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

[Jack White]

PS While you're in the mood to address my earlier questions, any sign of that New York paper's report on the alleged showing of Muchmore on WNEW-TV, 26 Nov? Surely it's been printed by now?!

Sherpa Rigby

Paul ... newspapers have deadlines, which in those days they were by midnight the night before ... some by 11PM. I learned this through Gary Mack. The newspaper data I am sharing with you was the morning edition, thus to have it on the stands ... those images were furnished no later than the day before on the 26th.

By the way ... Zapruder's name does appear on the caption and it appears that the person writing the article, who wasn't yet well versed in the details of the assassination, had simply thought the Muchmore images were from the Zapruder film.

Bill Miller

Miller knows nothing about newspaper deadlines in 1963. On a fast-breaking story like the assassination,

the front page could literally be changed within an hour, including text, photoengraving, matting, stereotyping,

changing plates for one page...with an EXTRA edition on the streets within an hour.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Fascinating, Bill.

First, I take it, then, the answer to my question re: Mack and the New York newspaper clipping is still "No"?

Second, "15 seconds" - how curiously common that figure was in the first week post-assassination.

Three, we seem to have an epidemic of newspapermen mistaking Muchmore for Zapruder, despite the best endeavours of Life magazine's first post-assassination edition (available on the evening of 26 November, well before deadlines for 27 November morning papers). Also, I wonder if the "error" ran both ways? If "error" it was, of course.

Paul

The media made a lot of errors in their rush to be the first news source to get the assassination information out to the public. The newspaper I shared with you is one such example.

I think the 15 seconds is the length or supposed length of the Muchmore film.

And no ... as more stored JFK data is sifted through ... I believe the article in question will also turn up just like the one I posted. Its obvious now that Muchmore's film was being discussed by the media on the 26th and 27th, thus the validity of the newspaper article that Mack read is becoming more and more probable with further evidence surfacing.

Bill Miller

Edited May 5, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Miller knows nothing about newspaper deadlines in 1963. On a fast-breaking story like the assassination,

the front page could literally be changed within an hour, including text, photoengraving, matting, stereotyping,

changing plates for one page...with an EXTRA edition on the streets within an hour.

Jack

Jack, I learned what I did by talking to those who worked in media and have a rich history and expertise in the media coverage of the assassination. Can you cite a source for the things you just said or was it just another one of your ill-informed assumptions like the one that you had about the yellow curb stripping in Dallas and where to research them.

Bill

[Paul Rigby]

... as more stored JFK data is sifted through ... I believe the article in question will also turn up just like the one I posted.

Promises, promises.

... Its obvious now that Muchmore's film was being discussed by the media on the 26th and 27th, thus the validity of the newspaper article that Mack read is becoming more and more probable with further evidence surfacing. Bill Miller[/b]

Er, not quite, Bill: Read your own clipping again, it's sightly more interesting than that - stills from Muchmore's film, assuming she did indeed take it, are being misrepresented as Zapruder's. Immediately after the decision to suppress the Zapruder film. Now there's what I call a striking coincidence. Rare things, genuine coincidences.

I've often wondered if there is a correlation between the establishment's quashing of the CIA's carefully manufactured Cuban connection red-herring, and the decision to suppress the Zapruder film (public version 1) in favour of the refashioned pv2. The object being in both cases the same - to establish or reinforce the lone-assassin nonsense. Such a hypothesis would explain the pro-conspiratorial (grassy knoll) fight back by the Agency from, roughly, 1966 on; and much else besides.

Keep the clippings coming, Bill/Gary. The more the better!

Paul

[Jack White]

Miller knows nothing about newspaper deadlines in 1963. On a fast-breaking story like the assassination,

the front page could literally be changed within an hour, including text, photoengraving, matting, stereotyping,

changing plates for one page...with an EXTRA edition on the streets within an hour.

Jack

Jack, I learned what I did by talking to those who worked in media and have a rich history and expertise in the media coverage of the assassination. Can you cite a source for the things you just said or was it just another one of your ill-informed assumptions like the one that you had about the yellow curb stripping in Dallas and where to research them.

Bill

You are talking to someone who once worked in a newspaper newsroom, spent lots of

time in newspaper composing rooms, and for more than 40 years worked in advertising

dealing with newspapers. One of our clients for many years was the Fort Worth Star-

Telegram. What is YOUR experience working with newspapers?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Bill Miller' post='144433' date='May 5 2008, 07:47 PM']... as more stored JFK data is sifted through ... I believe the article in question will also turn up just like the one I posted.

Promises, promises.

That was a good one, Paul. As I recall, you had doubted the report that the media had seen Muchmore's film by the 27th. While not the exact report mentioned in conjunction with this matter before ... you are offered another media article showing not just the Muchmore frames, and from UPI who had bought the film from Muchmore/herself, but the article demonstrates how it came to be that the reports on Zapruder's film were attributed Muchmore's film.

Er, not quite, Bill: Read your own clipping again, it's sightly more interesting than that - stills from Muchmore's film, assuming she did indeed take it, are being misrepresented as Zapruder's. Immediately after the decision to suppress the Zapruder film. Now there's what I call a striking coincidence. Rare things, genuine coincidences.

UPI allowed their pictures to be used ... it was the newspaper who got Marie's images mixed-up with the wrong article. I am sorry, but the things you say just do not add up.

Keep the clippings coming, Bill/Gary. The more the better!

I am sure when the other clipping is found - it will be shared with you. It is at least good that one such clipping has now been shared with you because that will demonstrate to a fine logical thinker like yourself that it appears that there were some media sources who had been the cause of the confusion.

[Bill Miller]

You are talking to someone who once worked in a newspaper newsroom, spent lots of

time in newspaper composing rooms, and for more than 40 years worked in advertising

"dealing with newspapers.

Yes, Jack ... I must also be aware that you have said things in recent years that are very bias and extreme.

One of our clients for many years was the Fort Worth Star-

Telegram. What is YOUR experience working with newspapers?

Like I said in my previous response ... my experience was going to people who would know the answer like Gary Mack. Here is a response Gary sent to me on this matter ...

"Bill,

In answer to your question about newspaper deadlines, the Muchmore film explanation is really very simple. Inside pages of newspapers are printed ahead of time and many/most dailies save the front page until the very last to accommodate late-breaking news.

The Muchmore story and photos appeared on page 4 of the morning San Francisco Chronicle, which means that page had been prepared and printed either late 11/26 or shortly after midnight on 11/27. This was done so home deliveries and downtown racks would be supplied in the hours before 6am. Therefore, the UPI photos run by the Chronicle were received sometime on 11/26 and first published in the 11/27 edition.

If the Chronicle ran extra editions on the 27th – which hardly seems likely – they may or may not have included the Muchmore frames.

The Muchmore frames did not appear in the Dallas newspapers, but the Zapruder frames did, on 11/29. In those days, the Dallas Morning News general deadline was 11pm the night before. That figure was told to me years ago by News columnist Tony Zoppi and confirmed by other News employees. If Tony wanted his column in the next day, it had to be in and approved by 11pm. The News could then, and still can, get a later story on the front page by one or 1:30.

Gary Mack "

[David G. Healy]

Miller knows nothing about newspaper deadlines in 1963. On a fast-breaking story like the assassination,

the front page could literally be changed within an hour, including text, photoengraving, matting, stereotyping,

changing plates for one page...with an EXTRA edition on the streets within an hour.

Jack

Jack, I learned what I did by talking to those who worked in media and have a rich history and expertise in the media coverage of the assassination. Can you cite a source for the things you just said or was it just another one of your ill-informed assumptions like the one that you had about the yellow curb stripping in Dallas and where to research them.

Bill

You are talking to someone who once worked in a newspaper newsroom, spent lots of

time in newspaper composing rooms, and for more than 40 years worked in advertising

dealing with newspapers. One of our clients for many years was the Fort Worth Star-

Telegram. What is YOUR experience working with newspapers?

Jack

he got ink on his hands once?

Where's Miller's biography by-the-way

Edited May 6, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Er, not quite, Bill: Read your own clipping again, it's sightly more interesting than that - stills from Muchmore's film, assuming she did indeed take it, are being misrepresented as Zapruder's. Immediately after the decision to suppress the Zapruder film. Now there's what I call a striking coincidence. Rare things, genuine coincidences.

I've often wondered if there is a correlation between the establishment's quashing of the CIA's carefully manufactured Cuban connection red-herring, and the decision to suppress the Zapruder film (public version 1) in favour of the refashioned pv2. The object being in both cases the same - to establish or reinforce the lone-assassin nonsense. Such a hypothesis would explain the pro-conspiratorial (grassy knoll) fight back by the Agency from, roughly, 1966 on; and much else besides.

Paul

According to the Muchmore film, the limo was still moving just before, during and after the head shot and it did NOT stop. That article was distributed to UPI subscribers worldwide on 11-26-63, four days before Orville Nix - who also filmed the head shot - took his film out of the camera and dropped it off at Dynacolor in Dallas for processing. Your correlation involving the Zapruder film seems to have a lot of holes in it.

[Jack White]

You are talking to someone who once worked in a newspaper newsroom, spent lots of

time in newspaper composing rooms, and for more than 40 years worked in advertising

"dealing with newspapers.

Yes, Jack ... I must also be aware that you have said things in recent years that are very bias and extreme.

One of our clients for many years was the Fort Worth Star-

Telegram. What is YOUR experience working with newspapers?

Like I said in my previous response ... my experience was going to people who would know the answer like Gary Mack. Here is a response Gary sent to me on this matter ...

"Bill,

In answer to your question about newspaper deadlines, the Muchmore film explanation is really very simple. Inside pages of newspapers are printed ahead of time and many/most dailies save the front page until the very last to accommodate late-breaking news.

The Muchmore story and photos appeared on page 4 of the morning San Francisco Chronicle, which means that page had been prepared and printed either late 11/26 or shortly after midnight on 11/27. This was done so home deliveries and downtown racks would be supplied in the hours before 6am. Therefore, the UPI photos run by the Chronicle were received sometime on 11/26 and first published in the 11/27 edition.

If the Chronicle ran extra editions on the 27th – which hardly seems likely – they may or may not have included the Muchmore frames.

The Muchmore frames did not appear in the Dallas newspapers, but the Zapruder frames did, on 11/29. In those days, the Dallas Morning News general deadline was 11pm the night before. That figure was told to me years ago by News columnist Tony Zoppi and confirmed by other News employees. If Tony wanted his column in the next day, it had to be in and approved by 11pm. The News could then, and still can, get a later story on the front page by one or 1:30.

Gary Mack "

This is bulls--- from the uninformed! Zoppi was an entertainment columnist. Columnists and feature writers operate

on DIFFERENT DEADLINES than news reporters. I worked briefly in the newsroom of the Fort Worth Press in the 1940s.

It was an afternoon paper. The deadline for features, columnists, editorials was the day before, to be typeset by the

night typesetters. The deadline for late hard news and sports was 10 a.m. for a paper that had to be on the street

by 11:30 to catch the lunch trade. An hour and a half to get late page one news and late sports stories! True, the

bulk of the paper was ready to print by 7 a.m., but from 7 to 10 it was a furious pace to put last-second stories to bed,

usually involving just one or two pages.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

This is bulls--- from the uninformed! Zoppi was an entertainment columnist. Columnists and feature writers operate

on DIFFERENT DEADLINES than news reporters. I worked briefly in the newsroom of the Fort Worth Press in the 1940s.

It was an afternoon paper. The deadline for features, columnists, editorials was the day before, to be typeset by the

night typesetters. The deadline for late hard news and sports was 10 a.m. for a paper that had to be on the street

by 11:30 to catch the lunch trade. An hour and a half to get late page one news and late sports stories! True, the

bulk of the paper was ready to print by 7 a.m., but from 7 to 10 it was a furious pace to put last-second stories to bed,

usually involving just one or two pages.

Jack

Jack ... are you talking about Mack and Zoppi's experience being 'Bull' or was your opening three words a confession on your part???

And if these other people are so wrong, then how do you explain the following ... The San Francisco Chronicle was, and is, the MORNING newspaper. Most of it is printed the day before and late news is printed the evening before. The Muchmore story was disseminated by UPI on November 26th and it appeared in the Chronicle on the 27th. How simple!

Bill

Edited May 6, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

That was a good one, Paul. As I recall, you had doubted the report that the media had seen Muchmore's film by the 27th. While not the exact report mentioned in conjunction with this matter before ...

Sorry, Bill, but you're right, it isn't. Welcome, though, nonetheless.

...you are offered another media article showing not just the Muchmore frames, and from UPI who had bought the film from Muchmore/herself, but the article demonstrates how it came to be that the reports on Zapruder's film were attributed Muchmore's film.

The fact that the SF Chronicle (Nov 27) and the Philadelphia Daily News (Nov 26) both ran stills from the film attributed to Moorman labelled as Zapruder's tells us nothing about the film shown on WNEW-TV at 12:46 am (Doan, NYHT, Nov 27); the movement of that time to the afternoon and the attribution of the film to Moorman (Thompson et al) tells us that certain figures, all anti-alterationists, want the film to be Moorman's.

UPI allowed their pictures to be used ... it was the newspaper who got Marie's images mixed-up with the wrong article. I am sorry, but the things you say just do not add up.

But it wasn't a case of incompetence by a single, unnamed journalist who bungled a caption. Someone was deliberately conflating the films and briefing accordingly. Here's Herbers in the CIA's paper of record on Nov 27:

"A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck. The President turned toward Mrs. Kennedy as she began to put her hands around his head.

Connally Turns Around

At the same time, Governor Connally, riding in front of the President, turned round to see what had happened. Then the President was struck on the head. His head went forward, then snapped back, as he slumped in his seat. At that time, Governor Connally was wounded.

The elapsed time from the moment Mr. Kennedy was first struck until the car disappeared in an underpass was five seconds,”

John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20

Why would anyone want to withdraw the first version of the Zapruder film and edit it? Herbers is again of use here. In the same piece he tells us what troubled the holders of the film:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more."

Paul Mandel had at least one precursor.

[Paul Rigby]

Why would anyone want to withdraw the first version of the Zapruder film and edit it? Herbers is again of use here. In the same piece he tells us what troubled the holders of the film:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more."

Paul Mandel had at least one precursor.

A little elaboration is in order.

Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film?

The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action.

Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston:

John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”

In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:

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.

At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.”

The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”

And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:

Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:

“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.

Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”

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

The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit.

[Bill Miller]

The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit.

Has any consideration been given to the fact that the Feds had no idea who all filmed the shooting, thus would it not be suicide to have revised a film and have it shown to be a fraud by an unknown film showing up to dispute it. In fact, did that not happen when it came to several films coming forward before the Feds ever knew of their existence.

I would also like you to elaborate on how the removal of the limo turn would expose a deceit. It seems to me that if altering the films was an option, then why not have altered them to show more time between Connally and Kennedy's wounding? Why not show a head shot that actually supported a rear shooter?? Why not remove the avulsion from the back of JFK's head that is visible in both the Nix and Zapruder films???

Witnesses on the scene said the first shot came between Z186 and Z202. The limo turn came well before the first shot was even fired and between Tina Turner's film and Croft's photo ... nothing out of the ordinary occurred during the limo turn, so why would anyone care to remove part of a film that had no bearing on the actual assassination????

Just wanting to see how much thought you have given the matter ... there is no wrong or right answer.

Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

I would also like you to elaborate on how the removal of the limo turn would expose a deceit.

Bill,

The deceit I'm describing above was not photographic but literary, and undertaken by stages - for an analogous performance, consider the shifting lines fed out by the CIA during the Bay of Pigs. It could not be undertaken if the film was in circulation and being viewed. To permit the uncut film's continued dissemination imperilled the written deceit. By eliminating the left turn from the version ultimately released, the deception was sustained.

It seems to me that if altering the films was an option, then why not have altered them to show more time between Connally and Kennedy's wounding? Why not show a head shot that actually supported a rear shooter?? Why not remove the avulsion from the back of JFK's head that is visible in both the Nix and Zapruder films???

All perfectly sensible questions. For the moment I'll confine myself to the middle one: The first version did! See Rather on Nov 25.

Witnesses on the scene said the first shot came between Z186 and Z202. The limo turn came well before the first shot was even fired and between Tina Turner's film and Croft's photo ... nothing out of the ordinary occurred during the limo turn, so why would anyone care to remove part of a film that had no bearing on the actual assassination????

The point of suppressing the turn was to hide the very fact that no bullet hit Kennedy there or during his approach to it on Houston - thus permitting Mandel et al to get on with their little literary project. As Altgens' most famous assassination photo reveals, however, a shot was fired from within the motorcade just past the turn - straight up in the air, simulating an aimed shot from the rear.

Paul