Edited-Dr. McAdams, interesting announcement by D. Rather on 11-22-63.
John Canal
Rather, was televised on CBS' Dallas affiliate, KRLD-TV, and microwaved to
CBS' NY HQ for national transmission.
<quote on>
Walter, we have some additional film......the fatal wound entered at the
base of the throat and exited at the base of the neck on the BACK SIDE [my
caps].
<quote off>
Unless I missed it (and that's quite possible), there was no mention of
any "back side" hole in the PH Press Conference (transcript)...so
presumably that information was obtained by a KRLD-TV reporter from one of
the PH doctors and telephoned over to Rather....who in turn relayed it to
CBS' Cronkite et al. in NY.
In any event, I find it interesting that, considering the "official" story
that the PH docs weren't able to see JFK's BOH, a wound to his "base of
his neck on the back side" was reported.
I'm sure you have a good explanation, which I'd like to hear.
Oh, congratulations on your book.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John McAdams
wrote:
Do you actually think these early reports are reliable data?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
Dan Rather never got this story right, and has continued to not get it
right for 47 years!
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hnerv...@drn.newsguy.com...
Thalia
> On 12 Mar 2010 21:54:41 -0500, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes some people actually thiunk that. This is the uncontrolled, most
likely genuine, information, before people would start mentioning "nuclear
war" and "national security" considerations with regards to the evidence.
The Drs at Parkland saw the wounds as they were, made their professional
judgements, and spoke of what they saw BEFORE the machinery of the
national security apparatus could manipulate.
John McAdams
>On Mar 13, 11:31 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2010 21:54:41 -0500, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >At roughtly 4:00 PM, EST, on 11-22-63, the following announcement by Dan
>> >Rather, was televised on CBS' Dallas affiliate, KRLD-TV, and microwaved to
>> >CBS' NY HQ for national transmission.
>>
>> ><quote on>
>>
>> >Walter, we have some additional film......the fatal wound entered at the
>> >base of the throat and exited at the base of the neck on the BACK SIDE [my
>> >caps].
>>
>> ><quote off>
>>
>> >Unless I missed it (and that's quite possible), there was no mention of
>> >any "back side" hole in the PH Press Conference (transcript)...so
>> >presumably that information was obtained by a KRLD-TV reporter from one of
>> >the PH doctors and telephoned over to Rather....who in turn relayed it to
>> >CBS' Cronkite et al. in NY.
>>
>> >In any event, I find it interesting that, considering the "official" story
>> >that the PH docs weren't able to see JFK's BOH, a wound to his "base of
>> >his neck on the back side" was reported.
>>
>> >I'm sure you have a good explanation, which I'd like to hear.
>>
>> >Oh, congratulations on your book.
>>
>> Do you actually think these early reports are reliable data?
>>
>
>Yes some people actually thiunk that. This is the uncontrolled, most
>likely genuine, information, before people would start mentioning "nuclear
>war" and "national security" considerations with regards to the evidence.
>The Drs at Parkland saw the wounds as they were, made their professional
>judgements, and spoke of what they saw BEFORE the machinery of the
>national security apparatus could manipulate.
In fact the Parkland doctors made no *forensics* judgments about the
wounds, since it wasn't their jobs.
But I know of no Parkland doctor who said that the bullet entered the
front of Kennedy's throat and exited his back. Perry speculated that
it entered the throat and deflected of a vertebra and out the head.
You are dealing with third-hand gossip here.
Do you have any *idea* the sort of nonsense the media first reported?
They said JFK was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. They said
that a cop was killed in a shootout in the Texas Theater. They said a
Secret Service agent was killed.
There were at least four or five identifications of the rifle *before*
it was correctly IDed as a Carcano.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
They're certainly not always wrong.
Anyway, instead of the standard, "The eyewitnesses were wrong" explanation that
the hard-line LNs so freely offer (e.g. McClelland, Perry, Humes, Boswell,
whatever reporter at PH told Rather about the wound in JFK's back side, and so
on and so forth)......how about this for a more rational explanation for
Rather's announcement:
Whoever removed JFK's clothes at PH certainly would have had a good view of his
back side (even to include his BOH?)....so perhaps they saw a wound there and
told a KRLD-TV reporter about it?
Sorry for bring this up...I just have this confounded chronic urge to resolve a
conflict by first looking for explanations that don't call for eyewitnesses to
be hallucinators, liars, or simply mistaken.
Cheers.
John Canal
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
pjsp...@aol.com
John, not that it matters much, but I went back and checked Rather's
purported statement against the actual footage, and it turns out the
quote attributed to Rather by Mae Brussell is not quite accurate.
He actually said "the fatal wound entered at the base of the throat
and came out at the base of the neck on the back side." He said "came
out" and not "exited." Not that it really matters. But I expect that
you'll be using this quote a lot, and figured you'd want to get it
right.
WBurg...@aol.com
> On 12 Mar 2010 21:54:41 -0500, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
John you've stated before that the earliest recollections are often
the most reliable.
Burgundy
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
Thanks, I was trying to transcribe from the cassete recording I have of
Rather's announcement and didn't get it exactly right...but I think I
didn't distort the intended meaning.
As far as using that quote a lot, I don't think so. But someone removed
his clothes and must have seen his back side during that process....and
I'd like to know who it was and if they looked at either the BOH and or
the upper back and if they told anyoe about what they were able to see.
If no one voluneered that information, and those who removed the clothes
weren't asked about what they saw....once again, that'd be pretty sloppy
investigating, IMO.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Fun to guess, isn't it? Maybe that exact same nurse saw the back wound
when she washed the body to prepare it for shipping.
I doubt that she was interviewed by Dan Rather. Dan Rather has a
documented history of making up stories for sensationalism.
> Sorry for bring this up...I just have this confounded chronic urge to resolve a
> conflict by first looking for explanations that don't call for eyewitnesses to
> be hallucinators, liars, or simply mistaken.
>
They can sometimes be all three, and also correct.
Anthony Marsh
Just for the sake of argument, what if the autopsy doctors were smart
enough to figure out Kennedy's wounds and knew the fatal shot came from
the front and that's what the first autopsy report said before someone
told them that would mean conspiracy and WWIII?
Anthony Marsh
Logical fallacy. It is not necessary to see the back when removing the
clothes.
> I'd like to know who it was and if they looked at either the BOH and or
> the upper back and if they told anyoe about what they were able to see.
>
Yes, she did.
Subject: Re: Those "Unreliable" Parkland Nurses 1.
Date: 27 Jun 2003 14:29:18 GMT
From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
In case the copy with the photo doesn't download properly, here's the
text without the photo:
Harrison Livingstone has granted permission for me to post the contents
of a letter from Diana Bowron, dated 24th January 1993, and which
arrived too late for inclusion in High Treason 2. He recently ran across
it again, and thought it might be of interest. The only items omitted
are several personal notes, salutations, and her married name, which she
asked not be published.
The Cover Letter:
I have enclosed two photostats of photographs which may be of help to you.
1. From the Illustrated London News dated Nov 30th 1963 showing the
arrival of the casket at Andrews Air Force Base. That is the casket in
which we placed the President's body. The colour was bronzeand according
to the people from the funeral home it was the best they had.
2. From the Hospital Highlights the news letter of the Dallas County
Hospital District, of the trauma room where Kennedy was treated. The
photograph was taken for that edition of the news letter so it shows the
room as it was at the time of the assassination. I thought it might help
with the placement or non-placement of photographs, eg. tiles, also
gurney covers which were black. As I remember all the wall tiles in the
emergency room were the same height.
I understood the last time I was in Dallas, about two years after the
assassination, that the Emergency Room was to be moved and enlarged so I
am assuming that it no longer exists in its original form.
[Note: The photostats were not enclosed, as both pictures are widely
available.]
[A copy of a JFK back photo, F5, is enclosed, indicating "This is where
I remember the wound," but adding, "This is not the back I saw." The
location is indicated on the attached copy of the photo.]
[The main statement follows:]
The following is in answer to your questions.
When the president expired everyone left the room apart from Miss
Hinchcliffe, a male orderly and myself. We tidied the room and changed
the linen on the gurney and washed the body as best we could. Miss
Hinchcliffe and the orderly left the room, but I was told to remain with
the body until the casket arrived. I was told that I had to stay because
I had been one of the people who had taken the body from the car. I
remained in the room while the widow paid her respects. After she had
left I was asked, by a man I assumed was Secret Service, to collect all
pieces of skull and brain I could find and place them in a plastic bag
which he gave me. This I did and returned the bag to him (there were
only a few fragments of bone that had stuck to the dressings and towels
that we had used to pack the hole in the back of the head). I remained
in the room until the people from the funeral home arrived. After we had
placed the body in the casket and it had been closed I was allowed to
leave. During the time I was with the body only the widow and the priest
came into the room, any dealings I had with the Secret Service were done
in the doorway; no one else entered the room and no photographs were taken.
Apart from 2-3 mins, when I left the trauma room to collect blood from
the Blood Bank, I was with the body from the car until it was placed in
the casket.
Being new to the establishment, I was assigned to Minor Medicine and
Surgery, which was across the hall from the Triage desk and the major
sections of the Emergency room. It being very quiet, there were only two
or three patients waiting for the results of tests, I was talking with
the Triage nurse when the call went up for gurneys. I grabbed a gurney
in the hall and together with an orderly ran to the entrance. I saw that
the person in the back of the car was injured so I climbed in to render
what assistance I could until such time as we could move him to a
trolley, then to the trauma room (others were assisting the Governor in
the front seat). I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the
back seat and in order to find the cause I lifted his head and my
fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his
head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the
bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of
the throat, I could feel no pulse at the jugular and having seen the
extent of the injury to the back of the head I assumed that he was dead.
(not my job, only a Doctor can certify death) When we got the President
to the Trauma room, word had reached the Trauma team and they were ready
with I.Vs etc. I worked with the team, assisting where needed for about
10 mins (time is difficult to judge in those circumstances), when I was
told to go to the Blood Bank. I was away 2-3 mins and on my return I
continued to assist where needed until the President was declared dead.
Miss Margaret Hinchcliffe and an African-American orderly and I prepared
the body for the coffin. [Marginal note: David Sanders]
I observed no strange activity of any kind and saw no bullets.
As explained above, I thought after examination in the car that he was
dead. There was no damage to the front of his face, only the gaping
wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat.
When we prepared the body for the coffin we washed the face and closed
the eyes; there was no damage to the face, there was no flap of scalp on
the right, neither was there a laceration pointing toward the right
eyebrow from the scalp.
When we were preparing the body for the coffin we rolled it over in
order to remove the bloodstained sheet from underneath and to wipe away
the blood from the back of the body. I saw another entry wound in the
upper back (the other entry wound being in the front of the throat).
With reference to the photograph The Back (F5) I only saw one wound, and
not the number of wounds in the photograph; I do not think that the
photo (F5) is of the President. I have marked for you on the photostat
that you sent me where I think the entry wound was.
I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car; when we
were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine
it more closely. It was about 5ins in diameter, there was no flap of
skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of
bone, there was however some hair hanging down from the top of the head
which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound
was so large I could almost put my whole fist inside.
When we prepared the body I washed as much blood as I could from the
hair; while doing this I didnot see any other wound either in the
temples or in other parts of the head.
I did not see anything suspicious about any of the doctors, though there
were far more doctors there than they should have been; perhaps because
it was the president they all wanted to get in on the act. You must
remember that I had only been there a short time and I did not know all
the doctors, some I never saw again, but they were all known to each
other. With regard to a post: in this context I think it would refer to
a gathering of the doctors after the event, to discuss the case. This
was standard practice, when more than one or two doctors were involved.
When the body was placed in the coffin the wound at the back of the head
was packed with gauze squares and wrapped in small white sheet, there
was no terrycloth or other type of towel used.
The coffin or casket was bronze with plain fittings, as in the enclosed
photograph. [This refers to the Andrews Air Force Base photo.]
I don't think the body was removed from the coffin. After I left the
Trauma room I was in a position to see if any one entered or left the
room. No one entered or left until they removed the coffin.
A clear plastic sheet was placed in the bottom of the coffin, which may
have been a mattress cover; the body was wrapped in at the most two
sheets plus the one around the head, all the sheets were white and none
had zips. There was no "body bag".
Perhaps the following will be of interest to you.
As soon as the coffin left the trauma room, I went back to Minor Med.
and Surg. to resume my work: I don't know anything about the fight with
Earl Rose, which happened at that time.
When I arrived there I found that the patients had been moved elsewhere,
and the department had been taken over by the Vice President and his
staff. They were getting ready to leave when I got there, as they passed
me I heard the Vice President say to his wife "Make a note of what
everyone says and does".
Again I hope this is of some help to you.
[Signed] Diana Bowron
> If no one voluneered that information, and those who removed the clothes
> weren't asked about what they saw....once again, that'd be pretty sloppy
> investigating, IMO.
>
Now wait a God damn minute. That's our government you are talking about.
You know, the one which thoroughly investigated al Qaeda and prevented
the attacks on 9/11!
What are you, some damn Communist or something?
WhiskyJoe
How many times have I heard CTers say Rather
reported the Zapruder film showed JFK being
pushed forward? Many, many times.
How many times have I heard
CTers say Rather reported that the shot from
the neck came from the front? Never.
Why are CTers so selective with the information
they give out? Why don't they try to be more
fair?
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you have any *idea* the sort of nonsense the media first reported?
They said JFK was taken to the hospital in an ambulance." <<<
And Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV (who was one of the most accurate reporters on
the air that day) actually said that President Kennedy had been taken to
Parkland "by bus", which is a comment that always elicits a chuckle from
this writer when I cue up that CBS footage.
John McAdams
wrote:
Do you have a link for that online?
Obviously, in asking I'm admitting I haven't worked my way through
your online video collection, which I know to be splendid.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
Good that you set the record straight. I'll probably use it too.
I'll use it as an example of the crazy things that were initially
reported.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Mar 12, 9:31 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2010 21:54:41 -0500, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >At roughtly 4:00 PM, EST, on 11-22-63, the following announcement by Dan
>> >Rather, was televised on CBS' Dallas affiliate, KRLD-TV, and microwaved to
>> >CBS' NY HQ for national transmission.
>>
>> ><quote on>
>>
>> >Walter, we have some additional film......the fatal wound entered at the
>> >base of the throat and exited at the base of the neck on the BACK SIDE [my
>> >caps].
>>
>> ><quote off>
>>
>> >Unless I missed it (and that's quite possible), there was no mention of
>> >any "back side" hole in the PH Press Conference (transcript)...so
>> >presumably that information was obtained by a KRLD-TV reporter from one of
>> >the PH doctors and telephoned over to Rather....who in turn relayed it to
>> >CBS' Cronkite et al. in NY.
>>
>> >In any event, I find it interesting that, considering the "official" story
>> >that the PH docs weren't able to see JFK's BOH, a wound to his "base of
>> >his neck on the back side" was reported.
>>
>> >I'm sure you have a good explanation, which I'd like to hear.
>>
>> >Oh, congratulations on your book.
>>
>> Do you actually think these early reports are reliable data?
>>
>
>John you've stated before that the earliest recollections are often
>the most reliable.
>
But "early testimony" and "early reports" are not the same thing.
"Early reports" are pretty much gossip and ridiculous inferences --
like a cop being shot in a firefight in the Texas Theater, which NBC
reported.
Even early testimony can be inferior to later testimony if the later
testimony involves a more detailed and relevant questioning by
somebody who knew what the issues were.
That's why WC testimony is usually the best. It's early enough that
the witness has not had time to come up with wind stories, but it
involves pretty intensive questing by WC counsel.
That's not the case with (for example) Nov. 22 Sheriff's Department
affidavits or early FBI reports.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you have a link for that [Eddie Barker's "by bus" remark] online?"
<<<
Yes, indeed. Although I'm currently in the middle of changing my YouTube
channels (again), so the CBS footage of Barber reporting that JFK was
"whisked away by bus" is not at the moment online, but it will be again
soon. (It's at the very beginning of "Part 5" of my 65-part CBS-TV series,
btw; I just looked it up to confirm it.)
I also took note of Barker saying that the shooting was carried out by "a
man and a woman", who were (according to those early, sketchy TV reports)
"scrambling on the upper level of a walkway leading to the underpass".
My new YouTube channel is here, btw:
http://YouTube.com/DavidVonPein1
John Canal
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. IOW, while it's predictable and
fully understandable that many of the early reports were wrong--and some
ridiculous--that doesn't mean they all were [wrong].
For example, whoever took the clothes off JFK "must" have seen his back side,
including the BOH. Taking it a step further, I hope you don't think it's
unreasonable to conclude they, not only saw a hole in his jacket and shirt
several inches down from the collar, but also a wound in that area.
That said, setting aside whether or not any BOH wound existed (because that's
not the real issue here), are you denying the possibility that the individual,
or those indivduals, [who removed his clothes] saw a back wound and that
information became the basis for Rather's, ""....came out at the base of the
neck on the back side" announcement?
John Canal
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Of course they are not the same thing. Affidavits are not testimony, but
they can be better than filtered reports and rumors reported on TV and
radio. Usually they are sworn statements. We don't have any early
testimony because there was no trial. Some people even nitpick about
calling the WC statements testimony because it was not a court and there
was no cross examination.
> "Early reports" are pretty much gossip and ridiculous inferences --
> like a cop being shot in a firefight in the Texas Theater, which NBC
> reported.
>
> Even early testimony can be inferior to later testimony if the later
> testimony involves a more detailed and relevant questioning by
> somebody who knew what the issues were.
>
Especially by dishonest lawyers leading the witness and lying about the
evidence.
> That's why WC testimony is usually the best. It's early enough that
WC testimony is the worst. Because it was intended as a cover-up from
day one. Within minutes of the shooting no one knew that they had to lie
to prevent WWIII. It took a few hours to get the cover-up into gear.
No one realized that they had to lie and say the shots didn't come from
the grassy knoll. It took Mary Woodward a few hours to figure it out.
> the witness has not had time to come up with wind stories, but it
> involves pretty intensive questing by WC counsel.
>
> That's not the case with (for example) Nov. 22 Sheriff's Department
> affidavits or early FBI reports.
>
Which is why you don't like them, because sometimes they are the
unvarnished truth.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Why don't you use it as an example of how some reporters simply make up
stories?
Or maybe with a little detective work you'll find out who his source was
and figure why he didn't understand what his source actually said.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Fair to Dan Rather? Please. He's the biggest liar.
How many times have I heard WC defenders complaining about Dan Rather
saying that modern rifles never emit any smoke?
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>>>> "Do you have a link for that [Eddie Barker's "by bus" remark] online?"
><<<
>
>Yes, indeed. Although I'm currently in the middle of changing my YouTube
>channels (again), so the CBS footage of Barber reporting that JFK was
>"whisked away by bus" is not at the moment online, but it will be again
>soon. (It's at the very beginning of "Part 5" of my 65-part CBS-TV series,
>btw; I just looked it up to confirm it.)
>
Is this online now?
I checked your page (below) and couldn't find the CBS stuff.
>I also took note of Barker saying that the shooting was carried out by "a
>man and a woman", who were (according to those early, sketchy TV reports)
>"scrambling on the upper level of a walkway leading to the underpass".
>
That was apparently Zapruder and Sitzman.
>My new YouTube channel is here, btw:
>
>http://YouTube.com/DavidVonPein1
>
>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
Kudos to you and your work on YouTube. Excellent, really!
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4baa504a....@news.supernews.com...
Bud
> On 3/13/2010 11:37 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
Why don`t you try addresing what someone actually said once in a
while?
> Or maybe with a little detective work you'll find out who his source was
> and figure why he didn't understand what his source actually said.
Or maybe not.
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Is this [CBS 65-part video series] online now? I checked your
page...and couldn't find the CBS stuff." <<<
I'll be adding the CBS 65-parter in the next day or two. (Right after my
NBC 25-parter.)
>>> "That was apparently Zapruder and Sitzman [whom Eddie Barker said were
"scrambling on the upper level of a walkway leading to the underpass"]."
<<<
You could be right, .John. I had never really thought about Zapruder/
Sitzman being the people referred to in that "scrambling" report (which,
btw, was reported on all of the TV networks in the first few minutes after
the assassinstion--not just on CBS).
I always have the Hesters in my mind whenever I think of that "scrambling
on a walkway" report. The main reason I always think of the Hesters is
because of the Dave Wiegman film, which shows the Hesters at the top of
the Knoll (in one of the few clear frames in Wiegman's film), and they are
definitely doing a little bit of "scrambling".
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>>>> "Is this [CBS 65-part video series] online now? I checked your
>page...and couldn't find the CBS stuff." <<<
>
>I'll be adding the CBS 65-parter in the next day or two. (Right after my
>NBC 25-parter.)
>
Good. I'm showing my class the NBC footage right now, but that thing
about the bus is just a tidbit I would like to throw in.
>
>>>> "That was apparently Zapruder and Sitzman [whom Eddie Barker said were
>"scrambling on the upper level of a walkway leading to the underpass"]."
><<<
>
>
>You could be right, .John. I had never really thought about Zapruder/
>Sitzman being the people referred to in that "scrambling" report (which,
>btw, was reported on all of the TV networks in the first few minutes after
>the assassinstion--not just on CBS).
>
>I always have the Hesters in my mind whenever I think of that "scrambling
>on a walkway" report. The main reason I always think of the Hesters is
>because of the Dave Wiegman film, which shows the Hesters at the top of
>the Knoll (in one of the few clear frames in Wiegman's film), and they are
>definitely doing a little bit of "scrambling".
I got that from Gary Mack.
The "scrambling" part fits the Hesters just fine, but the "upper level
of a walkway" probably fits Zapruder and Sitzman better. The latter
were getting down off the pedestal.
Of course, a lot of testimony (and this includes the testimony of
journalists in the motorcade) is terribly inexact, so I don't think we
can ever know for sure.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
.John,
Another interesting error made by the news media in the early hours just
after the assassination is when Charles Murphy of NBC's Fort Worth/Dallas
affiliate WBAP-TV, while narrating a film taken outside Parkland, that
Jackie Kennedy can be seen running into the hospital.
I can understand Murphy's error though, because the woman in question (who
I believe was one of Jackie's secretaries, Pam Turnure) looks very much
like Jackie.
But, of course, Jackie was never in the parking lot area of Parkland
(which is the direction Turnure was coming from in the film), as Jackie
accompanied JFK beside his stretcher into the hospital.
You, .John, have probably already pointed out to your students that
"Jackie Goes Into The Hospital" mistake, which was replayed multiple times
on the NBC-TV network on November 22nd.
There are also a few very early media reports that claimed the shooting
took place at "Elm & Harwood" in Dallas, instead of Elm & Houston.
And there's also the CBS-TV report from Walter Cronkite (and probably
other networks too) about a "gap" in the motorcade on Elm Street that
eliminated any possibility of Vice President Johnson from being the
subject of any potential gunfire at the scene of the shooting.
But, obviously, any such "gap" between JFK's SS follow-up car and Lyndon
Johnson's car immediately behind it was not very big at all, with Johnson
in fact being almost directly below Oswald's TSBD window at the time when
the first shot was fired. So, actually, Johnson would have been a very
easy target for Oswald during the time of the assassination.
David Von Pein
MORE MEDIA ERRORS (all of these are extremely minor and nit-picky, but
I had them in my head, so here they are):
1.) There's footage of a man (a policeman undoubtedly) climbing into a
2nd-story window at the rear of the TSBD, with the narrator (Bob
Walker of WFAA-TV) claiming that the man is climbing into the window
from where the shots were fired.
Obviously, nobody could ever climb into Oswald's 6th-floor window from
the OUTSIDE of the building (unless he was related to Spiderman). The
policeman was actually on the roof of the first floor at the back of
the TSBD, which is a roof that can be seen in this 1967 aerial photo:
=============
2.) And then there's the hilarious statement made by WFAA-TV cameraman
Ron Reiland during his on-air report that aired live on WFAA on
November 22, which has Reiland saying that "several hundred police
officers" went inside the Texas Theater to apprehend Oswald.
The actual number of policemen, of course, was not anywhere near
"several hundred". Heck, I doubt if that many people would even fit
inside the theater. The size of the crowd outside the theater is also
severely exaggerated by newsmen too.
=============
3.) There's also another very funny mistake made by Ron Reiland when
he was narrating his film on WFAA when Reiland said that the man who
was suspected of killing Officer Tippit had run into the Texas Theater
"with a shotgun over his arm". (There were reports on other networks
that mentioned the erroneous fact about the suspect having a "shotgun"
in the theater, too.)
Here is Ron Reiland's film, with Reiland narrating (Note--This footage
below isn't the clip which has Reiland saying "several hundred
officers"; that remark was made later in the day when Reiland narrated
the same film again for WFAA-TV):
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html
=============
4.) Reporters were frequently wrong when they mentioned the names of
certain people involved in the assassination story during the weekend
of November 22-24, such as when Jay Watson of WFAA-TV said that the
name of the slain policeman in Oak Cliff was "J.D. Tipton".
And Bob Huffaker of KRLD wasn't the only newsman who had trouble with
Lee Oswald's middle name. Huffaker, based on what he thought was
correct information that he received from DPD Captain Glen King, kept
calling Oswald "Lee Harold Oswald" throughout the weekend, especially
on November 24th.
But Walter Cronkite of CBS News also had problems getting Oswald's
middle name correct some of the time, with Cronkite (at least twice)
referring to LHO as "Lee Henry Oswald".
=============
5.) And there's the very minor error made by Police Chief Jesse Curry
(and others who reported the same thing) on November 23rd, with Curry
claiming that the rifle Oswald purchased via mail order cost $12.78,
which was actually the price listed in a different (Nov. '63) magazine
ad.
The ad Oswald clipped came from the February American Rifleman
magazine, and the cost of the rifle at that time was a dime more--
$12.88. And the total price that Oswald actually paid for the rifle
plus the scope was $21.45 ($19.95 plus $1.50 S&H).
===================================
SIX INTERVIEWS WITH JESSE CURRY ON NOV. 22-23:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesse-curry-interviews.html
===================================
Anthony Marsh
>
> MORE MEDIA ERRORS (all of these are extremely minor and nit-picky, but
> I had them in my head, so here they are):
>
> 1.) There's footage of a man (a policeman undoubtedly) climbing into a
> 2nd-story window at the rear of the TSBD, with the narrator (Bob
> Walker of WFAA-TV) claiming that the man is climbing into the window
> from where the shots were fired.
>
Well, obviously Walker can't figure out that the assassin could not have
been firing at the limo on Elm from a window in the REAR of the building.
> Obviously, nobody could ever climb into Oswald's 6th-floor window from
> the OUTSIDE of the building (unless he was related to Spiderman). The
That's silly. We have photos and films of cops on the fire escape. Of
course that was on the side of the building, not on the front. I suppose
someone could put a fire escape on the front of a building, but it
wouldn't look very attractive.
> policeman was actually on the roof of the first floor at the back of
> the TSBD, which is a roof that can be seen in this 1967 aerial photo:
>
Maybe that was the only way he could get in after they sealed off the
building.
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/125.+DEALEY+PLAZA+FROM+THE+AIR?gda=eRz83lAAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQTZ9sOZh2VipZ8Rq_NU6N2B_qIuCc5Zi25ADXnvCK25YeEy75d-9wv29pUUWRHXGCbcVT3VtYGKLco-_l-8AzjQ
>
> =============
>
> 2.) And then there's the hilarious statement made by WFAA-TV cameraman
> Ron Reiland during his on-air report that aired live on WFAA on
> November 22, which has Reiland saying that "several hundred police
> officers" went inside the Texas Theater to apprehend Oswald.
>
> The actual number of policemen, of course, was not anywhere near
> "several hundred". Heck, I doubt if that many people would even fit
> inside the theater. The size of the crowd outside the theater is also
> severely exaggerated by newsmen too.
>
> =============
>
> 3.) There's also another very funny mistake made by Ron Reiland when
> he was narrating his film on WFAA when Reiland said that the man who
> was suspected of killing Officer Tippit had run into the Texas Theater
> "with a shotgun over his arm". (There were reports on other networks
> that mentioned the erroneous fact about the suspect having a "shotgun"
> in the theater, too.)
>
Well, the cops probably were carrying shotguns.
>
> Here is Ron Reiland's film, with Reiland narrating (Note--This footage
> below isn't the clip which has Reiland saying "several hundred
> officers"; that remark was made later in the day when Reiland narrated
> the same film again for WFAA-TV):
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html
>
>
>
> =============
>
> 4.) Reporters were frequently wrong when they mentioned the names of
> certain people involved in the assassination story during the weekend
> of November 22-24, such as when Jay Watson of WFAA-TV said that the
> name of the slain policeman in Oak Cliff was "J.D. Tipton".
>
And the way he pronunced the name of the photographer came out as Zapruda.
> And Bob Huffaker of KRLD wasn't the only newsman who had trouble with
> Lee Oswald's middle name. Huffaker, based on what he thought was
> correct information that he received from DPD Captain Glen King, kept
> calling Oswald "Lee Harold Oswald" throughout the weekend, especially
> on November 24th.
>
And the CIA had him listed as Lee Henry Oswald on his 201.
> But Walter Cronkite of CBS News also had problems getting Oswald's
> middle name correct some of the time, with Cronkite (at least twice)
> referring to LHO as "Lee Henry Oswald".
>
Maybe that's because he had read Oswald's 201 file. ;]>
>
>
> =============
>
> 5.) And there's the very minor error made by Police Chief Jesse Curry
> (and others who reported the same thing) on November 23rd, with Curry
> claiming that the rifle Oswald purchased via mail order cost $12.78,
> which was actually the price listed in a different (Nov. '63) magazine
> ad.
>
> The ad Oswald clipped came from the February American Rifleman
> magazine, and the cost of the rifle at that time was a dime more--
> $12.88. And the total price that Oswald actually paid for the rifle
> plus the scope was $21.45 ($19.95 plus $1.50 S&H).
>
Yes, it's still confusing whether you should refer to the list price of an
item or the price plus shipping and handling. You can buy something for
one cent and then the shipping and handling is $24.99. Some Internet
company will send you a product for free, but the shipping and handling is
$25.00.
David Von Pein
>>> "That's silly. We have photos and films of cops on the fire escape." <<<
Once again, Tony Marsh thinks he HAS to argue a point that couldn't be
any more obvious -- i.e., it's impossible for anyone to climb into
Oswald's SN window from the outside (unless he's Spiderman, or Batman
with his Bat Rope).
Tony will argue about ANYTHING--even when he agrees with you. Amazing.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "That's silly. We have photos and films of cops on the fire escape."<<<
>
> Once again, Tony Marsh thinks he HAS to argue a point that couldn't be
> any more obvious -- i.e., it's impossible for anyone to climb into
> Oswald's SN window from the outside (unless he's Spiderman, or Batman
> with his Bat Rope).
>
I never said that anyone could climb into Oswald's window from the
outside. Didn't McAdams warn you not to make up false claims about what I
said? I was correcting your false notion that there was no way for anyone
to climb into any windows on the sixth floor.
> Tony will argue about ANYTHING--even when he agrees with you. Amazing.
>
Yes, I've said several times that just because I agree on a point does
not mean that I agree with every argument someone makes about that point.
bigdog
It must be in his DNA. His automatic response to just about any
statement is to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
David Von Pein
>>> "I was correcting your false notion that there was no way for anyone to climb into any windows on the sixth floor." <<<
Of course I never said or implied any such thing. Here's what I said
(which Tony, as usual, has mangled all to hell):
Anthony Marsh
One of the less educated WC defenders claimed it was due to residual
congenital damage done in utero from the illegal drug the CIA had given to
my father. Apparently he can't figure out that I was born in 1947 and my
father was drugged as part of the tests in 1953. But apparently that
little fact doesn't deter him from making personal attacks.