Dallas Drs Press Conf--Audio Of
Gary Mack
conference is disappointing, there is information that explains why.
First, as David recalled, I learned there were NO live cameras in that
room. Here's why:
1) KRLD's two remote cameras were still at the Trade Mart as late as
1:35pm, when technicians started the long process of packing it all up and
moving over to Parkland. This would have taken at least an hour. One
camera was put in place in time for Dr. Robert Shaw's conference, which
started around 3:30pm (that time is off the top of my head, but it was
quite some time AFTER Perry & Clark finished.)
2) WFAA's cameras and remote truck were enroute back to the studio after
having been in place at Love Field for the 11:35am landing and live
broadcast. Their plans were originally to provide live pool coverage of
JFK's return flight. At some point, their truck was sent to Parkland and
had just arrived in time to catch the hearse with JFK leaving for Love
Field. The other camera, I recall from some other source, was still being
unloaded to bring inside the hospital. It would be virtually impossible
to have it set up and available until at least 2:30-2:45 or later. They
may very well have been waiting for Clark-Perry to finish to get into the
room.
3) WBAP's remote truck sat in east Fort Worth at the side of the turnpike
(now I-30) with a blown engine and no back up. Eventually, it was towed
to Dallas City Hall and sat on Commerce Street the rest of the weekend.
4) KTVT, which offered its remote truck to WBAP in exchange for
permission to carry NBC programming (the station was an independent in
those days and had only a small news department), headed to Parkland from
east Fort Worth, arriving just before 2pm. Their only live camera was
poking up through the truck's roof and was turned on and recording as they
arrived. Just a few minutes later, the hearse left the hospital with JFK
and that scene was recorded. Again, it would have taken 30-45 minutes or
more to get that camera moved out of the truck, into the hospital and set
up.
In short, none of the stations had video equipment in place to capture the
press conference.
As for tv new film cameras, there is a series of still photographs taken
by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram of the Perry-Clark conference. The one in
Lifton's book was taken early in that sequence. Many of the 30-40 images
were shot from the back of the room and show a large, relatively empty
classroom with only a few reporters present. Not one microphone or news
film photographer are anywhere to be seen!
What this means is that, despite Dr. Malcolm Perry's later explanation to
the Warren Commission that there were microphones present, no recordings
were made and only a handful of reporters covered it.
This may not make sense to everyone, but tv news was equipment-challenged
in those days. The best example is that of WBAP, then and now the NBC
affiliate (today known as KXAS), which was far and away the #1 station in
the entire Dallas-Fort Worth market in 1963. TV sound film cameras were
cumbersome and generally not used for "spot" (breaking) news stories. So
little use was made of sound in those days that the station only owned two
sound cameras - one was assigned to the Fort Worth office and one to
Dallas.
The Dallas camera that day was held by the station's Bob Welch, who filmed
the only sound record of Malcolm Kilduff's announcement of JFK's death at
1:30. Bob then left the hospital and headed to downtown Dallas where
there was more important news to cover.
I do not know much about the other stations, other than WFAA had a silent
camera there, but it only caught a few seconds of Perry's entrance into
the room, suggesting that the photographer may have been sent by the
station to another location and was, therefore, absent when the pictures
were taken.
As for the radio stations, the photographs show no microphones or audio
tape machines in the room. I have heard original and first-generation
copies of the radio station tapes, some of which have been in private
hands, and there was no live radio broadcast on either KLIF, WFAA, KRLD,
KBOX, WBAP, or any other major station, with the possible exception of
WRR. Their tapes, or copies, are at the National Archives, but since
indexes exist and there's no mention of such a broadcast, perhaps WRR
wasn't there. The station was, and remains, owned by the city of Dallas
(a highly unusual situation) and did not have much of a news department at
all.
So what does all this mean? I have to think, with some first-hand
understanding of the business in those days, that only minimal coverage
was done. Those kinds of stories are generally routine in nature and can
be covered by the newer reporters or the wire services. The big story was
what was happening at the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so
that's where most reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were
there from about 1:45 or 2pm until nearly 3pm.
With breaking stories happening in four different parts of the city,
Parkland was left virtually unattended.
--
Gary Mack
Archivist
The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza
<dli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83ppf1$t3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> NOTE: This post is a revised and updated version of something I wrote more
> hastily earlier this evening and placed on the thread "Two Paradigms".
> Please put all comments and replies at this location. Sorry for the
> inconvenience of what may at first appear to be a "double post."
>
>
>
> * * *
>
>
>
> A decent question deserves a decent response, and so here goes in response
to
> a question by Tony Pittman:
>
>
>
> David,
>
> I dont know how many TV and radio stations covered that press
>
> conference live or how many bought the rights to broadcast it but
>
> wouldn't each and every one of them have had the actual film or tapes
>
> of it, never mind transcripts?
>
> And they would certainly have had them before the Oval Office.
>
> Why on earth would CBS have to get them from the Oval Office?
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> RESPONSE:
>
>
>
> I don't know who may have broadcast that press conference. But as to who
>
> was in the room and may have recorded it, that's another question, and
>
> one which I will try to address here.
>
>
>
> I originally believed that the press conference was both recorded on
>
> audio AND on film (or video tape).
>
>
>
> But (as far as I know) no such audio tape or film (at least, film with
>
> sound) or video has ever turned up. Now, why is that?
>
>
>
> Around 1972, while spending several weeks at the National Archives, I
>
> found the following data which may explain just what is going on here.
>
>
>
> In the months following the assassination, all---and I mean all extant
tapes
> from every single Dallas radio station---was collected by agents of the
> Secret Service (as I recall) and brought to Tinker Air Force Base in
> Oklahoma; and audio inventories created.
>
>
>
> By "inventory", I mean that each and every tape was individually listened
to
> and its contents carefully listed. i.e., someone sat with a headset,
listened
> to the tape, and typed up a numbered list of what subjects were on the
tape.
> The entries were a couple of lines apiece, and in the format of a brief
> synopsis.
>
>
>
> Those inventories---along with the tapes---were (at some point) sent to
the
> Wrren Commission, where they have a CD ("Commission Document") number
(which
> I do not have handy). In a project that went on for a week or more, I sat
in
> the office of archivist Les Waffen, examining each and every one of those
> inventories---there were hundreds of pages involved---and then listening
with
> a headset to anything on the tapes that appeared interesting (and of
course,
> back then, prior to the days of A and E and the History Channel, and the
> numerous documentaries that have been made on this case, just about
> everything seemed "interesting.")
>
>
>
>
>
> Those audio inventories made at Tinker AFB provided a comprehensive
>
> "table of contents" as to what went out over the air that day (and even
>
> that weekend); and the tapes themselves provide a wonderful window to the
JFK
> assassination, and how it was covered by the media.
>
>
>
> Now let's go back to March, 1964, around the time the inventories were
> completed.
>
>
>
> Once the Government had those inventories it would have been easy to
control
> the historical archive on this event. Specifically it would have been easy
> for anyone working through the Secret Service to then spot---and
delete---the
> Perry press conference. And then delete same on
>
> the corresponding tape.
>
>
>
> In any event, and now coming to my main point: the inventories of Dallas
> radio station broadcasts ---as they were then called (and as I presume
they
> still now exist at the National Archives)--- contain no entry for the
Dallas
> doctors press conference; and, of course, the corresponding Dallas Radio
> Station tapes contain no such item, either.
>
>
>
> The inventories themselve run several hundred pages; and when you see
>
> them (they are a Warren Commission CD, i.e., "Commission Document") you
>
> will immediately realize the tremendous effort that went into this
>
> "media" project---conducted at a U.S. military base just a few months
>
> after the Dallas assassination.
>
>
>
> To create inventories as detailed as these means that, at Tinker Air
>
> Force Base (and within weeks of the assassination), there was a room
>
> with people wearing headsets poring over the Dallas radio tapes, one by
>
> one, listening to each tape, and then creating page by page snyopses of
the
> content of each tape.
>
>
>
> My question: Who ordered this huge operation? Why was it done? Was it a
> politician (i.e., someone in the Johnson White House?); Was it someone in
the
> U.S. Secret Service? Or did some Air Force General suddenly take an avid
> interest in what went out over the Dallas airwaves that day?
>
>
>
> My speculation: Somebody was looking for something; and my best guess is
>
> that its purpose was (a) to get a general view of what had gone out over
>
> the airwaves in connection with this event and (b) specifically to locate
> (and delete) the audio of that first (and very damaging, legally and
> historically speaking) press conference.
>
>
>
> In any event, the "Dallas Radio Tape Inventories" exist and I spent not
> weeks, but months, working on the project of carefully studying them,
> recording selected excerpts from the corresponding tape collection,
> transcribing my voluminous excerpts, and then joining all
>
> that data with the WFAA Index (also at the National Archives) and then
>
> adding to that still another data base: both the AP and UPI original
>
> wire copy.
>
>
>
> When all this stuff is joined together, and indexed by subject (which I
>
> did, in 1975, and it took months of hard work), the result is one or more
3
> ring binders with a total of about 40 subsections, in which one can look
up
> just about any subject of interest---JFK Medical data, what Wade said
about
> the palmprint, etc.---and have a list of what media coverage there is of
that
> item, at least insofar as I was able to locate such material; i.e., based
on
> the Dallas radio station broadcasts, the WFAA collection, and the AP and
UPI
> wire.
>
>
>
> This project, incidentally, only reinforced me view that if you falsify
>
> evidence at the source (i.e., falsify autopsy conclusions by altering
>
> wounds on the body) you can deceive an entire investigatory and media
>
> apparatus, which simply relays the information "downstream".
>
>
>
> But returning to the major point, and getting closer now to an answer to
your
> specific question:
>
>
>
> What became immediately apparent to me, from the Tinker Air Force Base
> project, was how unusual that project was, and that its genesis was never
> investigated. i.e., no one on the Warren Commission----upon receiving all
> these materials---ever asked the Secret Service: Who ordered this done,
and
> why? Why were you bringing radio station audio to Tinker Air Force Base?
>
>
>
> Anyway, from all this it became apparent to me that (a) no radio tape
>
> record of the Dallas doctors press conference existed (and this, as I
>
> have indicated, might be the reason why; i.e., any such item would have
>
> been located during the Tinker AFB project and then possibly deleted) and
(b)
> no video (with sound) record existed either a similar
>
> operation took place with the video, or perhaps it was simply a case of
>
> no video cameras being in the room. (I have a vague memory of Gary Mack
>
> telling me that no video cameras were in the room.)
>
>
>
> Now, returning to the afternoon of NOvember 22, 1963, and the tumult at
> Parkland Hospital:
>
>
>
> This "Dallas doctors press conference" was treated ---at
>
> the time, and for administrative purposes---as a "White House press
>
> conference". Present was a stenographer, and the result was a
> transcript---but not a transcript that was released to the public, at
least
> not at the time.
>
>
>
> But the only reliable extant record is that of the stenographer (and a
> picture of him, taking down the words of Perry is published, in BEST
> EVIDENCE).
>
>
>
> That "White Housetranscript" was physically located at the White House
(and I
> was informed, back in 1976, by someone connected with the prduction of the
> four CBS specials---narrated by Walter Cronkite, and which were aired in
June
> of 1967)---that the transcript was actually found in the Oval Office).
>
>
>
> If this is in fact the case, then at the time that the Secret Service was
> asked by the Warren Commission---this was sometime in the Spring of
1964---to
> please locate any record of the Perry Press conference, that record had
> already been transcribed and the transcript was resident at the White
House
> (yet the Secret Service told the Warren Commission they could find no such
> item).
>
>
>
> As to its exact location: While it may have eventually ended up being
>
> placed in a White House press office file, I was assured that in 1967,
when
> it was first discovered, it was located in the Oval Office, and was
supplied
> by somenoe connected with the Johnson White House to a senior person
> connected with the four CBS TV project---this, again, in connection with
> their production of the very pro-Warren
>
> Report show back in June, 1967, which had to deal with the question of
what
> exactly did Dr. Perry say at that very first meeting with the press?
>
>
>
> Now we have to go from 1967 over to around 1975.
>
>
>
> It was a copy of that transcript that I learned from other
>
> Warren Commission critics (Stamm, Meagher, et all) had been located---by
>
> Roger Feinman (then a low level CBS employee)--- at CBS, and it was then,
> after I found that out, and had telephone contact with Feinman, and found
how
> difficult he was to deal with, that I then
>
> ordered a copy from the JFK and/or LBJ libraries.
>
>
>
> As posted previously to this group, I made no original discovery in this
> area. And I wanted to give Feinman credit for having found this item, but
> Feinman insisted that I claim (falsely, and
>
> to "protect" him) that it was actually found at the LBJ library. Of
>
> course, that was not the case. The existence of this transcript first
>
> came to light as the result of its being used as the basis for a portion
>
> of a book written in the aftermath of the four CBS-TV broadcasts---a 1967
> book by Steve White titled "Should We Now Believe the Warren
>
> Report"---see Chapter 3 of Best Evidence for fuller discussion of all
>
> this). Anyway, in BEST EVIDENCE (see the section this in Chapter 3), I
> reported the truth---that the transcript was found at CBS and by a CBS
News
> employee---but I left Feinman's name out of it, to avoid any legal
problems
> from him, and so he could continue playing his silly games up at CBS (and
it
> was only later that I learned what the fuss was really all about; i.e.,
that
> the CBS copy of this transcript represented a company document, a "working
> paper" as they say, and---being in dutch with CBS at the time, and in fact
> having been fired in 1975, and with his case up for a hearing, he wanted
to
> look clean as a whistle, and not have it charged that he had made off with
> any of CBS News' working papers. In fact, as I learned at about that time
> (and from someone close to Feinman who then related it to me) Feinman had
> repeatedly bragged that he had a footlocker full of documents pertaining
to
> the creation of the four 1967 programs, and which he had made off with
during
> the course of his employment at CBS News, and which he thought was hot
stuff
>
> and which was supposed to "blow the lid" off the JFK assassination. In
>
> particular, it was apparently Feinman's intention to document the manner
>
> in which CBS had been engaged in a cover-up.
>
>
>
> Hot stuff? Maybe it was and then again, maybe not. It was apparently
>
> not "hot" enough to make Feinman's alleged "book" a reality; although
>
> he talked about it quite a bit with his mentor, Sylvia Meagher, and she
>
> apparently had high hopes that "Feinman's book" would someday be a
>
> reality. But all that is another matter, and is not worth discussing
>
> here. Except to add that if you see Roger Feinman getting all sensitive as
to
> whether the White House Transcript of the Perry press conference (formally
> numbered: 1347-C) came from the files of CBS News or whether it was first
> obtained (by Feinman) from the LBJ library, that is what the problem is
and
> what the fuss is all about. Its not some minor historical footnote, in
which
> Roger Feinman is suddenly oh-so-interested in historical accuracy. (And I
> certainly never said---in Best Evidence---that I discovered the document.)
> The underlying issue ---from Feinman's point of view---is "Feinman's
> Footlocker" (my quotes, let us be accurate. Tse. Tse.)
>
>
>
> Hope you found this enlightening. In writing all of the above, I took a
brief
> look at certain journals I keep about my work, the dates I visited the
> National Archives, records of conversations I had with various third
parties;
> and at my "media project" binders from 1975, and am amazed at the work I
put
> into all of this some 25 years ago. And all on typewriters! No computers
> then.
>
>
>
> Let us call this post, informally: "Everything You Always Wanted to Know
> About Transcript 1347-C. . . but were Afraid to Ask."
>
>
>
> Thanks for asking a good question.
>
>
>
> David Lifton
>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
John McAdams
>
> It always AMAZES me that so many of you folks NEGLECT to mention that all
> 16 mm cameras have BOTH VIDEO & AUDIO capabilities. Including Tom Alyea's
> filming of the discovery of the Sniper's Nest shells & the discovery of
> the Rifle...
>
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, and that the most common 16
mm. cameras were spring wound and had only silent capability. This most
certainly includes Alyea's camera. See PICTURES OF THE PAIN.
There *were* 16 mm. cameras that had "sound on film" capability in
1963. They required electric power (I'm not sure whether battery packs
were available) and were put on tripods.
The film of Connally giving his first interview in the hospital would
have been shot with such a camera.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
> RE: Parkland Press Conference In Session at 2:18 PM CST
>
>
> In summary: I am grateful for the information you provided in your very
> informative post, but have difficulty of such "non-coverage" (when it
> comes to audio) of an event taking place in the very room where the
> President's death has just been announced, when the doctor who pronounced
> him dead and the other doctor who treated him, are making their first
> appearance before the press.
>
> That's not the media that we have followed all these years, whether its
> from the movie FRONT PAGE, or to experiences with CNN or MS-NBC.
>
David, I think you may be guilty of assuming that things that *we* take
terribly seriously would have been taken very seriously by the press in
Dallas in 1963.
They had no way of knowing that a massive 30 year plus controversy about
the nature of Kennedy's wounds would follow.
dli...@my-deja.com
Gary:
Thanks much for your post. Very few people have such fingertip knowledge
and would be able to go down the list of each station and each camera
person and provide the detail you do.
BUT. . . I still have some problems that what you have written provides a
complete explanation.
1. Fundamental to your post is the existence of a series of still photos
which you say show no TV cameras were present. OK. I'm willing to accept
the notion of "no TV" because in 1963 they were big and bulky and, as you
say, the industry at that time was "equipment challenged".
But when you add "that only minimal coverage was done. Those kinds of
stories are generally routine in nature and can be covered by the newer
reporters or the wire services. The big story was what was happening at
the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so that's where most
reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were there from about 1:45
or 2pm until nearly 3pm."
Now here is where the problem begins. Because we are talking about the
room at the hospital where the White House Press corp has just been
gathered and where the President's death has just been announced.
Now, even though the body has now left in the ambulance, and even though
other things are happening elsewhere in Dallas, the reporters at the
hospital are clamoring for more, and so the two key doctors who actually
treated the President---Clark and Perry---are now brought in.
They are standing in the same room and directly in front of the blackboard
where the diagram is drawn, from the previous announcement. Now how
reasonable is it that the room is virtually empty---or at least so devoid
of journalists that no one is present with a reel to reel recorder? (As I
recall, there were no cassette recorders in 1963; but there were small
reel to reel recorders).
First of all, both wire services covered that news conference. The UPI
reported the president had an entrance wound in the front of his throat;
AP, garbling it a bit, referred (as I recall) to an entrance wound in
front of the head.
Second: Hugh Sidey of Time was present; and in the opening chapter of a
book on the LBJ years, published about 1965, he described the scene. As I
recall, the chapter is titled "NOTES" (referring to the notes in his
reporters notebook) and he describes the bedlam in the room.
So you've got Perry describing the bedlam, Sidey describing the bedlam,
UPI covering it (with an exact and accurate quote, per the White House
transcript); AP covering it- - - -I don't see how there can be all this
coverage in the room where the death was just announced, and yet there NOT
be reporters present with recorders (forget TV equipment; I concede that
point.)
What you are asking us to believe, while not impossible, seems very
counter-intuitive.
I'd like to know more about the sequence of pictures you describe which
shows no such equipment present. Were they taken at the tail end of
Perry-Clark? Or in the middle, or at the beginning?
In summary: I am grateful for the information you provided in your very
informative post, but have difficulty of such "non-coverage" (when it
comes to audio) of an event taking place in the very room where the
President's death has just been announced, when the doctor who pronounced
him dead and the other doctor who treated him, are making their first
appearance before the press.
That's not the media that we have followed all these years, whether its
from the movie FRONT PAGE, or to experiences with CNN or MS-NBC.
David Lifton
tomnln
16 mm cameras have BOTH VIDEO & AUDIO capabilities. Including Tom Alyea's
filming of the discovery of the Sniper's Nest shells & the discovery of
the Rifle...
"Gary Mack" <gm...@jfk.org> wrote in message
news:s627ru...@corp.supernews.com...
rfei...@my-deja.com
John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> David, I think you may be guilty of assuming that things that *we* take
> terribly seriously would have been taken very seriously by the press in
> Dallas in 1963.
It was the press who asked Kilduff for a post-operative press conference
with treating physicians. Nothing unusual about that. Morbid duriosity
about the manner of death is part of any murder story.
Norelco/Phillips did have battery-powered cassette recorders on the
consumer market by that time. I don't know if professional models were
available. There were reel-to-reel portables. It seems unlikely that
this press conference was not caught on tape. What is most likely,
however, is that no clips were broadcast at the time because (a) the focus
of "the story," had already shifted to Johnson on Air Force One and the
search for a suspect in Dallas, and (b) the media was still catching up
with eyewitness accounts to the assassination. The three major themes of
media coverage that afternoon were: (1) What happened in Dealey Plaza? (2)
Is Johnson okay, and where is he now? IOW, has there been continuity in
government? and (3) reaction from around the world.
The transcript of the news conference shows that the doctors were
frequently interrupted by reporters asking for the spelling of technical
terms, or interrupting answers with their own questions, so getting a
clean "sound bite" would have required a bit of editing at a studio. It
was probably better as a "tell" story than as an "actuality" or "talking
head" story, and that's how it played.
>
> They had no way of knowing that a massive 30 year plus controversy about
> the nature of Kennedy's wounds would follow.
And with very few exceptions, media coverage of this aspect of the
overall subject would lead one to believe that many of them still don't
know it or, if they do, they don't want to get involved.
>
> .John
> --
> Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
-roger-
Read: "The Closest Living Witness"
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/feinmanr/index.htm
tomnln
You sound like the Warren Commission..."Probably of Entrance...Probably of
Exit"
At the time I was raising 4 young children & I "Distinctly remember"
looking at 16 mm. Movie Cameras "W/SOUND"
"John McAdams" <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote in message
news:3861B0...@mu.edu...
> tomnln wrote:
> >
> > It always AMAZES me that so many of you folks NEGLECT to mention that all
> > 16 mm cameras have BOTH VIDEO & AUDIO capabilities. Including Tom Alyea's
> > filming of the discovery of the Sniper's Nest shells & the discovery of
> > the Rifle...
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, and that the most common 16
> mm. cameras were spring wound and had only silent capability. This most
> certainly includes Alyea's camera. See PICTURES OF THE PAIN.
>
> There *were* 16 mm. cameras that had "sound on film" capability in
> 1963. They required electric power (I'm not sure whether battery packs
> were available) and were put on tripods.
>
> The film of Connally giving his first interview in the hospital would
> have been shot with such a camera.
>
Gary Mack
Copies were later converted to film from the original video tapes.
John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote in message
news:3861B0...@mu.edu...
> tomnln wrote:
> >
> > It always AMAZES me that so many of you folks NEGLECT to mention that all
> > 16 mm cameras have BOTH VIDEO & AUDIO capabilities. Including Tom Alyea's
> > filming of the discovery of the Sniper's Nest shells & the discovery of
> > the Rifle...
> >
>
Gary Mack
<dli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83s2rg$lip$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> RE: Parkland Press Conference In Session at 2:18 PM CST
>
> Gary:
>
>
> Thanks much for your post. Very few people have such fingertip knowledge
> and would be able to go down the list of each station and each camera
> person and provide the detail you do.
>
>
> BUT. . . I still have some problems that what you have written provides a
> complete explanation.
>
>
> 1. Fundamental to your post is the existence of a series of still photos
> which you say show no TV cameras were present. OK. I'm willing to accept
> the notion of "no TV" because in 1963 they were big and bulky and, as you
> say, the industry at that time was "equipment challenged".
>
>
> stories are generally routine in nature and can be covered by the newer
> reporters or the wire services. The big story was what was happening at
> the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so that's where most
> reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were there from about 1:45
> or 2pm until nearly 3pm."
>
> room at the hospital where the White House Press corp has just been
> gathered and where the President's death has just been announced.
>
> Now, even though the body has now left in the ambulance, and even though
> other things are happening elsewhere in Dallas, the reporters at the
> hospital are clamoring for more, and so the two key doctors who actually
> treated the President---Clark and Perry---are now brought in.
>
> They are standing in the same room and directly in front of the blackboard
> where the diagram is drawn, from the previous announcement. Now how
> reasonable is it that the room is virtually empty---or at least so devoid
> of journalists that no one is present with a reel to reel recorder? (As I
> recall, there were no cassette recorders in 1963; but there were small
> reel to reel recorders).
The Kilduff conference lasted only a few minutes, from about 1:30-1:40 or
so. The Perry-Clark conference started around 2:15. In the interim,
assignments were given to the photographers by their stations and
networks. As the Perry-Clark conference offered little in the way of
visuals, the tv photographers were probalby sent elsewhere, leaving the
wire service and print guys to cover it.
>
>
> First of all, both wire services covered that news conference. The UPI
> reported the president had an entrance wound in the front of his throat;
> AP, garbling it a bit, referred (as I recall) to an entrance wound in
> front of the head.
>
> Second: Hugh Sidey of Time was present; and in the opening chapter of a
> book on the LBJ years, published about 1965, he described the scene. As I
> recall, the chapter is titled "NOTES" (referring to the notes in his
> reporters notebook) and he describes the bedlam in the room.
>
> So you've got Perry describing the bedlam, Sidey describing the bedlam,
> UPI covering it (with an exact and accurate quote, per the White House
> transcript); AP covering it- - - -I don't see how there can be all this
> coverage in the room where the death was just announced, and yet there NOT
> be reporters present with recorders (forget TV equipment; I concede that
> point.)
Again, this is all good material for print, but static pictures of a
couple guys talking and gesturing, while interesting to us today, would
have been dull indeed COMPARED TO other events elsewhere. I can
understand the reassignments given the photographers.
>
>
> What you are asking us to believe, while not impossible, seems very
> counter-intuitive.
>
>
> I'd like to know more about the sequence of pictures you describe which
> shows no such equipment present. Were they taken at the tail end of
> Perry-Clark? Or in the middle, or at the beginning?
They seem to cover a few minutes in time. My memory is that the picture
in your book was taken early on.
>
>
> In summary: I am grateful for the information you provided in your very
> informative post, but have difficulty of such "non-coverage" (when it
> comes to audio) of an event taking place in the very room where the
> President's death has just been announced, when the doctor who pronounced
> him dead and the other doctor who treated him, are making their first
> appearance before the press.
>
>
> That's not the media that we have followed all these years, whether its
> from the movie FRONT PAGE, or to experiences with CNN or MS-NBC.
The media came of age that weekend, as we've learned since then. Even the
print guys recognized what was happening, as they were talking about it
among themselves. Suddenly, there was a new news-gathering, highly
competitive force to be reckoned with...just one of many things that
changed with those shots.
Gary Mack
know Bob Welch, Jimmy Darnell, Tom Alyea and knew one or two others. The
stations rarely used sound film and few of their cameras had sound
capability. That's not to say they didn't exist, just that the stations
didn't use them. The reasons why included flexibility and cost.
tomnln <tom...@home.com> wrote in message
news:p7h84.4800$Nr4.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
Jerry
This press conference was available to the WC which referred to it in
the interview of Dr Perry.
He said that he did not say the neck wound was an entrance wound.
Even in the examples that David Lifton cites, Perry says it "appeared
to be" one, with one exception.
And indeed the wound did appear to be an entrance wound. He was right
about that.
And he was also right when he - and the vast majority at Parkland -
said it could have been an entrance or an exit wound.
But, had they seen the entrance wound at the base of the neck, complete
with abrasion collar, and the x-rays showing no bullets in the body, it
would have been clear to them what kind of a wound it was.
Jerry
John McAdams
>
> Connally's hospital interview was shot with a studio-size video camera.
> Copies were later converted to film from the original video tapes.
>
Thanks for the correction, Gary. I *do* remember what the old kinescope
recordings looked like, but it apparently has been too long since I've
seen the Connally interview :-(.
rfei...@my-deja.com
> > > --
> > > Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> > >
>
> This press conference was available to the WC which referred to it in
> the interview of Dr Perry.
>
> He said that he did not say the neck wound was an entrance wound.
>
> Even in the examples that David Lifton cites, Perry says it "appeared
> to be" one, with one exception.
>
> And indeed the wound did appear to be an entrance wound. He was right
> about that.
>
> And he was also right when he - and the vast majority at Parkland -
> said it could have been an entrance or an exit wound.
>
> But, had they seen the entrance wound at the base of the neck, complete
> with abrasion collar, and the x-rays showing no bullets in the body, it
> would have been clear to them what kind of a wound it was.
>
> Jerry
>
Jerry,
Unlike some other students of the assassination who believe that there was
a conspiracy, I am now satisfied that the throat wound was an exit wound.
What was always of greater interest to me, however, was the government's
response to the problem posed by the statements made during this press
conference, and the initial media reporting of them. However, you are in
error when you write that, "This press conference was available to the WC
which referred to it in the interview of Dr Perry." They did not have the
transcript, only news reports, and those were the basis for the questions
asked during Perry's two rounds of testimony. They should have had it.
They could have had it. There's no legitimate excuse for their not
getting it. But they didn't have it.
-roger-
Read: "The Closest Living Witness"
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/feinmanr/index.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tony Pitman
Make your mind up Jerry?
You say,
He did not say it was an entry wound.
In David's examples he said it appeared to be one.
With one exception.
What was that exception Jerry?
Did he say it was one?
Yes, therefore he did say it was an entry wound.
I don't know why you bother man.
Tony:-)
Tony
Tony Pitman
wrote:
>dli...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> RE: Parkland Press Conference In Session at 2:18 PM CST
>>
>>
>> In summary: I am grateful for the information you provided in your very
>> informative post, but have difficulty of such "non-coverage" (when it
>> comes to audio) of an event taking place in the very room where the
>> President's death has just been announced, when the doctor who pronounced
>> him dead and the other doctor who treated him, are making their first
>> appearance before the press.
>>
>> That's not the media that we have followed all these years, whether its
>> from the movie FRONT PAGE, or to experiences with CNN or MS-NBC.
>>
>
>David, I think you may be guilty of assuming that things that *we* take
>terribly seriously would have been taken very seriously by the press in
>Dallas in 1963.
>
>They had no way of knowing that a massive 30 year plus controversy about
>the nature of Kennedy's wounds would follow.
>
>.John
John that is a preposterous statement.
To suggest that these doctors and/or journos would not take the
assassination of the prseident, only an hour or so earlier, as
seriously as we do now is crazy.
The feelings of most peole back then was super serious along with all
the other feeling mixed in with it.
If anything we are less serious about it all now and, knowing more of
the details of what happened, are more analytical. I can imagine tho
that the press who were present had a lot of conflicting thoughts and
emotions to deal with after they heard this briefing and then found
out the results of the autopsy, regardless of what they have published
about it.
Tony
Tony Pitman
>
><dli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83s2rg$lip$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> RE: Parkland Press Conference In Session at 2:18 PM CST
>>
>> Gary:
>>
>>
>> Thanks much for your post. Very few people have such fingertip knowledge
>> and would be able to go down the list of each station and each camera
>> person and provide the detail you do.
>>
>>
>> BUT. . . I still have some problems that what you have written provides a
>> complete explanation.
>>
>>
>> 1. Fundamental to your post is the existence of a series of still photos
>> which you say show no TV cameras were present. OK. I'm willing to accept
>> the notion of "no TV" because in 1963 they were big and bulky and, as you
>> say, the industry at that time was "equipment challenged".
>>
>>
>> But when you add "that only minimal coverage was done. Those kinds of
>> stories are generally routine in nature and can be covered by the newer
>> reporters or the wire services. The big story was what was happening at
>> the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so that's where most
>> reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were there from about 1:45
>> or 2pm until nearly 3pm."
>>
>> In summary: I am grateful for the information you provided in your very
>> informative post, but have difficulty of such "non-coverage" (when it
>> comes to audio) of an event taking place in the very room where the
>> President's death has just been announced, when the doctor who pronounced
>> him dead and the other doctor who treated him, are making their first
>> appearance before the press.
>>
>>
>> That's not the media that we have followed all these years, whether its
>> from the movie FRONT PAGE, or to experiences with CNN or MS-NBC.
>
>The media came of age that weekend, as we've learned since then. Even the
>print guys recognized what was happening, as they were talking about it
>among themselves. Suddenly, there was a new news-gathering, highly
>competitive force to be reckoned with...just one of many things that
>changed with those shots.
I dont know that the press did garble the statement about the bullet
entering the front of the head by mistaking that for the throat wound. On
P59 of TKOAP is a photo of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to the far right side
of his own forehead as the sight of an entry wound to the president's head
so it may well be this that they were referring to as this press briefing
had taken place not long before.
Tony
John McAdams
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:19:13 -0600, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >dli...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >David, I think you may be guilty of assuming that things that *we* take
> >terribly seriously would have been taken very seriously by the press in
> >Dallas in 1963.
> >
> >They had no way of knowing that a massive 30 year plus controversy about
> >the nature of Kennedy's wounds would follow.
> >
>
> To suggest that these doctors and/or journos would not take the
> assassination of the prseident, only an hour or so earlier, as
> seriously as we do now is crazy.
Tony, you seem to have a talent for misreading my posts. I didn't say
they were unconcerned with the *assassination,* I said they were
uninterested in the picky details of the medical evidence.
> The feelings of most peole back then was super serious along with all
> the other feeling mixed in with it.
> If anything we are less serious about it all now and, knowing more of
> the details of what happened, are more analytical. I can imagine tho
> that the press who were present had a lot of conflicting thoughts and
> emotions to deal with after they heard this briefing and then found
> out the results of the autopsy, regardless of what they have published
> about it.
>
Huh? Probably most of the press knew that offhand impressions of ER
doctors are a lot less valuable as evidence than the results of an
autopsy.
Are you aware of how often ER doctors are wrong in trying to distinguish
entrance and exit wounds? Check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound4.txt
Gary Mack
Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3865ada3....@news.southern.co.nz...
Peter Fokes
in Crenshaw's Conspiracy of Silence p. 110:
<quote>
"When asked by a newsman to elaborate on the cause of death, Kilduff points
to his right temple and replies, "Dr. Burkley told me it , it's a simple
matter....of a bullet right through the head."
<unquote>
Nothing about throat in this version of the event.
Peter
Peter Fokes
> The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter,
> Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
> whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
> to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
Peter writes:
In Best Evidence, p 330, Lifton writes: "The transcript of that news
conference contained these exchanges:
Q: How many times was the President shot?
Kilduff: The President was shot once, in the head...Dr. Burkley told me
it is a simple matter...of a bullet right through the head...
Q: Can you say where the bullet entered his head, Mac?
Kilduff: It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the
right temple."
His foot note references Transcript 1327B - LBJ Library 11/22/63
John McAdams
>
> Peter Fokes writes:
> Gary Mack <gm...@jfk.org> wrote in message
> news:s6kdt1u...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
> > whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
> > to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
>
> In Best Evidence, p 330, Lifton writes: "The transcript of that news
> conference contained these exchanges:
> Q: How many times was the President shot?
> Kilduff: The President was shot once, in the head...Dr. Burkley told me
> it is a simple matter...of a bullet right through the head...
> Q: Can you say where the bullet entered his head, Mac?
> Kilduff: It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the
> right temple."
> His foot note references Transcript 1327B - LBJ Library 11/22/63
Good post, and this raises a lot of interesting questions. Perry
admitted he didn't look closely at the head wound, but it's far from
impossible that he assumed the bullet entered the temple. A lot of
witnesses assumed that.
But I know of no other Parkland doctor (if we exclude the
lacking-in-credibility Crenshaw) who said the bullet entered the
temple. There was a lot of speculation that a bullet hit a vertebra and
exited out he head.
Gary Mack
spoke the next line (nothing suspicious, the photographer, Bob Welch of
WBAP-TV, ran out of film).
Peter Fokes <PFO...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:0b8f01739031e...@msn.com...
> Peter Fokes writes:
> Gary Mack <gm...@jfk.org> wrote in message
> news:s6kdt1u...@corp.supernews.com...
> > The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter,
> > Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
> > whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
> > to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
>
Mark Oakes
dli...@my-deja.com wrote:
> RE: Parkland Press Conference In Session at 2:18 PM CST
>
> Gary:
>
> Thanks much for your post. Very few people have such fingertip knowledge
> and would be able to go down the list of each station and each camera
> person and provide the detail you do.
>
> BUT. . . I still have some problems that what you have written provides a
> complete explanation.
>
> 1. Fundamental to your post is the existence of a series of still photos
> which you say show no TV cameras were present. OK. I'm willing to accept
> the notion of "no TV" because in 1963 they were big and bulky and, as you
> say, the industry at that time was "equipment challenged".
>
> stories are generally routine in nature and can be covered by the newer
> reporters or the wire services. The big story was what was happening at
> the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so that's where most
> reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were there from about 1:45
> or 2pm until nearly 3pm."
>
> room at the hospital where the White House Press corp has just been
> gathered and where the President's death has just been announced.
>
> Now, even though the body has now left in the ambulance, and even though
> other things are happening elsewhere in Dallas, the reporters at the
> hospital are clamoring for more, and so the two key doctors who actually
> treated the President---Clark and Perry---are now brought in.
>
> They are standing in the same room and directly in front of the blackboard
> where the diagram is drawn, from the previous announcement. Now how
> reasonable is it that the room is virtually empty---or at least so devoid
> of journalists that no one is present with a reel to reel recorder? (As I
> recall, there were no cassette recorders in 1963; but there were small
> reel to reel recorders).
>
> reported the president had an entrance wound in the front of his throat;
> AP, garbling it a bit, referred (as I recall) to an entrance wound in
> front of the head.
>
> Second: Hugh Sidey of Time was present; and in the opening chapter of a
> book on the LBJ years, published about 1965, he described the scene. As I
> recall, the chapter is titled "NOTES" (referring to the notes in his
> reporters notebook) and he describes the bedlam in the room.
>
> So you've got Perry describing the bedlam, Sidey describing the bedlam,
> UPI covering it (with an exact and accurate quote, per the White House
> transcript); AP covering it- - - -I don't see how there can be all this
> coverage in the room where the death was just announced, and yet there NOT
> be reporters present with recorders (forget TV equipment; I concede that
> point.)
>
> counter-intuitive.
>
> I'd like to know more about the sequence of pictures you describe which
> shows no such equipment present. Were they taken at the tail end of
> Perry-Clark? Or in the middle, or at the beginning?
>
> informative post, but have difficulty of such "non-coverage" (when it
> comes to audio) of an event taking place in the very room where the
> President's death has just been announced, when the doctor who pronounced
> him dead and the other doctor who treated him, are making their first
> appearance before the press.
>
> That's not the media that we have followed all these years, whether its
> from the movie FRONT PAGE, or to experiences with CNN or MS-NBC.
>
--
mark oakes
David
I tried to e-mail you earlier-but I don't think it worked. I interviewed
Dr. Perry in 1997 and included his audio interview(with press transcripts
graphics) in my Eyewitness Video Part-III. If you would like to trade a
copy for your interview with FBI agent Bob Barrett--(Mr.Gemberling said he
thought it was Barrett in the Murray/Allen photos-BEFORE I said I thought
it was Barrett)and Gemberling wrote all the reports for the F.B.I. in
Dallas. Dr. Perry really contradicts what the press transcripts said and
if you want to trade-contact me at realjf...@hotmail.com
Thank You
Mark Oakes
Peter Fokes
> Peter Fokes wrote:
> >
> > Peter Fokes writes:
> > Gary Mack <gm...@jfk.org> wrote in message
> > news:s6kdt1u...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
> > > whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
> > > to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
> >
> > In Best Evidence, p 330, Lifton writes: "The transcript of that news
> > conference contained these exchanges:
> > Q: How many times was the President shot?
> > Kilduff: The President was shot once, in the head...Dr. Burkley told me
> > it is a simple matter...of a bullet right through the head...
> > Q: Can you say where the bullet entered his head, Mac?
> > Kilduff: It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the
> > right temple."
> > His foot note references Transcript 1327B - LBJ Library 11/22/63
>
> admitted he didn't look closely at the head wound, but it's far from
> impossible that he assumed the bullet entered the temple. A lot of
> witnesses assumed that.
>
> But I know of no other Parkland doctor (if we exclude the
> lacking-in-credibility Crenshaw) who said the bullet entered the
> temple. There was a lot of speculation that a bullet hit a vertebra and
> exited out he head.
>
> .John
> --
Good points. However I am confused John. Are you assuming it was Dr. Perry
and not Dr. Burkley who relayed this info to Kilduff? The transcript says
"Dr. Burkley told me....". Or are you assuming Dr. Perry relayed this info
to Dr. Burkley who then told Kilduff? Or is the transcript wrong? Or is
Kilduff wrong when he says Dr. Burkley told me.. Or are you separating
Kilduff's information and assuming Dr. Burkley said it was a simple matter
of a bullet through the head, and Dr. Perry who gave Kilduff the
impression the entry wound was on the right temple?
If it was Dr. Burkley who Kilduff relied on with regard to the right
temple entry wound, then you would be more accurate to say it was not
impossible Dr. Burkley (rather than Dr. Perry) thought the bullet entered
the right temple. Gary Mack says in his post above that Dr. Perry "did
not indicate where it went in or came out at that location" lending some
support to the notion it was Dr. Burkley who gave Kilduff this impression.
Remember this short news conference occurred less than 30 minutes after
the President was declared dead.
I am confused.
Peter
Gary Mack
>
> "John McAdams" <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote in message
> news:386AE7...@mu.edu...
> > Peter Fokes wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Fokes writes:
> > > Gary Mack <gm...@jfk.org> wrote in message
> > > news:s6kdt1u...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
> > > > whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
> > > > to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
> > >
Kilduff does, in fact, credit Burkley for the information, according to
the soundtrack of the film. On his recent visit to Dallas, Kilduff told
me he got his information from Perry. I suspect his conversation was with
Burkley, the president's physician, as it would have been more appropriate
than talking to Perry, a stranger. Still, he could have spoken with both.
Tony Pitman
wrote:
>Peter Fokes wrote:
>>
>> Peter Fokes writes:
>> Gary Mack <gm...@jfk.org> wrote in message
>> news:s6kdt1u...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter,
>> > Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate
>> > whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that
>> > to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry.
>>
>> Peter writes:
>> In Best Evidence, p 330, Lifton writes: "The transcript of that news
>> conference contained these exchanges:
>> Q: How many times was the President shot?
>> Kilduff: The President was shot once, in the head...Dr. Burkley told me
>> it is a simple matter...of a bullet right through the head...
>> Q: Can you say where the bullet entered his head, Mac?
>> Kilduff: It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the
>> right temple."
>> His foot note references Transcript 1327B - LBJ Library 11/22/63
>
>Good post, and this raises a lot of interesting questions. Perry
>admitted he didn't look closely at the head wound, but it's far from
>impossible that he assumed the bullet entered the temple. A lot of
>witnesses assumed that.
>
>But I know of no other Parkland doctor (if we exclude the
>lacking-in-credibility Crenshaw) who said the bullet entered the
>temple. There was a lot of speculation that a bullet hit a vertebra and
>exited out he head.
>
>.John
That's right.
There was also a quote from one of the morticians from the funeral
home who helped prepare JFK's body for burial at bethesda after the
autopsy.
The quote is in "Best Evidence" I think.
This bloke said that there was a small round wound thru the scalp and
skull just in the hairline high on JFK's right forehead. I think it is
the small wound that can be seen in the stare of death photo. Page 76
of TKOAP above the outer corner of his right eye.
The mortician said it resembled a bullet wound from memory and that he
had to plug it with wax. I guess some people could say that was high
on the temple depending on which way you look at it from.
There were also the priest and one of the Parkland doctors who
referred to a small wound in the left temple area. I wonder if they
could have been meaning their left instead of JFK's.
In this photo it appears that the scalp has been shaved around this
wound. If so it might have been very hard to spot when he was at
Parkland.
Tony