Why transcript 1327C is a fraud

[J. Raymond Carroll]

there was at least one KRLD cameraman at Parkland work between 1.30 and, let's be generous, 2.00 p.m. - his name was George Phenix. He filmed the departure of the First Lady and the coffin using a Bell and Howell 16 mm camera reportedly much favoured by TV news crews of the period.

From Gary Mack:

In 1963, most 16mm TV news cameras were silent (I think that was in one of my earlier notes to you – see my comments regarding WBAP). KRLD’s George Phenix was in a different wing of Parkland where he filmed the hearse leaving at 2:05pm. Phenix’ camera that day was a silent model. Either he or possibly another KRLD photographer filmed part of Kilduff’s announcement at 1:30, but that camera, too, was silent. Both films exist on original KRLD video tapes at The Sixth Floor Museum.

So as far as KRLD is concerned, only one or perhaps two of their photographers are known to have been inside Parkland at some point in time, yet no TV film photographer or microphone can be seen in existing photographs of the Perry-Clark news conference. And no KRLD video cameras were set up in that classroom until after the press conference ended.

Gary Mack

[Paul Rigby]

From Gary Mack:

In 1963, most 16mm TV news cameras were silent (I think that was in one of my earlier notes to you – see my comments regarding WBAP). KRLD’s George Phenix was in a different wing of Parkland where he filmed the hearse leaving at 2:05pm. Phenix’ camera that day was a silent model. Either he or possibly another KRLD photographer filmed part of Kilduff’s announcement at 1:30, but that camera, too, was silent. Both films exist on original KRLD video tapes at The Sixth Floor Museum.

So as far as KRLD is concerned, only one or perhaps two of their photographers are known to have been inside Parkland at some point in time, yet no TV film photographer or microphone can be seen in existing photographs of the Perry-Clark news conference. And no KRLD video cameras were set up in that classroom until after the press conference ended.

Gary Mack

"In 1963 we still relied upon vacuum tubes as well as the newly developled transistor, and our sound cameras used film with an optical sound track alongside the reel of framed pictures. Hold the developed film to the light, and you would see the squiggly white line that reproduced sound as it passed throught the projector,"

Bob Huffaker, When the News Went Live (2004), pp.184-5.

[Paul Rigby]

Who intervened contemporaneously to skew knowledge about the wounds?

Secret Service at Parkland:

AP (Dallas), “Connally no longer in danger,” Saturday (morning), 23 November 1963, section 1, p.1: “Mrs. Connally was questioned by Secret Service agents attempting to reconstruct the assassination.”

Jim Bishop. The Day Kennedy Was Shot (Toronto: HarperPerennial, 1992 reprint), p.224: As Huber left the hospital, “Two Secret Service men took the priest by the arms. ‘Father,’ one of them said, ‘you don’t know anything.’ He understood.”

Secret Service/KRLD collaboration at Parkland:

Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, & Wes Wise (with foreward by Dan Rather). When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963 (Lanham, Maryland: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2004), p.27:

Bob Huffaker: “I told of the governor’s broken wrist, which at the time was a wound that Secret Servicemen had been unable to explain, beyond speculating that it might have come from another bullet or from Connally’s struggle to survive.”

Prior Secret Service/KRLD collaboration:

Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, & Wes Wise (with foreward by Dan Rather). When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963 (Lanham, Maryland: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2004), pp.116-117:

Wes Wise: “About two weeks after the Adlai Stevenson incident, two weeks before the president was to arrive, Eddie Barker called me into his office.

‘Wes,’ he said soberly, ‘the Secret Service and FBI are intensely interested in the Stevenson film. They want to go over it with you to try and identify people who might be a threat when the president comes.’

Some experts in today’s journalism ethics would frown on such co-operation between law enforcement and objective reporters. But given the circumstances of the times and the intensity of my experience at the U.N. Day meeting, there was no question in my mind that it was the prudent and proper thing to do.

I was in five or six sessions of two or three hours each that would go something like this: several of us would gather with local and federal officers in the little news department projection room. I would start the film on a 16 mm projector.

(p.117>)‘Wait a minute. Let’s see that frame again,’ a Secret Service agent would say.

‘Oh, that’s old so-and-so,’ a Dallas police officer would remark. ‘He might bear watching.’

‘Start it up again.”

‘Let me freeze-frame this,’ I would offer. ‘That guy in the right background got awfully upset at the U.N. meeting.’

The officers took detailed notes. Local police detectives identified certain individuals on the film by name, others by reputation. This we did over and over – repeating, backing up, starting, stopping – as I worked with the law enforcement agencies. I emphasize this cooperation both in the interest of history and to explain my unusual ‘assignment’ later at the Trade Mart, where the president was to speak...

In the social phase of my assignment, I was to watch for anyone I might recognize from the Stevenson incident. I was to advise – unobtrusively, of course – any of the Secret Service and FBI agents if I observed anything even slightly ‘different,’ a term I thought those fellows used somewhat self-consciously. By this time, after so many planning sessions, I could easily identify any agent at a glance.

Alleged FBI intervention into coverage of Parkland doctors’ recollections:

From: Paul Kuntzler's two-page advertorial as published in the New York Times.

Source: http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/lee...y-dale-k-myers/

Connie Kritzberg was a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald. She conducted a telephone interview a couple of hours after Kennedy’s death with the two principal doctors among the 16 doctors who attended Kennedy at Parkland Hospital. Both doctors, as did all 14 other doctors and four nurses reported that he was shot twice from the front, first in the neck and finally in the right temple.

Kritzberg talked to Dr.Williams Kemp Clark, head of neurosurgery, and Dr. Malcolm Perry. She asked the two doctors how many wounds there were in Kennedy’s body. Dr. Clark told Kritzberg that he was working on the gaping hole in the head, and Dr. Perry said he was working on the entrance wound in the neck. Kritzberg said that Dr. Perry said three times that “there was an entrance wound from the front.”

Connie Kritzberg then said she wrote “a simple story, only about 12 inches long, titled “Neck Wound Brings Death” and turned it in.”

The next morning, Saturday, November 23, Kitzberg found that the story she filed had been changed. She found in the story “an unprofessional sentence” in the third paragraph. It said, “A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.”

“I was very upset,” Kritzberg said. “I called the city desk and talked one of the assistant city editors. I asked him ‘Who changed my story?’ Kritzberg said. “He knew immediately what I meant,” She asked him, “ Who put in that sentence?” The assistant city editor said, “The FBI.”

Connie Kritzburg interview, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, The Final Chapter, episode 7, The Smoking Guns, segment 1:

FBI introduced line into her piece on interview with Perry and Clark in Dallas Times Herald 23 November 1963

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8

[Paul Rigby]

The obvious question hitherto unbegged:

Given that no film, sound recording or example of contemporaneous note-taking has yet surfaced, how was transcript 1327C compiled?

And why was the basis for it - the recordings or notes - not produced upon its emergence? It was not, after all, as if the absence of record(ing)s was uncontroversial, from the mid-1960s on.

Until and unless the advocates of its "authenticity" adduce the basis for its production, we have no alternative but to conclude that it is a CIA forgery.

A very shrewd one, it must be acknowledged, which combines elements of the truth - the throat wound was of entry - with a sustained pretence that there was no front entry wound of the face/head.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Transcript 1327C emerged three decades after the event. A comparison with interviews conducted and published in the days following the Dallas coup is instructive.

According to 1327C, Kemp Clark was, on the afternoon of the assassination, open-minded on the question of a link between the small entry on the throat’s midline, and the large exit wound at the right rear of Kennedy’s head: “The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound...”(1).

Now compare that version with the direct quotes from Clark found within John Herbers’ despatch from Dallas, as reproduced in the NYT of November 27, 1963.

Here, in direct contradiction of transcript 1327C, there was no possible connection between the neck and head wounds, for the bullet “that struck him at about the neck tie knot...ranged downward in his chest and did not exit” (2). Had Clark’s powers of recall mysteriously improved between November 22 and November 26, as the 1994 transcript insisted? Or was it the case, rather more probably, that the November 27, 1963, despatch was adjudged inconvenient by the compilers of 1327C?

(1) Transcript 1327C, page B-5, as found in Appendix C, James H. Fetzer (ed.). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998), p.423.

(2) John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says/Physician Reports One Shot Remained in President’s Body After Hitting Him at Level of His Necktie Knot,” NYT, November 27, 1963, p.20.

[Paul Rigby]

Bump in response to David Lifton's attempt to sell a patently censored news archive as the definitive word on who said what and when at Parkland on November 22.

[Guest Tom Scully]

********* A Question from a Moderator *********

Mr. Rigby, just below is displayed the text from the rule, and further below, is displayed the text of your post. Can the rule and much of the wording of your post, amicably co-exist? Can you appreciate that it is the intent of the members of the moderation team to interfere in the least way possible, while still committing to doing what ever it takes to prevent the rules from being perceived as a token effort that has been reduced to an impotent joke?

Please settle your disagreements to the degree that you can also abide by the spirit of the rules of this forum, and by the rules, themselves, or, the moderation team will intervene.

The Forum rules have been revised; please read them.

The Spirit of the Law

The purpose of all of these rules is to ensure that this forum remains a law-abiding, civil, and congenial place to engage in discussion. That a post complies with that spirit is a greater consideration than whether it can be defended as being within the rules.

Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies....

....Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings....

....If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

Bump in response to David Lifton's attempt to sell a patently censored news archive as the definitive word on who said what and when at Parkland on November 22.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Until and unless the advocates of its "authenticity" adduce the basis for its production, we have no alternative but to conclude that it is a CIA forgery.

A very shrewd one, it must be acknowledged, which combines elements of the truth - the throat wound was of entry - with a sustained pretence that there was no front entry wound of the face/head.

Paul

Greetings Paul, hope all is well with you.

From my recollection the Parkland transcript does not pretend that there was no front entry wound of the head,

but if you can prove me wrong I look forward to seeing the relevant extracts on this thread.

[EDIT: P.S. Hey Paul, I would really dig to hear your own commentary on Queen ELizabeth's trip to

THE EMERALD ISLE]

Edited May 23, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Paul Rigby]

In another thread, Pat Speer asked:

"Why in the heck would "they" make a "fraudulent transcript" that disproved the WC's claims Perry never claimed the throat wound was an entrance, and then hide it away for many years? If it was fraudulent, wouldn't the WC have made it an exhibit?"

Question 1 assumes the compilers of 1327C were concerned with protecting the WC. In fact, the purpose of the publication of the 26 volumes was to destroy the former. The very act of detailing the evidentiary base from which the conclusions ostensibly derived was to expose them as an absurd non-sequitur.

Question 2 assumes 1327C was written in time for publication in the 26 volumes. I'm not convinced, for the success or failure of 1327C rested in considerable measure on the passage of time, both in distancing the fraudulent 1327C from memories of the Kilduff press conference which proceeded it; and in finalising the content of the recast fake Z-film.

So why manufacture it all?

In part, it was designed to negate the enduring suspicion which inevitably attended the "disappearance" of all film and sound recordings of the Parkland doctors' first, untainted descriptions of the wounds. It sought to turn this act of negation to advantage, in the classic CIA manner, by conceding ground (on the throat wound) even as it continued the suppression of Perry's initial location of the head entrance wound.

The first sustained attempt at negation came from CBS as early as 1967.

In conceding the throat wound as entrance, 1327C offered opponents of the official fiction a useful and desperately desired fillip, and a degree of vindication: But in suppressing the true nature of Perry's first description of the location of the head wound, it did nothing to challenge the grip exerted upon those same opponents by the CIA's primary weapon of ambiguity, the second version of the Z-fake. An accurate rendition of Perry's first and authentic testimony would have exposed as fabricated the fake's depiction of the exploding upper right side of Kennedy's head.

Just how glaringly obvious is the fraudulence of the transcript? This obvious:

At just after half-one CST, the president's official (albeit acting) press secretary, citing the president's official physician, informs the assembled journos that it is a simple matter of a bullet through the brain. A bullet, moreover, which entered the (right) temple.

A mere half hour latter - at most generous - more or less the same group of reporters find nothing remotely odd about about wound descriptions which make no mention of an entrance wound in the location specified by Kilduff,citing Burkley. Not one of them. This is not remotely plausible.

Better yet, the one (AP) despatch which does incur the wrath of the cover-up's defenders - most notably Manchester - just happens to be precisely the despatch in which we find consistency & congruence between the Kilduff location, and that provided by original,authentic Perry testimony: the front of the head. That's a striking coincidence.