Four Days in November

[bigdog]

This is a documentary that was produced in 1964 by David Wolper and
narrated by Richard Basehart. I've heard about it for a long time but and
I think I'd seen parts of it but never the whole thing. As part of 31 Days
of Oscar on TCM, a series of Oscar winning documentaries was shown and
this was one of them. I have recorded it and am about halfway through,
stopping right before it deals with the Tippit murder. I plan to watch the
rest tonight. It covers the Texas trip beginning on Thursday with the
visits to Houston and San Antonio. If it covers all the way through to the
funeral that would be five days but maybe the title only refers to the
Friday-Monday time frame. I'll find out tonight.

It does a pretty good job of presenting the events chronologically in much
the same manner as the opening part of Reclaiming History naturally
without nearly as much detail. So far it hasn't delved into the question
of conspiracy and I doubt it will but it accepts as matter of fact that
Oswald was the assassin which I think pretty much reflects the consensus
of the country in 1964. I think even those who suspected conspiracy
believed Oswald was the shooter. It wasn't until the conspiracy industry
started to really crank up that a few began to question whether Oswald was
the assassin. IOW, the country had not yet started to lose its collective
mind. I think that is still the case. Most polls I've seen that deal with
the question of Oswald's guilt as opposed to the separate question of
whether there was a conspiracy show that a decisive majority recognize he
was a/the shooter.

TCM isn't replaying it this month but DVP has it on his YouTube channel
and based on what I have seen of the first half, it is well worth
watching. Here is the link:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=four+days+in+november+david+von+pein&view=detail&mid=BF74B515CFC36CD80FBEBF74B515CFC36CD80FBE&FORM=VIRE

[David Von Pein]

You bet it's worth watching. I've seen "Four Days In November" about 200
times and I never get tired of it. In my opinion, it is *the* best (and
most accurate) JFK assassination-related program ever produced. I've got a
whole blog devoted to the film, here:

http://Four-Days-In-November.blogspot.com

(Note --- Coincidentally, I just yesterday updated the above 2009 blog
page, in order to add in the info about the second factual error that I
found in the movie. I've only found two mistakes in the film altogether,
which is pretty remarkable.)

[John McAdams]

On 8 Feb 2018 10:57:34 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

You are correct that it's very good. It can't deal with the dozens of
conspiracy factoids that arose after 1964. But the footage of various
witnesses is absolutely excellent.

One weakness: it bogs down at the end with a sickly sweet BBC tribute
to JFK.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[GKnoll]

OMG. That film is a ridiculous piece of propaganda.

[bigdog]

I finished watching it and it covered all the way through to the graveside
service and the lighting of the eternal flame. I suppose one could nitpick
and say it should have been called Five Days in November since it had
fairly thorough coverage of the first day of the Texas trip which was
Thursday, but I guess since they focus was on the events of the
assassination and the aftermath they title if Four Days.

As I watched the second part, all the feelings I had as a 12 year old
watching it live came flooding back. I remember the feeling I had when the
casket first appeared on the lift at Andrews Air Force and that's when the
finality of the assassination really hit me. JFK was gone and he wasn't
coming back. One of my most vivid memories was at the Capitol Rotunda when
the casket was put in place and Jackie and the two kids knelt down next to
it and she kissed the casket. It was the first time in my life I saw my
father cry and he just wept like a baby for several minutes. Of course
there were the processions as the casket was moved from one location to
another on the caisson trailed by the riderless horse and the steady beat
of the drums. I learned from the documentary that by military custom the
drums were muffled by placing a black hood over them.

I have one question unrelated to the documentary. I remember both Truman
and Eisenhower coming to the White House on Saturday to pay their
respects. What I don't remember is whether Hoover showed up or not or what
his health situation was at the time. He passed away the following October
and had his own state funeral which was also covered on live TV. Does
anyone know if he was able to come to Washington to pay his respects?

[Anthony Marsh]

You might be able to get it ON DEMAND.
Maybe even on DVD. Or from the JFK Library.
Or if you knew a real researcher and were brave enough to post your real
name he might send you a copy on DVD.
It's probably too big to e-mail.

[Bud]

Fifty years later and there is still no alternative narrative. And there
never will be.

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 10:57:36 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

It was interesting to know that David Wolper met with Vincent Bugliosi
in 2010 and wanted to make another documentary based on Reclaiming
History. Wolper died later that year, so it didn't happen.

Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton wanted to do the same, but only got as far as
producing the movie Parkland, a rather low budget, superficial result.

[slats]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cb9a0b29-15d8-4bfd...@googlegroups.com:

> I have one question unrelated to the documentary. I remember both
> Truman and Eisenhower coming to the White House on Saturday to pay
> their respects. What I don't remember is whether Hoover showed up or
> not or what his health situation was at the time. He passed away the
> following October and had his own state funeral which was also covered
> on live TV. Does anyone know if he was able to come to Washington to
> pay his respects?

From the Net:

After the Mass, other family members, friends, and other government
officials came at specified times to pay their respects, including former
U.S. Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. The other surviving
former U.S. president at the time, Herbert Hoover, was too ill to attend,
and was represented by his son, Herbert Hoover Jr., who also attended the
funeral.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which Hoover? Herbert Hoover?

> and had his own state funeral which was also covered on live TV. Does
> anyone know if he was able to come to Washington to pay his respects?
>

The other surviving former U.S. president at the time, Herbert Hoover,

was too ill to attend,[44] and was represented by his sons, Herbert Hoover
Jr., who also attended the funeral, and Allan Hoover, who went to the
services in the rotunda.[45][46]

[bigdog]

I think a miniseries would have been required to do Reclaiming History
Justice. Even then a large portion of RH is spent debunking the various
conspiracy myths. I'm not sure how that would translate to a dramatic
presentation. Better suited to a documentary. ABC did an outstanding one
about 15 years ago called Beyond Conspiracy. It didn't hit as many
different conspiracy theories that RH did but addressed some of the major
arguments against the WCR.

[bigdog]

Thanks for that info. That explains why I have no memory of Hoover coming
to Washington. My memories of that weekend remains very vivid. I'm going
to test my memory of those times again. General Douglas MacArthur passed
away in April 1964 and I believe he was also given a state funeral with a
caisson carrying the flag draped coffin through the streets of Washington
followed by the riderless horse. When Hoover passed, that image was played
across TV screens nationwide for a third time in less than a year.

[Anthony Marsh]

Must have been a conspiracy! Another mysterious death. ;]>

[Allan G. Johnson]

A documentary is the only medium that would give this subject the
proper coverage and serious examination. I stated before that Ken Burns
ought to give it a try. The only movie that people seem to mention about
this subject is JFK by Oliver Stone, and too many think that is a
documentary. That's the problem though, would people think any new
examination of this subject be true or just another conspiracy cover-up?
These two camps will always be at odds. A fresh and credible presentation
covering all aspects of the case may give the modern generation a new
perspective without all the CT nonsense of past years being perceived and
assumed as fact.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1266.html

[bigdog]

It would be charitable to even call it a docudrama. I have a problem with
movies about actual events that make changes to the history. I understand
some liberties have to be taken for dramatic purposes such as showing
theoretical conversations that no one was actually privy to, but get the
historical facts straight. Just two examples. The movie Secretariat made
it seem like the horse's Triple Crown run saved the Chenery stable from
financial ruin. That had actually been done by Riva Ridge the year before
when he won two legs of the Triple Crown and might have won all three if
not for a wet track at Pimlico in the second leg. The movie Quiz Show made
it seem like Dick Goodwin was investigating the games shows during Charles
Van Doren's long run as champion. In fact Van Doren had lost two years
before that investigation began.

One movie that has been called the most historically accurate war movie
ever made was A Bridge Too Far. Virtually every scene in it is based on an
actual event. Ironically, the critics cited that as a reason for the movie
being too long and boring. I didn't find it boring at all. It's one of
those movies I keep permanently on my DVR.

> That's the problem though, would people think any new
> examination of this subject be true or just another conspiracy cover-up?
> These two camps will always be at odds. A fresh and credible presentation
> covering all aspects of the case may give the modern generation a new
> perspective without all the CT nonsense of past years being perceived and
> assumed as fact.

The big question would the modern generation be interested enough to
watch. Some would but I bet most wouldn't. They would rather be
entertained than informed. That's not a knock on them. I think that is
true of all generations. I think the battle lines are pretty much drawn
regarding the assassination. At this point I don't see many CTs or LNs
changing sides. The only people who are likely to be influenced are those
who are on the fence.