “Chick” Reynolds (stenographer) – in the course of the first press conference above a caption-commentary that concluded: “Watch on Perry’s left hand indicates 2:18 P.M.” In the main body of Best Evidence’s text, though not in the Chronology at the book’s rear (6), Lifton was unable – or unwilling – to follow the logic of the evidence he had mustered. We need not be so timid.

The clincher, however, lies in the contemporaneous news reports. As Newcomb and Adams noted in Murder From Within’s fifth chapter, Parkland, citing among other sources, William Manchester’s Death of a President, the Associated Press was reporting Perry’s press conference remarks “just after two o’clock” (CST); and NBC, as confirmed in the company’s own log, no later than 2:36 (CST) (7).

So much, then, for the first, and least serious, of the pair of problems attending transcript 1327C. The second is much more fundamental in nature: It is not a true and accurate record of what Perry had to say. More specifically, it entirely misrepresents what Perry and Clark said at the press conference about the number and locations of the wounds.

According to 1327C, Perry and Clark described only two wounds, the entrance wound in the front of the throat (8), and “a large, gaping loss of tissue” (9) at “the back of his head” (10), “principally on his right side” (11). The questions attributed to the unnamed reporters present reinforces this two-wound scenario, for example, when one of them supposedly asked of Perry, following his pointing to this own throat to show where the bullet had entered, “Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?” (12). So much for 1327C. Now let us turn to the contemporaneous news reports.

Here we find something very different. The Associated Press reported, shortly after 2 pm, CST, that ‘Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head’” (13); while WOR Radio, New York, quoted Perry to this effect at 2:43 pm, CST, (14). So, instead of just two wounds, the Parkland duo actually described three – there was, in addition to the entrance wound just below the Adam’s apple on the front of the throat, also an entrance wound “in the front of the head” (15). It is thus not merely a matter of altering a word or two, but, necessarily, considerable portions of transcript 1327C, including the questions attributed to the anonymous reporters.

The mistiming of the press conference’s commencement, together with the removal of the wound in the front of the head, are not the only examples of conspiratorial jiggery pokery with respect to 1327C. Visitors to Rex Bradford’s History Matters website may perhaps be surprised to find that the version of the transcript offered there comprises not nine pages, but ten. And what an interesting tenth page it is, too. It is blank except for an official-looking stamp purportedly representing the Office of the Chief of the U.S. Secret Service, and “1963 Nov 25 AM 11 40” (16). The addition of this tenth page and the stamp it bears is plainly intended to provide legitimacy to the fraudulent 1327C, by dating its production to near the time of the assassination.

An additional measure of the stamp’s legitimacy can be gauged from the failure of the Secret Service to furnish a copy to the Presidential Commission (17). The same organisation, of course, also failed to find a single newsreel or sound recording from among the many cameras and news organisations present in rooms 101-2 at the time of the press conference. This was particularly odd for according to one Dallas source, it was the Secret Service that rounded up as much of that footage as it could find (18).

(1) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), pp.70-71: Cronkite’s narration in the CBS assassination four-parter, shown in June 1967, revealed the existence of a transcript. The script claimed the manuscript refuted claims that Perry had stated the throat wound was one of entry. For subsequent developments & further background on Lifton’s part in the emergence of 1327C, together with that of CBS researcher Roger Feinman, follow this link: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/the_critics/fei...Feinmanbio.html

(2) According to Perry’s comments to the Presidential Commission, another Parkland doctor, Baxter, entered the combined classrooms 101-2, the scene of the press conference, but did not participate (6WCH12).

(3) 6WCH20: 21 March 1964.

(4) 6WCH12: 25 March 1964.

(5) The phrase is from McAdam’s website, where the transcript of the press conference is offered with the correct timing, accompanied by the following explanation: “This transcript was typed by former JFK researcher Kathleen Cunningham and given to Barb Junkkarinen in late 1994. It is posted here courtesy of Barb Junkkarinen. An apparent error regarding the time of the news conference has been corrected in the version published above.” The new commencement time of the press conference is held to have been “2:16 P.M. CST.”

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

(6) Lifton follows the erroneous official timing of 3:16 pm in the main text - see p.71 (“shortly after 3 pm”) in the Signet paperback, first edition, 1992 – but follows the evidence in the Chronology at the book’s rear (p.828: 2:20 approx).

(7) Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974), p.153 n54, citing NBC Log, Nov. 22, 1963, p. 8, 2:36 p.m., CST.

Sylvia Meagher, by contrast, times the NBC report to 2:40 (CST) – see Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities and The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.153-4: “…the edited transcript of television broadcasts from November 22 to 26, 1963, issued by NBC nearly two years after the Warren Report in the book Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes*…contains a telephone report from NBC newsman Robert MacNeil at about 2:40pm Dallas time on November 22: ‘Dr. Malcolm Perry reported that the President arrived at Parkland Hospital in critical condition with neck and head injuries…A bullet struck him in the front as he faced the assailant…’” [*NBC News, Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes (NY: Random House, 1966).]

(8) According to 1327C, Perry stated there were just two wounds on p.1.

(9) Ibid., Clark, p.5.

(10) Ibid., Clark, p.3.

(11) Ibid, Clark, p.4.

(12) Ibid., p.4.

(13) Fred T. Newcomb and Perry Adams, “Did Someone Alter the Medical Evidence?,” Skeptic, Issue No. 9, September/October 1975, pages 24 ff:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_ev...perry_text.html

See also Vince Palamara’s The Earliest Reports (The Medical Evidence), excepted from JFK: The Medical Evidence (1998), entry 2b:

http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/excerpt_book2.html

(14) Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974), p.154. WOR Radio: Predominantly talk station: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOR_(AM)

(15) This is very close to the location offered by James Chaney, the Dallas police motorcycle outrider, who insisted in interviews given to reporters immediately after the event, that Kennedy had been hit “in the face.” (See Anthony Summers’ The Kennedy Conspiracy (London: Sphere, 1992), p.23 – “when the second shot came, I looked back in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet” – citing, p.543, an “unidentified film interview in police station and taped interview for KLIF, Dallas, on record ‘The Fateful Hours,’ Capitol Records.”)

(16) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...et/contents.htm

(17) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.70: “During the Warren Commission investigation, Arlen Specter requested the Secret Service to obtain videotapes and transcripts of the Parkland press conference. Secret Service Chief James Rowley reported back that after reviewing the material at all the Dallas radio and TV stations, as well as the records of NBC, ABC, and CBS in New York City, ‘no video tape or transcript could be found of a television interview with Doctor Malcolm Perry.” If only he had looked in his own in-tray.

(18) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.72, footnote: “Although Secret Service Chief James Rowley claimed that he could locate no tape or transcript of the Parkland Memorial Hospital press conference, Marvin Garson, a researched assisting Mark Lane in preparing Rush to Judgment, was told Dallas television executive Joe Long, of radio station KLIF, that the original recordings had been seized by Secret Service agents.”

A bump for this thread in response to the death of Perry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bump for this thread in response to the death of Perry.

Thank you Paul. Some VERY good information in your posts on this thread, quite apart from the question of the transcript's authenticity.

I think the timing issue LOOKS like a simple mistake i.e. there is a one-hour difference between CST and EST.

The transcript says CST when it should say EST.

As to the accuracy of the transcript, the final proof can only come if and when a copy of the audio or video ever surfaces.

It is an astonishing fact that every single copy of the audio and video of this historic press conference "disappeared" never to be seen again, and that even the transcript did not see the light of day until 1976.

The only explanation offered so far is that all copies were confiscated by the Secret Service and have since been withheld from evidence.

It is worth noting that, during the ARRB inquiry, the Secret Service destroyed boxes of records relating to the assassination, a subject I expect Doug Horne elaborates upon in his new book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only explanation offered so far is that all copies were confiscated by the Secret Service and have since been withheld from evidence.

Gary Mack sent me this email

I don’t think there were ANY recordings of the press conference other than the short hand transcript. Here’s why:

I have seen nearly 20 still photos of the 11/22 press conference and many show wide angle views. Guess what? NO cameras or microphones in sight!

At the time of the conference, Jackie, the body, and the White House photographers had already left for Love Field. I know in his testimony, Perry said there were, but he was mistaken or possibly thinking of Sunday, when there were plenty of both. Several reporters were present, of course, but they apparently were all print people, not broadcast.

The only reason I can think of is that the bigger stories had moved to other locations: Love Field, Dallas Police Department, Oak Cliff, Dealey Plaza, and the TSBD. There simply weren’t enough people and cameras to cover it all.

Having known and worked with reporters for several decades, it would have been an easy decision to leave the press conference to the print reporters, since the comments likely wouldn’t make for compelling broadcast images or sound bites.

Here’s an example of how primitive things were in 1963 compared to today: the local NBC station had a grand total of two sound film cameras – one in their Dallas office and one at their Fort Worth studio.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack sent me this email
I don’t think there were ANY recordings of the press conference other than the short hand transcript. Here’s why:

I have seen nearly 20 still photos of the 11/22 press conference and many show wide angle views. Guess what? NO cameras or microphones in sight!

At the time of the conference, Jackie, the body, and the White House photographers had already left for Love Field. I know in his testimony, Perry said there were, but he was mistaken or possibly thinking of Sunday, when there were plenty of both. Several reporters were present, of course, but they apparently were all print people, not broadcast.

The only reason I can think of is that the bigger stories had moved to other locations: Love Field, Dallas Police Department, Oak Cliff, Dealey Plaza, and the TSBD. There simply weren’t enough people and cameras to cover it all.

Having known and worked with reporters for several decades, it would have been an easy decision to leave the press conference to the print reporters, since the comments likely wouldn’t make for compelling broadcast images or sound bites.

Here’s an example of how primitive things were in 1963 compared to today: the local NBC station had a grand total of two sound film cameras – one in their Dallas office and one at their Fort Worth studio.

Gary

Weird, GM, but I could have sworn 1) there were cameras (and film - with sound) when Kilduff spoke in exactly the same room a short time before; and 2) that CBS claimed, in 1967, to have film of Perry/Clark conference, only minus the sound (how very convenient). In order for your version to be true, we must persuade ourselves that the cameras present for Kilduff were removed by the time of Perry and Clark; and that CBS was hallucinating. Now, I can just about buy the latter, but the former...nargh, like a cheap soap, it just doesn't wash.

Nice try, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Not to step on anyone's toes, but this claim by Ashton Gray is incredible--I mean that literally, it is beyond credibility. No only do we have the Parkland Press Conference transcript, during which Dr. Perry describes a wound to the throat as an entry wound THREE TIMES, we have Richard Dudman's report in "Commentary of an Eyewitness", THE NEW REPUBLIC (21 December 1963), observation that "Three circumstances--the entry wound to the throat, the small round hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine, and the number of bullets found afterward--suggested that there had been a second sniper firing from a point in front of the automobile", Tom Wicker's unambiguous description in his NEW YORK TIMES (23 November 1963) article, "Later in the afternoon, Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry". And, as though these reports were not definitive enough, Charles Crenshaw, M.D., drew diagrams of the wounds the president had sustained. The wound to the throat was a simple, clean puncture would, which had the characteristics of a wound of entry. Indeed, Robert Livingston, M.D., who was not only a world authority on the human brain but also an expert in ballistics, listened to descriptions of the throat wound over the radio while he was in Boston and, on the basis of its description, identified it as a wound of entry. He therefore called Dr. Humes from his home, which was near Bethesda Naval Hospital across the street from the National Institutes of Health--of which he was the director of two--and advised Humes of the existence of this wound, advising him to dissect the neck very carefully, because, he told him, if there were evidence of shots from behind, then there had to have been at least two shooters and therfore a conspiracy. All of this appears in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). 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. While the time might have been recorded both in Eastern and Central time, which easily explains the alleged discrepancy about the time, the consistency of these reports from some of the nation's best reporters, an expert on wound balllistics, and the physician who was the last to observe the body before it was wrapped in sheets and placed in the large, bronze-colored ceremonial casket, lead me to infer that anyone who disputes the existence of a wound to the throat with the characteristics of an entrance wound simply does not understand the most basic evidence about this matter, all which which was published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. I cannot believe anyone is taking this kind of nonsense seriously. Next we will be hearing that there REALLY WAS an entry wound at the base of the back of the neck, in spite of the mountain of evidence that refutes it, which is presented in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed international journal. I can't believe there is a thread debating the existence of an entry wound to the throat at this place and time. THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER RUBBISH.

My rather comprehensive response to at least the throat-shot aspect of this is not a response, per se, but an article that I have just posted in a veritable miracle of synchronicity, There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to step on anyone's toes, but this claim by Ashton Gray is incredible--I mean that literally, it is beyond credibility.

"Ashton" undertook the legendary Humes-Boswell manoeuvre - a rescusitation technique of ancient provenance much employed by the Sophists - in an attempt to revive the corpse that is the cover-up of this aspect of the case. No use parsing it for any sense, Jim, just admire the expenditure of so much energy (and mucus, of course) for such absurd ends.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Let me mention, though, that I find it likely that any action taken to insure JFK's decease, performed at any point, would have as its motive the unfettered and swift appointment of a successor, avoiding any delay due to a Constitutional crisis.

This point seems to be missed in the furor surrounding this thread and its sister. It's ripping good furor, though.

Persons with theories of poisons and darts should consider that poison might have been administered in secret, with the subsequent autopsies tailored to blame Kennedy health issues. Instead, a public scene was required so that murder could be played as communist conspiracy, if required to.

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?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Is it really reasonable to place a sniper in front of the limousine? Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't mind!), but this would mean a clean shot through the windshield, and is it feasible to rely on zero deflection? In addition this would mean getting a bullet past several people in the car to JFK at the back. Wouldn't this represent a very difficult target? Would windshield glare also present a problem? Oh, and where is this person?

It's beginning to sound a lot like nonsense ...

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

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. You need to read the three books that even Vincent Bugliosi described as the only "exclusively scientific" books every published on the assassination. To those, I would add David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE (1980) and now Doug Horne's five volume extravaganza. But it is dumbfounding that you have never read, much less studied, the work of Doug Weldon, J.D., on the limousine, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., on the medical evidence, or even Jim Lewis on shooting high-velocity bullets through the windshields of junked cars to see if he could hit a dummy in the back seat! Get up-to-speed on the evidence before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. MURDER is the right place to start.

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

Is it really reasonable to place a sniper in front of the limousine? Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't mind!), but this would mean a clean shot through the windshield, and is it feasible to rely on zero deflection? In addition this would mean getting a bullet past several people in the car to JFK at the back. Wouldn't this represent a very difficult target? Would windshield glare also present a problem? Oh, and where is this person?

It's beginning to sound a lot like nonsense ...

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack sent me this email
I don’t think there were ANY recordings of the press conference other than the short hand transcript. Here’s why:

I have seen nearly 20 still photos of the 11/22 press conference and many show wide angle views. Guess what? NO cameras or microphones in sight!

At the time of the conference, Jackie, the body, and the White House photographers had already left for Love Field. I know in his testimony, Perry said there were, but he was mistaken or possibly thinking of Sunday, when there were plenty of both. Several reporters were present, of course, but they apparently were all print people, not broadcast.

The only reason I can think of is that the bigger stories had moved to other locations: Love Field, Dallas Police Department, Oak Cliff, Dealey Plaza, and the TSBD. There simply weren’t enough people and cameras to cover it all.

Having known and worked with reporters for several decades, it would have been an easy decision to leave the press conference to the print reporters, since the comments likely wouldn’t make for compelling broadcast images or sound bites.

Here’s an example of how primitive things were in 1963 compared to today: the local NBC station had a grand total of two sound film cameras – one in their Dallas office and one at their Fort Worth studio.

Gary

Weird, GM, but I could have sworn 1) there were cameras (and film - with sound) when Kilduff spoke in exactly the same room a short time before; and 2) that CBS claimed, in 1967, to have film of Perry/Clark conference, only minus the sound (how very convenient). In order for your version to be true, we must persuade ourselves that the cameras present for Kilduff were removed by the time of Perry and Clark; and that CBS was hallucinating. Now, I can just about buy the latter, but the former...nargh, like a cheap soap, it just doesn't wash.

Nice try, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...