JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Corbett on August 16, 2026, 02:06:00 PM
-
I'm sure every JFKA junkie has heard these words countless times in various documentaries over the decades. I bristle every time I hear it because it is a fraud. This audio clip is from a recreation made by the radio reporter the following day and it is a serious breach of journalistic ethics. It might be hard to believe now but there was a time when news organizations actually adhered to a code of ethics. The reporter who created this audio was fired for his breach of ethics, but that hasn't stopped producers of JFKA related documentaries from using this clip in their productions.
-
I'm sure every JFKA junkie has heard these words countless times in various documentaries over the decades. I bristle every time I hear it because it is a fraud. This audio clip is from a recreation made by the radio reporter the following day and it is a serious breach of journalistic ethics. It might be hard to believe now but there was a time when news organizations actually adhered to a code of ethics. The reporter who created this audio was fired for his breach of ethics, but that hasn't stopped producers of JFKA related documentaries from using this clip in their productions.
Producer Nigel Turner used dramatic reconstructions with actors to portray the covertly recorded conversation between right-wing activist Joseph Milteer and police informant Willie Somerset on 'TMWKK' because the original surveillance audio recordings were either inaudible, structurally fragmented, or legally/technically unfit for direct broadcast.
Original 1963 police wire/surveillance recordings of Milteer were muffled, degraded, and difficult for general television audiences to understand clearly without enhancement or re-reading.
Using voice actors allowed the precise, controversial text of what Milteer stated regarding threats against President Kennedy to be presented coherently to the audience.
-
Pretty sure John C was referring to Sam Pate's reenactment on the 1963 "Four Days That Shocked the World" album.
Sam Pate Oral History (Oral History Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza) (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/26121)
PS: I may have read Duncan's reply too quickly to realize that he was probably just citing another example of this practice to show that it wasn't unique.
-
Producer Nigel Turner used dramatic reconstructions with actors to portray the covertly recorded conversation between right-wing activist Joseph Milteer and police informant Willie Somerset on 'TMWKK' because the original surveillance audio recordings were either inaudible, structurally fragmented, or legally/technically unfit for direct broadcast.
Original 1963 police wire/surveillance recordings of Milteer were muffled, degraded, and difficult for general television audiences to understand clearly without enhancement or re-reading.
Using voice actors allowed the precise, controversial text of what Milteer stated regarding threats against President Kennedy to be presented coherently to the audience.
There is nothing unethical about that as long as it is clearly labeled as a DRAMATIZATION.
Likewise, in the early days of covering the space program, the networks would often simulate space maneuvers because the technology did not exist to show the actual event, but they always labeled those as SIMULATION.
ABC's Cokie Roberts was once suspended for her coverage of the State of the Union Address when she did a report wearing an overcoat while standing in front of a picture of the Capitol Building while in the ABC studios. There is, or at least there was, a strict code against faking a news report, even for something as benign as what Roberts did.
-
Cokie Roberts was NOT suspended and Sam Pate was NOT fired after the recording he'd made.
ps; something had happened in the motorcade.
-
Cokie Roberts was NOT suspended and Sam Pate was NOT fired after the recording he'd made.
ps; something had happened in the motorcade.
Sam Pate was fired by KBOX just days after his reenactment although the station cited the reason only as a "personnel cut" without going into specifics.
My memory of the Cokie Roberts incident was that it was announced she was being suspended although the sources I checked now say it was a reprimand. Either way, it was a breach of ethics for her to fake a report from the Capitol when in fact she was in the studio the whole time.
-
Sam Pate was fired by KBOX just days after his reenactment although the station cited the reason only as a "personnel cut" without going into specifics.
Pate left KBOX before making the recording
"The FBI also informed the Commission that the newsman had stated that most of the tape was not recorded in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, but was recorded in a studio several days later after he had been dismissed by his station, KBOX."
-
Pate left KBOX before making the recording
In any event, presenting a reenactment of an event as if it were an actual broadcast is serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's called manufacturing the news. It is a fraudulent practice.
-
In any event, presenting a reenactment of an event as if it were an actual broadcast is serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's called manufacturing the news. It is a fraudulent practice.
It was a sound bite on a record for entertainment. It wasn't broadcast as news
nobody described as the day it happened
-
It was a sound bite on a record for entertainment. It wasn't broadcast as news
nobody described as the day it happened
Every documentary that has used that recording and not identified it as a re-enactment has perpetrated a fraud. The originators of the recording also perpetrated a fraud if they didn't identify it as a re-enactment. It is not a broadcast of an actual event.
-
In any event, presenting a reenactment of an event as if it were an actual broadcast is serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's called manufacturing the news. It is a fraudulent practice.
:D It was a record for entertainment purposes
One line. It was not news. True statement
It is not a broadcast of an actual event.
nobody claimed it was.
-
:D It was a record for entertainment purposes
One line. Nobody claimed it was 11//22. True statement
nobody claimed it was.
When it is presented whether in its original form or reused in a documentary and not identified as a re-enactment, it is a fraud. Failure to do so implies it is an actual recording made during the assassination. For years, I believed it was a recording of the actual event and I would bet most people who heard it believed the same thing. I would be a lot of people still believe it to be a recording of a live broadcast. That makes it a fraud.
-
When it is presented whether in its original form or reused in a documentary and not identified as a re-enactment, it is a fraud. Failure to do so implies it is an actual recording made during the assassination. For years, I believed it was a recording of the actual event and I would bet most people who heard it believed the same thing. I would be a lot of people still believe it to be a recording of a live broadcast. That makes it a fraud.
:'( Oh, so painful
-
Here's the cover for the album that included the Pate re-creation (if we can it that; it was all made up not re-created). Or one version of it (there were 6 or 7 at least). The cover reads "The Actual Voices and Events of..."
There's nothing on the album or the insert (see below) indicating it was a re-creation or for "entertainment purposes". There's a mix of mostly actual reporting/broadcasts along with the Pate recreation which appears to be the only "re-creation". And the Pate addition, again, is not indicated or introduced as being fictitious.
Shorter: Yes, this is misleading if not dishonest.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13721143647/Keyf0oaeok6qxjn/kbox.jpg)
You can listen to the above album here: https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13721143647/Keyf0oaeok6qxjn/kbox.jpg
If you go to the 21:00 mark, you can listen to the Pate account which is introduced by the narrator. Which is seamless. The narrator goes from the actual recording at Love Field to the re-creation.
Inserts for the album are here:
https://www.discogs.com/master/1300740-Reid-Collins-Four-Days-That-Shocked-The-World/image/SW1hZ2U6NDIxNDY5MDg=
And here:
https://www.discogs.com/master/1300740-Reid-Collins-Four-Days-That-Shocked-The-World/image/SW1hZ2U6NDIxNDY5MDk=
-
Here's the cover for the album. Or one version of it (there were 6 or 7 at least). The cover reads "The Actual Voices and Events of..."
There's nothing on the album or the insert (see below) indicating it was a re-creation or for "entertainment purposes". There a mix of actual reporting and broadcasts along with the Pate recreation which appears to be the only re-creation. And the Pate addition, again, is not indicated as being a re-creation.
Shorter: Yes, this is misleading if not dishonest.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13721143647/Keyf0oaeok6qxjn/kbox.jpg)
You can listen to the above album here: https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13721143647/Keyf0oaeok6qxjn/kbox.jpg
If you go to the 21:00 mark, you can listen to the Pate account which is introduced by the narrator. Which is seamless. The narrator goes from the actual recording at Love Field to the re-creation.
Inserts for the album are here:
https://www.discogs.com/master/1300740-Reid-Collins-Four-Days-That-Shocked-The-World/image/SW1hZ2U6NDIxNDY5MDg=
And here:
https://www.discogs.com/master/1300740-Reid-Collins-Four-Days-That-Shocked-The-World/image/SW1hZ2U6NDIxNDY5MDk=
read the fine print;
"The actual voices and events of .... Nov. 22-25 1963"
-
Some original fake news? Any precedents? Ask Orson & the Martians.
-
Some original fake news? Any precedents? Ask Orson & the Martians.
That was an entertainment program that many people mistakenly took for a news program which caused a panic.
Many years ago I saw made for TV movie about the famous radio broadcast. One of the radio actors had a spot on impersonation of FDR. Orson Welles told him the censors wouldn't allow them to impersonate FDR and they were going to replace him in the script with the Secretary of State. The actor said he didn't know what the Secretary of State sounded like. Orson Welles said, "He sounds just like the President.".
-
Here's the complete KBOX Radio "re-creation" audio recording:
If anyone wants to hear 1-and-a-half hours of ACTUAL live KBOX coverage from Nov. 22 and 24, 1963, I have it on my website here:
https://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com/2015/12/kbox-radio.html
-
One sign that this was a recreation and not a recording of the actual broadcast is that there are 16 seconds between the time Pate says, "The President's car is now turning onto Elm Street..." and he says, "...It appears something has happened in the motorcade route...". There is no way there were 16 seconds between JFK's car turning onto Elm St. and the shooting starting. In fact there were only 9.8 seconds from the time Zapruder resumed filming until the headshot.
-
One sign that this was a recreation and not a recording of the actual broadcast is that there are 16 seconds between the time Pate says, "The President's car is now turning onto Elm Street..." and he says, "...It appears something has happened in the motorcade route...". There is no way there were 16 seconds between JFK's car turning onto Elm St. and the shooting starting. In fact there were only 9.8 seconds from the time Zapruder resumed filming until the headshot.
Yeah, sure it's Bogus. Nothing new there. But why was the "16" seconds gap chosen?
-
Yeah, sure it's Bogus. Nothing new there. But why was the "16" seconds gap chosen?
Since I don't know why and your question forces me to guess, I doubt they gave much thought to having their fraudulent recording scrutinized so closely. I don't know how long it was widely known that the recording wasn't genuine. As for as I know, it still isn't widely known to be a recreation. I would wager most people, having heard it so many times, still think it is genuine. I'm not sure when I learned it wasn't, but I think it was within the past 10 years, probably less.
People might not think it is a big deal to have manufactured the recording and presented it as if it were the real deal, such practices open the door to fake news. This was demonstrated by Duncan when he posted what was supposedly an undercover recording of someone talking about a plot to kill JFK a week earlier in Miami, when in fact it is a recording made of actors reading from a script. There's no way that can be considered evidence of an earlier plot to kill JFK. There is a reason there is a strict code of journalism ethics that says news organizations don't create or stage events. It opens the door to all sorts of chicanery. Even something as seemingly innocent as Cokie Roberts doing a supposed on sight report while wearing an overcoat in front of a picture of the Capitol crosses that line. In recent decades, news organizations have seemed more than willing to cross that line to push an agenda.
-
Since I don't know why and your question forces me to guess, I doubt they gave much thought to having their fraudulent recording scrutinized so closely. I don't know how long it was widely known that the recording wasn't genuine. As for as I know, it still isn't widely known to be a recreation. I would wager most people, having heard it so many times, still think it is genuine. I'm not sure when I learned it wasn't, but I think it was within the past 10 years, probably less.
People might not think it is a big deal to have manufactured the recording and presented it as if it were the real deal, such practices open the door to fake news. This was demonstrated by Duncan when he posted what was supposedly an undercover recording of someone talking about a plot to kill JFK a week earlier in Miami, when in fact it is a recording made of actors reading from a script. There's no way that can be considered evidence of an earlier plot to kill JFK. There is a reason there is a strict code of journalism ethics that says news organizations don't create or stage events. It opens the door to all sorts of chicanery. Even something as seemingly innocent as Cokie Roberts doing a supposed on sight report while wearing an overcoat in front of a picture of the Capitol crosses that line. In recent decades, news organizations have seemed more than willing to cross that line to push an agenda.
When they put stuff like this together, they do Not just arbitrarily chose a 16 second gap. There's some sort of basis for using the "16" seconds.
With respect to JFK assassination plots, the Chicago, and Florida planned assassinations are documented. And those involved a tall building.
-
When they put stuff like this together, they do Not just arbitrarily chose a 16 second gap. There's some sort of basis for using the "16" seconds.
With respect to JFK assassination plots, the Chicago, and Florida planned assassinations are documented. And those involved a tall building.
Documented how? By a convicted Secret Service agent who claimed there was an assassination plot in Chicago. Or the tape that used actors to voice a supposed undercover recording detailing a planned assassination of JFK in Miami?
Great sources you have there.
Threats against US presidents are not uncommon and while they are taken seriously by the Secret Service, most of them turn out to be crackpots and not credible threats.
-
Documented how? By a convicted Secret Service agent who claimed there was an assassination plot in Chicago. Or the tape that used actors to voice a supposed undercover recording detailing a planned assassination of JFK in Miami?
Great sources you have there.
Threats against US presidents are not uncommon and while they are taken seriously by the Secret Service, most of them turn out to be crackpots and not credible threats.
The Miami and Chicago planned "hits" are not in question.
-
The Miami and Chicago planned "hits" are not in question.
Do you have a source other than Abraham Bolden or the faked Milteer recording?
-
Do you have a source other than Abraham Bolden or the faked Milteer recording?
Yeah, and I have "Proof" that Oswald worked at the TSBD. What other indisputable Facts do you need?
-
Yeah, and I have "Proof" that Oswald worked at the TSBD. What other indisputable Facts do you need?
I accept your claim that Oswald worked at the TSBD. I don't think you would lie about something like that. As for that other claim, are you going to keep your proof of that a secret?
-
I accept your claim that Oswald worked at the TSBD. I don't think you would lie about something like that. As for that other claim, are you going to keep your proof of that a secret?
So now it is a "claim" that Oswald worked at the TSBD? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
So now it is a "claim" that Oswald worked at the TSBD? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I guess you aren't too keen on recognizing sarcasm. It did give you an excuse for dodging the difficult question. Apparently, you have no proof there were credible threats of assassination attempts in either Chicago or Miami.