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

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

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.

Well if Gary Mack won't follow up it's certainly not for lack of time or interest.

I see his name in the 'Users browsing the forum' list about 25% of the time I'm here.

And I'm here a lot.

---------------

PATIENCE PAUL AND MYRA: Experience has shown that it's a rather long-- and indirrect-- shot from the Sixth Floor Museum. Luckily, there is nothing vulgar that goes on there, like the out-of-doors exchange of sovereigns for printed material, as seen recently on Oswarld's Ghost ( at least the Ghost accessorized by Aynesworth and Mrs. McMillan for the Public Broadcast System) I understand they've got perfect credit places!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Well if Gary Mack won't follow up it's certainly not for lack of time or interest.

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

Gary says you can find the information in one of the New York afternoon papers of a certain date. He doesn't recall which of the 3 afternoon papers it was because he does not have a photographic memory. It is clear that Gary has NO DOUBT that the information is there for anyone who is willing to take the trouble to check it out and satisfy his doubts.

Gary has no need to inquire further, since he has no doubt in the matter.

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

Edited February 17, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Paul Rigby]

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

A direct quote from a Warren Commissioner, perhaps?

Incredible.

[Paul Rigby]

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

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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]

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.

[Miles Scull]

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.

Poppycock.

Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object. - Charles Sanders Peirce

Obviously, the news article has the effect of Mack's assertion. Without the article the effect does not have existential standing.

Snobbery directed at Paul is poppycock.

[Bill Miller]

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

Gary says you can find the information in one of the New York afternoon papers of a certain date. He doesn't recall which of the 3 afternoon papers it was because he does not have a photographic memory. It is clear that Gary has NO DOUBT that the information is there for anyone who is willing to take the trouble to check it out and satisfy his doubts.

Gary has no need to inquire further, since he has no doubt in the matter.

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

Well said! The alteration pusher doesn't seem to me to be interested in gathering data ... quite the opposite. They grab on to a usually flawed notion and they look for only those things that they can build on from there ... much the same way the WC did. The only way to keep an already weak argument alive is to avoid the relevant information and draw attention to the irrelevant stuff. If Mack gives a few sources to look at, then rather than to take that information and utilize it ... its pushed aside so to make it appear their case has been strengthened because Mack won't start tearing through his vast collection looking for it as opposed to they simply going to the library and asking to view the micro-film copies of those newspapers for those dates.

[Miles Scull]

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

Gary says you can find the information in one of the New York afternoon papers of a certain date. He doesn't recall which of the 3 afternoon papers it was because he does not have a photographic memory. It is clear that Gary has NO DOUBT that the information is there for anyone who is willing to take the trouble to check it out and satisfy his doubts.

Gary has no need to inquire further, since he has no doubt in the matter.

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

Well said! The alteration pusher doesn't seem to me to be interested in gathering data ... quite the opposite. They grab on to a usually flawed notion and they look for only those things that they can build on from there ... much the same way the WC did. The only way to keep an already weak argument alive is to avoid the relevant information and draw attention to the irrelevant stuff. If Mack gives a few sources to look at, then rather than to take that information and utilize it ... its pushed aside so to make it appear their case has been strengthened because Mack won't start tearing through his vast collection looking for it as opposed to they simply going to the library and asking to view the micro-film copies of those newspapers for those dates.

Nonsense. You have frequently made baseless assertions without verifiable citations.

For example:

You assert that I said Bowers could see people standing on the steps.

But I never said that. Please cite your source.

If you believe I said this, then you also believe that you asserted that the Z film is altered & then asserted in the same thread that it is not.

It cannot be both. So, which is it?

[Bill Miller]

Obviously, the news article has the effect of Mack's assertion. Without the article the effect does not have existential standing.

Snobbery directed at Paul is poppycock.

Wow ... thats just the opposite position you took when trying to sell the idea that Bowers could have seen the guys standing on the steps from where he sat in the tower. As far as the article goes ... it either exist or it doesn't. Mack is not one to merely attempt to mislead someone ... he cares too much about his reputation to do something like that - unlike someone who would claim Duncan had been consulting Groden and Mack when there was n ot an ounce of truth in it.

[Bill Miller]

For example:

You assert that I said Bowers could see people standing on the steps.

But I never said that. Please cite your source.

If you believe I said this, then you also believe that you asserted that the Z film is altered & then asserted in the same thread that it is not.

It cannot be both. So, which is it?[/color][/b]

You not only pushed that idea, but you didn't want to believe Mack when he said he went to the spot and saw that you were wrong - when Groden took photos that you didn't want to believe - and when you got someone to take photos for YOU in an attempt to show that Bowers could see the men on the steps. I'll let that archived thread on Lee Bowers be my source for accuracy.

[Miles Scull]

For example:

You assert that I said Bowers could see people standing on the steps.

But I never said that. Please cite your source.

If you believe I said this, then you also believe that you asserted that the Z film is altered & then asserted in the same thread that it is not.

It cannot be both. So, which is it?[/color][/b]

You not only pushed that idea, but you didn't want to believe Mack when he said he went to the spot and saw that you were wrong - when Groden took photos that you didn't want to believe - and when you got someone to take photos for YOU in an attempt to show that Bowers could see the men on the steps. I'll let that archived thread on Lee Bowers be my source for accuracy.

Silly nonsense, and fully expected & anticipated.

You evade the task at hand: of finding the posts that verify your false assertions.

Why?

Because the posts are not there. No surprise.

Now, one other thing>

You keep asserting that photography technique & equipment in the 60s was too primitive to allow alteration of the Z film.

Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Simply going to the library and asking to view the micro-film copies of those newspapers for those dates.[/b]

I think the alterationists have a terrible existential sense of dread of what they'll find there. It might just spoil all their daydreams.

[Miles Scull]

Simply going to the library and asking to view the micro-film copies of those newspapers for those dates.[/b]

I think the alterationists have a terrible existential sense of dread of what they'll find there. It might just spoil all their daydreams.

Went there & as expected found long exposé articles on bats in the belfry.

[Don Jeffries]

The thing I find most interesting here is Marie Muchmore's supposed belief that she didn't film the motorcade during the assassination. That simply is not believable, imho. This had to have been the most memorable home movie this woman ever took, or ever would take. How could she possibly have been mistaken about something so basic?