History channel-JFK

[gonzomax]

Deservedly the History Channel has been getting hammered for pseudo-science programs. But they are showing "JFK 3 shots that Changed the World". They are actually a compilation of kinescopes,and news films with ongoing interviews taken immediately after Kennedy was shot. Many people don't know that every minute of it shown on TV,. The country was glued to the TV and it was all the information you could get. Work, and schools were shut down and people just sat in front of their sets trying to make sense out of what happened. It was all that was on TV. It was like cable TV news but they actually had a story to tell.
How many people actually watched Ruby kill Oswald ,I do not know but it was shocking to watch a murder on live TV. I saw it and and I could not believe the cops let that happen. This program takes you back .

[palacheck]

I get some sort of sick satisfaction from reading the nutso JFK conspiracy websites that plague the web. What I find frustrating is the lack of info on Carlos Marcello and the supposed New Orleans Crime Family. To read some of these websites you'd think Carlos Marcello was the most powerful Mafia don in the United States, and yet there seems to be very little info out there about him. Why is so little known about him, when there's probably a library's worth of information about all the other Mafia leaders?

[Walloon]

Deservedly the History Channel has been getting hammered for pseudo-science programs. But they are showing "JFK 3 shots that Changed the World". They are actually a compilation of kinescopes,and news filmsQuibble: videotapes, not kinescopes. I was surprised how much videotape footage was kept by the networks, including off-air setups.

[chique]

Quibble: videotapes, not kinescopes. I was surprised how much videotape footage was kept by the networks, including off-air setups.Hunh, I'm watching it just now and the television announcer called it "kinescope". I know jack about camera work and wiki isn't helping much. :p

[Exapno Mapcase]

A kinescope is made by pointing a film camera at a tv monitor to make a duplicate to show elsewhere. While videotape was available by 1963 it was expensive and not used everywhere. I can imagine local tv stations still using kinescopes, even in a period when the networks had their old huge two-inch video machines.

[ralph124c]

I mean, I just don't get it. The man has been dead for almost 42 years-and in his time (ca 1960),
Warren Harding was as remote from him (as JFK is to us).
Was Warren Harding the subject of such interest in 1960?
I mean, JFK was a pretty mediocre president-and his administration was the cause of many problems that haunt us to this day (the war on poverty, Vietnam, the "Imperial Presidency", huge bloated government).
In addition, the stuff he is remembered for (the Apollo Moon project, the Peace Corps) have been found to be tremendous wastes of money.
I guess getting assassinated counts for a lot.

[joebuck20]

Judging by what the History Channel has become in recent years, I was expecting yet another bloated series featuring wide-eyed conspiracy theorists pontificating on how the CIA and/or Mob had to have killed JFK. And while it does have some of that, I was pleasantly suprised. I like how they mostly just let the footage, with no additional commentary, tell the story. I'd like to see this approach taken with other historic events, especially the moon landing where we only ever get to see anything beyond a few snippets of archival moonwalking footage.

[Sailboat]

I mean, I just don't get it. The man has been dead for almost 42 years-and in his time (ca 1960),
Warren Harding was as remote from him (as JFK is to us).
Was Warren Harding the subject of such interest in 1960?
I mean, JFK was a pretty mediocre president-and his administration was the cause of many problems that haunt us to this day (the war on poverty, Vietnam, the "Imperial Presidency", huge bloated government).
In addition, the stuff he is remembered for (the Apollo Moon project, the Peace Corps) have been found to be tremendous wastes of money.
I guess getting assassinated counts for a lot.

The reason people care more about JFK than you do is that your version of him is, well, pretty non-mainstream.

[Dallas Jones]

I mean, I just don't get it. The man has been dead for almost 42 years-and in his time (ca 1960),
Warren Harding was as remote from him (as JFK is to us).
Was Warren Harding the subject of such interest in 1960?
I mean, JFK was a pretty mediocre president-and his administration was the cause of many problems that haunt us to this day (the war on poverty, Vietnam, the "Imperial Presidency", huge bloated government).
In addition, the stuff he is remembered for (the Apollo Moon project, the Peace Corps) have been found to be tremendous wastes of money.
I guess getting assassinated counts for a lot.

Well JFK and his family were media stars and television had finally gotten into most every home in the US. Everything JFK and Jackie did was on TV. The cult of celebrity, much as is currently happening with a certain leader in our time. The actions of the JFK administration were not followed as closely by the general public as the ceremony was. A 'People Magazine' presidency. He was a war hero, she was beautiful, there were young children in the White House and all that Camelot mythology.

The assasination aftermath included interviews and re-creations, etc, that were interesting to watch. How long would the world have remained facinated by the event if we had to just read about it? No pictures?

And the assasination was fast and easy and difficult to believe. There must be more to it than there seems. But all that was really there was that the Marines were good at teaching Oswald how to shoot, and he was just a nut. But people couldn't swallow that.

People like a good story and conpiracies are some of the most interesting.

Warren Harding > JFK assasination > Warren Commission investigation. Coincidence? You decide.

[Walloon]

A kinescope is made by pointing a film camera at a tv monitor to make a duplicate to show elsewhere. While videotape was available by 1963 it was expensive and not used everywhere. I can imagine local tv stations still using kinescopes, even in a period when the networks had their old huge two-inch video machines.In the JFK coverage, the local affiliates in Dallas provided a live video feed to the networks, where the feed was videotaped onto 2-inch Quad.

But even most local affiliates had 2-inch Quad machines by 1963. Here's a videotape of the break-in from WFAA-TV in Dallas. Note the on-camera reporter asking the control booth to make sure this was being videotaped:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5wuJ15kEew

But there were some small and rural stations that relied on kinescope films of network programs as late as 1969.

(Sorry if this all sounds as geeky as it is, but early television technology is an interest of mine.)

[Magiver]

In addition, the stuff he is remembered for (the Apollo Moon project, the Peace Corps) have been found to be tremendous wastes of money.
Considering the technology that spilled out of NASA and the public support for the Moon landing I don't see this as a waste of money. Integrated circuites, GPS, Fuel cells, weather satellites etc.... It's all good.

[ralph124c]

Considering the technology that spilled out of NASA and the public support for the Moon landing I don't see this as a waste of money. Integrated circuites, GPS, Fuel cells, weather satellites etc.... It's all good.

The integrated circuit was developed at Texas Instruments, without any NASA funding at all. Apollo was actually the first manned space program that allowed the use of integrated circuits at all. The actual "spin off" from Apollo was quite small-most of the technology developed was one use-the Saturn V booster had no use outside of Apollo.
Of course, we knew (even in 1966) that the Russians were nowhere near a manned lunar landing-but maintaining that bit of fiction suited NASA very well-it kept the $$ flowing!

[gonzomax]

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html There are a lot of useful spinoffs from the space program.
The program takes you back like no other one I have seen. They show TV programs running and then interrupted by emergency announcements. They show commercials too.

[jtgain]

I loved this program. What about that jerkwad at the Boston Symphony? He simply says "Zee President has been assassinated. We vill now play Beethoven's funeral march" or some such insensitive nonsense. People in the audience are shrieking and he is worried about the next song.

Also that Dallas news reporter with the cigarette in his hand blowing smoke in everyone's face that he interviews. Funny (but not meant to be) stuff.

[nivlac]

Since I lived through the assassination at the time it happened, JFK 3 shots that Changed the World held a lot of interest to me. This particular special is really good because it has a lot of archival video that I've never seen before, and it's all in one place. From Kennedy's morning breakfast meeting in Ft. Worth to his flight to Dallas to his motorcade, it's all there. The way they stitched together various home and news videos to recreate the situation and mood on Nov 22, 1963 was amazing. Yes, there's stuff on various conspiracy theories, but it's not given any more credence than the bare facts. Oswald and Ruby are given appropriate coverage too. The most incredible thing I get from all the video was how open Kennedy was to the public in his Dallas visit. He dove into crowds. He rode for many miles in an open car. There was no way that all those buildings along the motorcade route could have been secured. Those were certainly days of innocence in terms of protecting a sitting president.

[Susanann]

Originally Posted by ralph124c View Post
I mean, I just don't get it. The man has been dead for almost 42 years-and in his time (ca 1960),
Warren Harding was as remote from him (as JFK is to us).
Was Warren Harding the subject of such interest in 1960?
I mean, JFK was a pretty mediocre president-and his administration was the cause of many problems that haunt us to this day (the war on poverty, Vietnam, the "Imperial Presidency", huge bloated government).
In addition, the stuff he is remembered for (the Apollo Moon project, the Peace Corps) have been found to be tremendous wastes of money.
I guess getting assassinated counts for a lot.

The reason people care more about JFK than you do is that your version of him is, well, pretty non-mainstream.


You are right, ralph124c is pretty non-mainstream, but ralph124c is deadly accurate in his assessment. Kennedy was extremely over-rated, and he failed at most everything. He had a very UNsuccessful presidency and he almost got us into an unnecessary nuclear war.

BTW, those of us who were around during Kennedy, did not give a thought to Harding.

Still, I like the History Channel show, and its a history show on the History Channel.

[Captain Carrot]

ralph124c is not accurate, in a deadly way or otherwise, in his assessment. None of the four things he lists started with Kennedy.

[Guinastasia]

My mother keeps INSISTING that Oswald yelled at Ruby, "Ruby, you son of a bitch!" But wasn't it Ruby who shouted at Oswald, "You killed the president, you son of a bitch?"

I honestly cannot convince her otherwise, but just for my own peace of mind, I want to clear this up.

[Walloon]

I mean, JFK was a pretty mediocre president-and his administration was the cause of many problems that haunt us to this day (the war on povertyThat's was LBJ.VietnamLBJ was the one who sent combat troops there.the "Imperial Presidency" :confused: How was Kennedy responsible for that?

[Walloon]

My mother keeps INSISTING that Oswald yelled at Ruby, "Ruby, you son of a bitch!" But wasn't it Ruby who shouted at Oswald, "You killed the president, you son of a bitch?"Neither Ruby nor Oswald said anything except Oswald's loud cry of "Ohhh!" when he was shot.

Dallas police detective Billy Combest, when he saw and recognized Ruby, shouted, "Jack, you son of a bitch, don't!"

[Walloon]

Radio reporter Ike Pappas gave a live moment-by-moment broadcast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YSIYJFyfMc) of Oswald's transfer and shooting. Pappas is the man in the dark coat on the right side of this photo (http://events.mnhs.org/media/images/events/1384/1384_Jackson_300.jpg), extending his microphone between Ruby and Oswald at the moment of the shot.

[rowrrbazzle]

The assasination aftermath included interviews and re-creations, etc, that were interesting to watch. How long would the world have remained facinated by the event if we had to just read about it? No pictures?Even without photos of the event, the assassination of Lincoln is still a subject of great interest.

What about that jerkwad at the Boston Symphony? He simply says "Zee President has been assassinated. We vill now play Beethoven's funeral march" or some such insensitive nonsense. People in the audience are shrieking and he is worried about the next song.Beethoven's funeral march (the second movement of his third symphony), taken by itself, is one of his greatest compositions and is often played in mourning of important people. You've obviously never heard it. If you had, you wouldn't make such a statement. I suggest you listen to it.The reason people care more about JFK than you do is that your version of him is, well, pretty non-mainstream.Mainstream is not necessarily accurate. There is considerable romanticizing of him and his administration. And that always seems to ignore this passage from his inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." A Democrat wouldn't dare make such a statement today. Anybody else would receive heavy criticism.

[gonzomax]

Even without photos of the event, the assassination of Lincoln is still a subject of great interest.

Beethoven's funeral march (the second movement of his third symphony), taken by itself, is one of his greatest compositions and is often played in mourning of important people. You've obviously never heard it. If you had, you wouldn't make such a statement. I suggest you listen to it.Mainstream is not necessarily accurate. There is considerable romanticizing of him and his administration. And that always seems to ignore this passage from his inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." A Democrat wouldn't dare make such a statement today. Anybody else would receive heavy criticism.

Why not? That is not so bad . Protecting liberty is a good thing.
Johnson was undone by Vietnam. He was a wheeler dealer who got things done and would have been pretty good but the war killed him. He spend way too much time and money on it. But, just could not face it that it could not be won. And he listened to his generals, They always think more weapons, more troops more everything and we will win. Yet we still listen to them. I don't get it. It is like asking advice from a priest. You know what he has to say before he says it. Just skip him and go on your own.

[Sampiro]

Oddly the "Was Harding murdered?" theories mostly came after JFK. There's some speculation (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/assassins/warren_harding/6.html) his wife helped him along in a combination of revenge for his womanizing and protecting him from impeachment. It has about the same degree of evidence as most conspiracy theories- actually perhaps a tad more than some even- but far from conclusive.

Of course with Harding there was nowhere near the outlet for conspiracy theories to go viral: radio wasn't even around yet (came about a couple of years later). Plus JFK's approval ratings never fell below 56% (there were millions who hated him passionately but most didn't want his death) while Harding was a flop even in his own lifetime; not a lot of tears were shed.

[LurkMeister]

One thing about this show that caught my attention was the reaction of the rest of the world to the assassination. It seemed as if the entire world joined us in mourning JFK's death. Admittedly, there may have been some selective news coverage at the time, but I can't imagine anything remotely similar happening in the political climate of today or even the last decade.

(And before anyone jumps in, this is a purely nonpartisan observation, and should not be considered a commentary on the current or any other Administration.)

[Sampiro]

One thing about this show that caught my attention was the reaction of the rest of the world to the assassination. It seemed as if the entire world joined us in mourning JFK's death. Admittedly, there may have been some selective news coverage at the time, but I can't imagine anything remotely similar happening in the political climate of today or even the last decade.



My boss was a teenaged military brat in Paris at the time and recalls people- some of them strangers who happened to recognize her as an American- coming up and hugging her, and some of them were crying.

[Dallas Jones]

Even without photos of the event, the assassination of Lincoln is still a subject of great interest.

Beethoven's funeral march (the second movement of his third symphony), taken by itself, is one of his greatest compositions and is often played in mourning of important people. You've obviously never heard it. If you had, you wouldn't make such a statement. I suggest you listen to it.Mainstream is not necessarily accurate. There is considerable romanticizing of him and his administration. And that always seems to ignore this passage from his inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." A Democrat wouldn't dare make such a statement today. Anybody else would receive heavy criticism.

Even in Cafe Society (which is the tread we are in) we cannot escape the endless multiple quote rebuttals?

Deleting my personal subscription to this thread.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Oddly the "Was Harding murdered?" theories mostly came after JFK. There's some speculation (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/assassins/warren_harding/6.html) his wife helped him along in a combination of revenge for his womanizing and protecting him from impeachment. It has about the same degree of evidence as most conspiracy theories- actually perhaps a tad more than some even- but far from conclusive.

Of course with Harding there was nowhere near the outlet for conspiracy theories to go viral: radio wasn't even around yet (came about a couple of years later). Plus JFK's approval ratings never fell below 56% (there were millions who hated him passionately but most didn't want his death) while Harding was a flop even in his own lifetime; not a lot of tears were shed.

Neither of these assertions are true. If you read your own link it correctly points to the beginning of the murder conspiracy accusations in Gaston B. Means 1930 book The Strange Death of President Harding. I don't see any new theories there after Kennedy. That's probably because there aren't any. The circumstances about his death were so strange that speculation began immediately but nobody really believes he was murdered.

Because Harding is now thought of as one of our worst presidents, it's become almost universal to push that backward and state that he was considered a bad president during his presidency. That appears to be totally untrue. He was popular throughout his less than three years in office. A huge national outpouring of grief accompanied his death. While one senator held hearings on Teapot Dome in 1923 and some of the participants were forced to resign for various reasons, the major revelations and scandal didn't occur until 1924, the year after Harding's death. Of all major newspapers and journalists, only H. L. Mencken launched a major attack. His is remembered. The positive majority aren't. He is the reverse Kennedy.

If you want to understand the Teapot Dome scandal the only book to read is The Teapot Dome Scandal: How Big Oil Bought the Harding White House and Tried to Steal the Country, by Laton McCartney (http://www.amazon.com/Teapot-Dome-Scandal-Harding-Country/dp/0812973372/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255925006&sr=1-1).

[Exapno Mapcase]

Mainstream is not necessarily accurate. There is considerable romanticizing of him and his administration. And that always seems to ignore this passage from his inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." A Democrat wouldn't dare make such a statement today. Anybody else would receive heavy criticism.

While I'm debunking, this statement was a pledge to all nations that the U.S. would support anti-Communist activities wherever they took place. It was meant to reassure Republicans that Kennedy would not only keep up the Cold War but help out others, a sort of rebuke to Eisenhower's handling of the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. Everybody on both sides and in all non-Communist countries cheered. Presidents love making statements that everybody loves back.

There is nothing in the world situation today that any president could make such a comment about. Bush probably came closest in his statements after 9/11 and those were similarly approved of by people in both parties and around the world.

Both statements turned out to be better rhetoric than policy, which is why most presidents shy away from them except in extreme times. They just led people to take stands and then wonder why the U.S. wasn't there with them, on the one hand, and for the U.S. to make incursions that were not properly thought through on the other.

[handsomeharry]

Why not? That is not so bad . Protecting liberty is a good thing.
Doing that is good, but saying that is verboten in a speech. Just see if any politician would do that today. The American media acts as if firmness is congruent with intransigence, and an opposition party would turn it into irrresponsible and dangerous warmongering. Most politicians would be far more bland and evasive in intimating to what extent they would go in protecting liberty.

[Walloon]

Of course with Harding there was nowhere near the outlet for conspiracy theories to go viral: radio wasn't even around yet (came about a couple of years later).Here I jump back into techno geek mode. The first commercially-licensed radio station in the U.S. was on the air in 1920, and by the time Harding died in 1923 there were over 550 (http://books.google.com/books?id=cZLQ9R5GKfsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA21#v=onepage) licensed radio stations, in almost every state.

[jtgain]

Beethoven's funeral march (the second movement of his third symphony), taken by itself, is one of his greatest compositions and is often played in mourning of important people. You've obviously never heard it. If you had, you wouldn't make such a statement. I suggest you listen to it.

I'm not criticizing the composition, but the manner in which the conductor introduced it. He announced that the President was dead in the same manner that you might say that drinks were on 2 for 1 special in the lobby.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Here I jump back into techno geek mode. The first commercially-licensed radio station in the U.S. was on the air in 1920, and by the time Harding died in 1923 there were over 550 (http://books.google.com/books?id=cZLQ9R5GKfsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA21#v=onepage) licensed radio stations, in almost every state.

Facts always need to be put into context. These facts are certainly true. However, stations broadcast almost nothing of what we would consider to be news today. They probably interrupted their programming to announce Harding's death, but went immediately to somber music rather than discussion.

No station would dare to broadcast reports of rumors of Harding's murder, of his wife being anything other than a grieving widow, of a mistress, of any political scandals. These just weren't done.

I did my graduate work in the history of broadcasting, with a sociological and political slant. That was a long time ago, true, but I've kept up with lots of reading since.

[gonzomax]

Doing that is good, but saying that is verboten in a speech. Just see if any politician would do that today. The American media acts as if firmness is congruent with intransigence, and an opposition party would turn it into irrresponsible and dangerous warmongering. Most politicians would be far more bland and evasive in intimating to what extent they would go in protecting liberty.

Bush did it over and over, even when it was not true. They hate us for our freedoms tack. It was wrong and stupid, but he was desperately flailing for war justification.

[BigT]

Bush did it over and over, even when it was not true. They hate us for our freedoms tack. It was wrong and stupid, but he was desperately flailing for war justification.

Yes, but the original quote was that a Democrat couldn't do it.

[Walloon]

No station would dare to broadcast reports of rumors of Harding's murder, of his wife being anything other than a grieving widow, of a mistress, of any political scandals. These just weren't done.Did any newspaper at the time?