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

[Bill Miller]

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

To start with, Paul ... as was quite plainly stated to you by another researcher - Mack believes what he has said to be true and from his own personal seeing the article. Mack's job isn't to be a 'Go-Fer' for anyone. He gave you information so to help you find it because you want to see it - he has already read it.

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.

[Miles Scull]

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

To start with, Paul ... as was quite plainly stated to you by another researcher - Mack believes what he has said to be true and from his own personal seeing the article.

"Mack believes" is totally unacceptable from the standpoint of rigorous & accurate research, as everyone knows, except apparently you.

Mack's job isn't to be a 'Go-Fer' for anyone.

Of course, you are Mack's goffer.

He gave you information so to help you find it because you want to see it - he has already read it.

No, not confirmed by citation.

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.

Are you sure? Maybe Mack is trying to avoid you.

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.

How can you PRESUME to comment on Mack's "private life?"

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.

Would you object to your intemperate, ill considered comments being characterised as "ridiculous piffle?''

Edited for punctuation.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Paul Rigby]

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

Edited February 20, 2008 by Paul Rigby

[Bill Miller]

Can you folks please get back to arguing effectively without the bickering and baiting????

This is certainly not padding any arguments.

I want you to know that this is becoming a condition that I am seeing throughout the forum. It is not the fault of one person, so any PMs about what "so and so said so that's why I said " will be passed over by me.

You have fine minds, and can do much better defending your positions. But I don't need to tell you that.

Response number 93 has to be one of the most childish idiotic replies to have ever made it onto this forum ... in my opinion. Below is just a small example of the idiocy of that post ...

Mack's job isn't to be a 'Go-Fer' for anyone.

Of course, you are Mack's goffer.

Miles, name one thing that Mack has ever asked me to retrieve for him? The fact is that he has not asked me to do anything for him along that line and this was just another case like you misleading this forum about Duncan supposedly consulting Mack and Groden. It amazes me that with you on permanent moderation that you are allowed to xxxxx with what any half-wit could see was an unfounded response for no other purpose than to xxxxx the forum. If I am wrong, then tell us what Mack has ever asked me to do for him???

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.

Are you sure? Maybe Mack is trying to avoid you.

Anyone who has been to the plaza and visited Gary Mack would know what he goes through. Gary has never denied me time when he has it to spare. In fact, Gary asked that I get back to him later because he was just starting. Your response is just as ignorant as the previous one and I am surprised that the sleeping moderators allow you to get away with it.

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.

How can you PRESUME to comment on Mack's "private life?"

Gary has given me a rough break-down of his responsibilities when talking about when and if he may do this or that. Everyone has a private life that demands their time ... unless of course you are a sort who has nothing better to do than xxxxx a forum.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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

[Paul Rigby]

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

[Bill Miller]

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, I spoke to Mack today about that article. Mack saw that article not all that long ago for the Museum gets newspapers donated to them all the time and at some point - it gets cataloged. Mack not only had the article, but sat and red it. So when I can, I will see if I can find it for there were even a few other NY newspapers in them days.

What this is about is that the article mentioned this film being aired on TV. You think that somehow it was the Zapruder film, but the article talks about this film showing the turn off of Main and onto Houston (if I remember correctly). It was a B&W film. But only one film had been seen on that TV station and I am sure you have even seen other newspapers mentioning the date and station, as well. So in the end and after all the asinine responses ... it will still boil down to it being the Muchmore film and once again you will be in error.

Dictionary: as·i·nine (ăs'ə-nīn') pronunciation

adj.

1. Utterly stupid or silly:

[Miles Scull]

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

So when I can, I will see if I can find it for there were even a few other NY newspapers in them days.

OK. When can you? After you get your laptop back?

[Bill Miller]

OK. When can you? After you get your laptop back?

Just another idiotic response allowed by the moderators. Having ones laptop has nothing to do with going into a library and looking up the newspaper on micro-film, so why make such a stupid remark in the first place??? I have said in the past that I am in BC, Canada where I spend a good portion of the year. Harrison Hot Springs to be exact. I don't even think this community has a library - let alone American newspapers on micro-film. Also, feel free to call 'Bargin Bytes' out of Mission, BC and get after them about why my laptop hasn't come back yet.

If you want to address something ... in discussing whether something could have been done in 1963 that could go undetected by modern science and expertise ... you made the following remark, "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:MOL & U2". Please be more precise and tell me what those two things have in common to 1963 technology???

Bill Miller

Edited February 21, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

OK. When can you? After you get your laptop back?

[...]

If you want to address something ... in discussing whether something could have been done in 1963 that could go undetected by modern science and expertise ... you made the following remark, "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:MOL & U2". Please be more precise and tell me what those two things have in common to 1963 technology???

Bill Miller

1963 technology? What pray-tell, do you know about film-photo technology of 1963 especially when it concerns possible Zapruder film-alteration? Give us a clue man, don't miss this opportunity to demonstrate those bonifides..

your's in research,

David G. Healy

p.s. Hi Gary, I see you there....

Edited February 21, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Paul Rigby]

What this is about is that the article mentioned this film being aired on TV. You think that somehow it was the Zapruder film, but the article talks about this film showing the turn off of Main and onto Houston (if I remember correctly).

Bill,

You're forgetting that early descriptions of the first version of the Zapruder film describe the film capturing what the current version does not - the presidential limo making the turn from Houston onto Elm. Here's one example:

Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:

Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.

There's more where that came from, but you get the point.

It was a B&W film. But only one film had been seen on that TV station and I am sure you have even seen other newspapers mentioning the date and station, as well. So in the end and after all the asinine responses ... it will still boil down to it being the Muchmore film and once again you will be in error.

Dictionary: as·i·nine (ăs'ə-nīn') pronunciation

adj.

1. Utterly stupid or silly: [/b]

And if my thesis is indeed "asinine," as you insist, then prove it to be so - the remedy really is the hands of the anti-alterationists! Simply produce the clipping you, Mack, Thompson et al persist in claiming exists. It couldn't be simpler.

Paul

[Bill Miller]

1963 technology? What pray-tell, do you know about film-photo technology of 1963 especially when it concerns possible Zapruder film-alteration? Give us a clue man, don't miss this opportunity to demonstrate those bonifides..

your's in research,

David G. Healy

p.s. Hi Gary, I see you there....

Thanks for another childlike response so I can say your great expertise makes my case and three years after TGZFH had been out, its claims discussed in detail, and including a few more claims since then ... it was you who posted 'I have not seen any proof of alteration'.

To add to your usual misdirected criticism is the fact that I didn't say that a film could not be altered in 1963. What I have said continuously through many of these similar threads on the subject is that an altered film in 1963 could not hold up to an expert and certainly not by todays standards of testing. For you to make a case, then you must pretend that both positions are one in the same, but they are not. And this is why when you were pressed in the past to say what it is that you have seen that's altered about the Zfilm - you said that you had seen no proof of alteration. I rest my case.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

You're forgetting that early descriptions of the first version of the Zapruder film describe the film capturing what the current version does not - the presidential limo making the turn from Houston onto Elm. Here's one example:

Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:

Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.

Paul, you appear to be taking a newspaper that is saying that using an amateur film, someone can reconstruct the progression of the limo. Please cite where someone specially said that they were viewing the Zapruder film and saw the limo making its turn from Houston onto Elm.

Thanks.

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, you appear to be taking a newspaper that is saying that using an amateur film, someone can reconstruct the progression of the limo. Please cite where someone specially said that they were viewing the Zapruder film and saw the limo making its turn from Houston onto Elm.

Thanks.

With pleasure, Bill:

Dan Rather, CBS Radio interview, 25 November 1963:

“I…have just returned from seeing a…a movie…the President’s open black automobile…made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in Dallas onto Elm Street…as the car completed the turn…,”

Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), pp.86-87.

Dan Rather, CBS Evening News interview, 25 November 1963:

“The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer, who had a particularly good vantage point…The films show President Kennedy’s open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas…”

Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), p.89.

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Paul, you appear to be taking a newspaper that is saying that using an amateur film, someone can reconstruct the progression of the limo. Please cite where someone specially said that they were viewing the Zapruder film and saw the limo making its turn from Houston onto Elm.

Thanks.

With pleasure, Bill:

Dan Rather, CBS Radio interview, 25 November 1963:

“I…have just returned from seeing a…a movie…the President’s open black automobile…made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in Dallas onto Elm Street…as the car completed the turn…,”

Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), pp.86-87.

Dan Rather, CBS Evening News interview, 25 November 1963:

“The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer, who had a particularly good vantage point…The films show President Kennedy’s open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas…”

Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), p.89.

Paul

Paul, I do not believe that you are as short-sighted about certain details here as you are letting on to be. Yes, Dan Rather said that the President's car turned left onto Elm Street, but he also knew the parade route like everyone else did and part of what he is saying is obviously from deduction and not by complete physical observation. For instance: No movie film showed the limo going through the ramp and onto Stemmons Freeway, but it was widely reported that the President's car went on to Parkland via the Elm Street/Stemmons ramp ... AND WHY? ... because of a reasonable and logical deduction based on the available evidence and a lack of other possibilties.

If you stop and think for a moment ... why do you suppose that no one has used Dan Rather to claim what you just have??? IMO the reason is because they realize that a film showing the lead cycles coming off of Houston onto Elm, and then cuts to the limo being on Elm, that it isn't a stretch of ones imagination for a reasonable and logical thinker to be then reporting to others that the President's car had turned from Houston Street and onto Elm. Everything Dan Rather said supports this. Part of the Zfilm shows the parade (lead cycles) coming from Houston and onto Elm and then the limo coming down Elm Street, thus anyone saying that the Zapruder film shows the President's car turning from Houston onto Elm Street would in fact be accurate in making that statement IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited February 23, 2008 by Bill Miller