RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Charles Collins]

The memo persuaded Mr. Rankin to go to Dallas for reenactments

You left out two words just before the portion that you bolded: “I believe” (Willens).

I bolded the portions in response to Royell’s idea that the WC refused to view the Zapruder film.

Do you have a point that you wish to make? If so it isn’t clear.

[Michael Capasse]

You left out two words just before the portion that you bolded: “I believe” (Willens).

I bolded the portions in response to Royell’s idea that the WC refused to view the Zapruder film.

Do you have a point that you wish to make? If so it isn’t clear.

no bother

[Royell Storing]

The following is a snip from Howard Willens’ contemporaneously written journal from April 28, 1964:

At 2:30 p.m. I participated in a meeting with M.r Malley
and Mr. Gauthier of the FBI, Inspector Kelley of the Secret Service,
Mr. Rankin and Messrs. Belin, Redlich, Eisenberg and Specter. The subject of the meeting was the problem of further work in Dallas to ascertain with greater precision the range of probabilities regarding
the location and timing of the three shots fired by the assassin.
Both the FBI and the SS prior to the meeting had indicated to Mr. Rankin
(and the Chief Justice) their reluctance to go down to Dallas with any
sort of further reenactment of the assassination.
This meeting was the culmination of many months of work by members of the staff, particularly Mr. Redlich, Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Specter, regarding the films and medical testimony. From the very beginning Mr. Rankin had been less persuaded than these that it was necessary to decide these problems
with greater precision. Just prior to the meeting, however, Mr. Redlich had finally put his views into memorandum form which I believe persuaded Mr. Rankin that some effort was necessary if the Commission wanted to make assertions in its report which coincide with the physical facts.

   My understanding of "contemporaneous" does not fit the above. This has been spit-shined

[Charles Collins]

   My understanding of "contemporaneous" does not fit the above. This has been spit-shined

Snip from page 2 (introduction):

I began this journal at the suggestion of Alfred Goldberg, a Defense Department historian who joined the Commission staff in February 1964. I reviewed my files regarding December 1963 and January 1964 and prepared the five-page entry dated January 1964. Most of the other
entries were prepared shortly the events discussed, with only a few exceptions. I dictated these journal entries to my very competent secretary, Adele W. Lippard. Neither of us had the time to proofread and, fi necessary, to edit the entries. As a result, there are a few errors, which I have corrected in this copy of the journal.
.
.
.
I have donated the original journal and all my other Commission documents to the National Archives in 2015.

That fits the definition of contemporaneously.

[Royell Storing]

Snip from page 2 (introduction):

I began this journal at the suggestion of Alfred Goldberg, a Defense Department historian who joined the Commission staff in February 1964. I reviewed my files regarding December 1963 and January 1964 and prepared the five-page entry dated January 1964. Most of the other
entries were prepared shortly the events discussed, with only a few exceptions. I dictated these journal entries to my very competent secretary, Adele W. Lippard. Neither of us had the time to proofread and, fi necessary, to edit the entries. As a result, there are a few errors, which I have corrected in this copy of the journal.
.
.
.
I have donated the original journal and all my other Commission documents to the National Archives in 2015.

That fits the definition of contemporaneously.

             The above only proves what was obvious. "Corrected" settles this issue.

[Charles Collins]

             The above only proves what was obvious. "Corrected" settles this issue.

The original is available at the archives. If you think that the corrections prove your idea, feel free to check it out and let us know.

[Royell Storing]

The original is available at the archives. If you think that the corrections prove your idea, feel free to check it out and let us know.

     Would you want notes taken during Oswald's numerous interrogations to be "Corrected"?  This is the same kinda stuff that went on with Humes and his notes.  Plus, your now damaging your own source.

[Charles Collins]

     Would you want notes taken during Oswald's numerous interrogations to be "Corrected"?  This is the same kinda stuff that went on with Humes and his notes.  Plus, your now damaging your own source.

It appears to me that the corrections are listed at the bottom of each page. Here’s an example from the bottom of page 1:

*Capitalization as appears in original.

There are similar corrections on numerous pages. These are obviously typographical errors.

You can find the complete document at the Sixth Floor Museum website. Here’s a link. Check it out for yourself.

https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/Howard-Willens-WC-Journal-1964.pdf