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

[Bill Miller]

Must be a wonderful world you live in, Miller...where you and Gary Mack can make any claims you want, without either of you having the responsibility to back any of it up. So when do those same rules start applying to the rest of humanity?

Yes Mark ... its a wonderful world where lazy people sit around posting to a JFK forum how others are not jumping to their whims. I have lost track how many times I have suggested that people could contact Mack for details in the event that I have misstated something from memory. The article is what it is ... its obviously something Mack has seen or else why mention it at all. Today is Saturday and a lot of libraries are open to those who really care to use them. Mack gave you several leads, so can we look forward to you reporting back your latest efforts or should we just assume that your interest lies only in trolling this thread.

[Mark Stapleton]

Must be a wonderful world you live in, Miller...where you and Gary Mack can make any claims you want, without either of you having the responsibility to back any of it up. So when do those same rules start applying to the rest of humanity?

Yes Mark ... its a wonderful world where lazy people sit around posting to a JFK forum how others are not jumping to their whims. I have lost track how many times I have suggested that people could contact Mack for details in the event that I have misstated something from memory. The article is what it is ... its obviously something Mack has seen or else why mention it at all. Today is Saturday and a lot of libraries are open to those who really care to use them. Mack gave you several leads, so can we look forward to you reporting back your latest efforts or should we just assume that your interest lies only in trolling this thread.

Unbelievable.

[Paul Rigby]

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

[Bill Miller]

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.)

I commend you for doing what you did. I might add however, that going to the library and pulling up the micro-film for the selected newspapers, which are dated, is free and only the cost of printing the selected page is all thats asked. That cost is always minimal.

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

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

[Paul Rigby]

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

[Miles Scull]

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

Since this is Paul's thread, I dare say it should be appropriate for contributors to meet Paul's standards for reference source citation. Name dropping has been offered before as a substitute for solid evidence. Making stuff up, such as the non-existent "Weitzman Report," sullies the reputations of those very pundits whose names are being dropped & retards research.

I believe this is the opinion of just about everybody.

Edited spelling & added "very."

Edited February 17, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Since this is Paul's thread, I dare say it should be appropriate for contributors to meet Paul's standards for reference source citation. Name dropping has been offered before as a substitute for solid evidence. Making stuff up, such as the non-existent "Weitzman Report," sullies the reputations of those very pundits whose names are being dropped & retards research.

I believe this is the opinion of just about everybody.

Edited spelling & added "very."

Miles, if these threads were only to be used by those who post with high standards, then most of what you have ever written would have to be deleted ... starting with the Holland running 'immediately' off the underpass within the first 20 seconds - Bowers LOS being able to see people standing on the steps - and Duncan consulting Gary Mack and Robert Groden ... all were untrue.

[Miles Scull]

Since this is Paul's thread, I dare say it should be appropriate for contributors to meet Paul's standards for reference source citation. Name dropping has been offered before as a substitute for solid evidence. Making stuff up, such as the non-existent "Weitzman Report," sullies the reputations of those very pundits whose names are being dropped & retards research.

I believe this is the opinion of just about everybody.

Edited spelling & added "very."

Miles, if these threads were only to be used by those who post with high standards, then most of what you have ever written would have to be deleted ... starting with the Holland running 'immediately' off the underpass within the first 20 seconds - Bowers LOS being able to see people standing on the steps - and Duncan consulting Gary Mack and Robert Groden ... all were untrue.

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?

[Paul Rigby]

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.

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

Paul,

I have little technical knowledge of the film side of the case, but I suggest you are close to the mark with your hypothesising. If Zpv1, as you call it, was abruptly removed from circulation and made its public reappearance in 1975, that gives the conspirators a comfortable window of about 11.5 years for 'refinements', which would somewhat undermine the anti-alterationists argument that the necessary technology did not exist in '63.

And we have the intercession of the psyops king himself staring us in the face. According to Evica's 'A Certain Arrrogance', C.D. Jackson had never been known to miss a Bilderberg meeting, until his death in '64.

Luce, Sarnoff, Paley and the rest of the media owners were keen to make a killing on the films until someone pointed out the inconsistencies which Zpv1 may have revealed. Who knows what it may have revealed? Loose ends can be very tricky and must be tied up immediately.

Great research, btw.

[Bill Miller]

I have little technical knowledge of the film side of the case,

I guess that you can include the 'films' history to the above statement, as well.

Zapruder sold all rights to LIFE late on Monday afternoon. As is clear from the record and all subsequent interviews with those in a position to know, LIFE never authorized any public showings of the Z film except to the Warren Commission and Jim Garrison.

So it appears that no one had a Zapruder movie film to offer the public by the 26th, 27th, etc., of November 1963 because Zapruder saw to it.

Also, this statement you made is incomplete, "which would somewhat undermine the anti-alterationists argument that the necessary technology did not exist in '63." A film could be altered in 1963, but to have had the technology then that could fool the forensic experts today isn't possible.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Mark Stapleton]

I have little technical knowledge of the film side of the case,

I guess that you can include the 'films' history to the above statement, as well.

That's what disclaimers are all about. Lucky I put one in.

Zapruder sold all rights to LIFE late on Monday afternoon. As is clear from the record and all subsequent interviews with those in a position to know, LIFE never authorized any public showings of the Z film except to the Warren Commission and Jim Garrison.

I read this post before you edited it. You originally said there were NO MOVIE RIGHTS. Why did you delete this? Were there movie rights? In any case, we all know the assassinations of JFK and LHO were a print and electronic media extravaganza from which the media owners made a large fortune.

So it appears that no one had a Zapruder movie film to offer the public by the 26th, 27th, etc., of November 1963 because Zapruder saw to it.

Also, this statement you made is incomplete, "which would somewhat undermine the anti-alterationists argument that the necessary technology did not exist in '63." A film could be altered in 1963, but to have had the technology then that could fool the forensic experts today isn't possible.

Apparently you lack consensus on that.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Bill Miller]

I read this post before you edited it. You originally said there were NO MOVIE RIGHTS. Why did you delete this? Were there movie rights? In any case, we all know the assassinations of JFK and LHO were a print and electronic media extravaganza from which the media owners made a large fortune.

I misstated the data, which doesn't mean that the assassination films were altered - just that I misspoke, caught it immediately, and corrected it. The history of the Zapruder film is well documented and can be checked if you so see it fit to do so.

Also, this statement you made is incomplete, "which would somewhat undermine the anti-alterationists argument that the necessary technology did not exist in '63." A film could be altered in 1963, but to have had the technology then that could fool the forensic experts today isn't possible.

Apparently you lack consensus on that.

And who might that be ... the same people who bought into Moorman being the street, that the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza are listening devices, that didn't see Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass in Altgens #6, or was it someone who would say 'the Zfilm is altered' in one breath and 'I haven't seen any proof of alteration in the next'? Or are you referring to someone like Zavada? I know from what I have seen to date as to which side I would bet on, but then again when my suitcase gets tossed around at the airport ... I don't start thinking right away that the CIA was messing with my electric razor.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

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.

[Myra Bronstein]

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.