The open mike recording is from channel 1. Channel 2 was used for the presidential motorcade radio traffic. Another fine reason to suspect\exclude it as evidence of it being recorded in Dealey Plaza.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
The open mike recording is from channel 1. Channel 2 was used for the presidential motorcade radio traffic. Another fine reason to suspect\exclude it as evidence of it being recorded in Dealey Plaza.
I said suspect. Willful ignorance noted. Are you ready to say that the front neck wound is an exit wound?
Why?
It was in the post. If you can't understand why, then you are beyond help. You should read it again. Now, is the throat wound in JFK's neck an exit wound or an entry wound?
Axxman300
Philosopher
By bad. I meant to say it's Channel 1 recording crosstalk from Channel 2.
HSienzant
Philosopher
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say conspiracy sources can't be trusted ... you take a sentence from a speech by JFK out of context and use it as your signature. But the full speech, in context, has the exact opposite meaning. JFK was cautioning newsmen against revealing too much to the enemy during that time of cold war in their search for their latest scoop, and telling them they needed to better weigh the public's need to know against the interests of national security.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research...ewspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
...
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
...
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
...
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
...
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
...
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
...
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
Pretending that a speech JFK delivered asking newsmen to exercise self-restraint and not publish too much by taking one line out of context and pretending JFK was saying 'nothing should be secret' when he was saying the exact opposite is par for the CT course.
We expect no less of you.
And that is why CT sources have no value.
Because CT sources cannot be trusted.
Hank
Last edited:
Of course I am aware of the whole content in the speech. But you are claiming that something in it take away the gist of my quote? That he means something else with this sentence?
Is the very word ’secrecy’ not repugnant in a free an open society, according to JFK? Or, what are you whining about this time, Hank?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Typical CT
. Dishonestly ignore all of the outstanding questions that challenge your religion and focus on your whining. Do you ;l know of any honest CTs who might contribute something of value?JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
He's "whining" about your apparent inability to read past the first sentence of what Kennedy said. And it appears he's right.
What? You wrote:
The open mike recording is from channel 1. Channel 2 was used for the presidential motorcade radio traffic. Another fine reason to suspect\exclude it as evidence of it being recorded in Dealey Plaza.
Why is the fact that the open mike recorded the radio traffic on channel-1 and not channel-2, another fine reason to suspect/exclude it as evidence of it being recorded in Dealey Plaza?As I said, I have read the speech multiple times and I find nothing in it that convey that JFK meant something else with the quoted sentence. You apparently do.
What?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Everything he said past the first sentence. It's all meant to qualify that first thought. When you quote it without the reams of context that comes after, you are misquoting.
Last edited:
No worries. You understood the inference in my reply of course right? Just for confirmation.
You say I should quote the whole speech?
Are you saying that everything coming after the quote is giving it a completely different meaning than it has when it stands by itself? JFK is not of the opinion that the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society?
What are you whining about?
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Axxman300
Philosopher
My favorite RFK quote is "Don't get mad, get even". Explains Mongoose all the way.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Where did I say that?
Where did I say that?
For the third time, Kennedy's feelings toward secrecy are not as monochromatic as his first sentence would suggest. That's why he said all the other sentences that explain his feelings in more nuance. That was Hank's entire point.
Your inability to accurately summarize what someone else has written or said.
You seem fond of the word "whine" when a less emotionally laden word would work. A lot of your argument seems to be wrapped up in attaching these unwarranted emotional appendages to what your critics say.
Why is that?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Hah, that is really funny. YOU BOLDED THE WRONG PART. It was the other (obvious) part he was referring to.
Channel 1, which carried routine police radio traffic, it was NOT being used by any of the motorcycles in the motorcade.
Channel 2 was used for the Presidential motorcade traffic.
If gunfire was going to be recorded at all, it would have been on Ch2 not Ch1. This is a really big clue as to why the dictabelt recordings are worse than useless as evidence of anything.
IMO, and in the opinions of most people who have an ounce of commonsense, the open mic on Ch1 was most likely on a Police motorcycle parked in an underground garage being used as a Police staging area the Trade Mart, and here are the reasons why this is the case:
a. On the dictabelt channel is the sound of motorcycle sirens. That sound is heard to rise in pitch, and then fall in pitch, the classic result of the Doppler Effect as the vehicle sounding the siren, first approaches the microphone, and then recedes from it. That would put the microphone somewhere between Dealey Plaza and Parklands hospital - Trade Mart was between Dealey Plaza and Parklands Hospital. If the open microphone had been on Officer HB McLeans's motorcycle, or indeed on any of the other escort motorcycles, the sirens would have been heard at a steady pitch, with no Doppler Effect.
b. Officer McLain said that he heard DPD Chief Curry give the order "Go to the hospital..." That broadcast by Chief Curry was on Ch2. If McLain's radio was jamming Ch1, how could he hear a message on Ch2? When the microphone on, the transmitter is keyed and the receiver does not receive anything.
c. Steve Barber, an outstanding and knowledgeable researcher, and a trained musician was able to pick out a vital phrase on Ch1. Right at the point in the recording when the shots were supposed to have been found by the HSCA's audio experts, he heard a barely audible transmission, a voice saying "Hold everything secure...until Homicide and other investigators can get there........" . That transmission was actually made by Sheriff Decker, and that transmission had actually been made on channel 2, and further, this statement was known to have been made well after the shooting had already occurred. This timing was confirmed by the appearance of the "Stemmens Phrase", clearly heard later on both channels.
Now the question was "How did Sheriff Decker's voice come to be recorded on the wrong channel, at the exact time the shooting occurred?" The answer to that is very simple.
At the Trade Mart, in the Police staging area, there was a loudspeaker mounted on a pillar. That speaker was blasting out the transmissions of the motorcade radio traffic on Ch 2. The open mic on Ch 1 was picking up these sounds, static and general noise in and around the Trade Mart. It was almost certainly the three-wheeler motorcycle of DPD Officer Leslie Beilharz (who was assigned to the area around the Trade Mart) who had the stuck microphone. Beilharz was well known as having a habit of "whistling while he worked" and someone whistling is heard on the dictabelt channel.
And that about wraps it up for the dictabelt (so-called) evidence.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Nice rant. It completely fails to address the question, so I can only assume you're trying to blow smoke.
One would have to ask an expert on the equipment to find out what sort of artefacts might arise from the process. Possibilities include foreign objects in the optical path, defects in the optics, defects in the film or inadvertant double exposure during handling, and those are just the ones I can think of on the spur of the moment. Are you an expert on spurious artefacts in X-ray films? I'm not, and neither is the author.
Dave
- Status