From D. Frank Robinson in the Libertarian Party History Facebook group:
On or about February 22, 2016 (Washington’s Birthday by coincidence), I will begin making digital copies from analog tapes of the 1972 Denver and 1974 Dallas conventions of the Libertarian Party. These tapes have been in my possession for over forty years. I have never played them because I lost access to any reel to reel tape recorder when my cousin and co-founder of the Oklahoma Libertarian Party, Samuel H. hays III, died on a ski trip in 1977. The audio quality of these tapes originally was probably less than state of the art in the 1970s. The Denver tapes were made with microphone near the podium where David Nolan presided. As I recall the Dallas tapes were recorded the same way.
Version 1.0 of this plan is to break the multi-hour audio of the Denver sessions into segments and post those online – mostly likely to YouTube. Editing, if any, will be minimal. The Dallas tapes will be done the same way. Once these tapes are played once and converted to digital files they go back into the “vault”.
Transcription of the audio to text can be a tedious task. I hope that interested persons will undertake to make transcriptions and post the text files online for all to compare with the audio. I will also work on transcription myself and annotate the text with my own recollections as best I can. I can only anticipate this project may take months to complete. All the work product will be copyright under the Creative Commons Attribution license 3.0. Briefly, that means any derivation of the work must be published under the same license. You may use the audio freely with credit to the source. See Creative Commons for details on the licensing.
Initially, I thought voice to text software might speed up the process by producing a rough draft text file that could be edited by human ear comparison of the machine generated text to the audio. While possible it appears more likely that this could be done with acceptable accuracy only if a single voice was used to “echo” audio to the software. The available software requires “training” by an individual speaker. That means a single person, such as myself, would have verbalize everything said by all speakers for many hours and still edit the machine generated text.
Alternatively, I think it more feasible to crowd-source the transcriptions. Let anyone type what they hear and everyone compare those text files to the audio for themselves for quality assurance. Of course, someone with court reporter skills would likely produce the highest quality text from the audio. I have no such training, but others may. I call for such assistance.
Why go to the trouble? The Libertarian Party will soon become half a century old. Those of us present at the creation will soon (not too soon, I hope) be deceased. David F Nolan is dead, but his voice is preserved on these tapes (I hope and we’ll soon know). I deeply regret David is not with us hear and contribute. I undertake this project as a memorial to David F. Nolan and all the “Founding Fathers and Mothers” for the benefit of our posterity. What consequences may follow from this “time travel” I cannot guess, but let the record be made stand in the open.
I welcome suggestions to improve how the project may carried to a fruitful conclusion. As sole custodian (so far as I know), I hope there are no serious objections to my assuming the role of Project Leader. I am happy to share the credit with all who participate because your participation will be critical.
Fingers crossed,
D. Frank Robinson
Project Leader
LP Convention Memorial Project 1972 and 1974.
Robinson has provided to me copies of the 1972 Bylaws and it is some fascinating reading and further proof of several things.
1. The centrality of the SoP to the Party at its initial founding as is the prerogative of its founders. I would love to see those who think that someone is actually “arrogant” for daring to have their own vision for a group they started go out and start their own. The LP has proven anyone can do it.
2. The original purpose of the Judicial Committee. Member discipline and ensuring platform conformity with the SoP. This then makes sense that the first (I believe it was the first) JC was ever used was to rule on a Platform plank. Though I have no intention of pushing for a challenge on any plank as violative of the SoP (as explained why above- the only one that I have even a remote issue with is the one that no longer contains the explicit Dallas Accord language — not sure that rises to an SoP violation but perhaps it could and that would be an interesting challenge indeed that perhaps I would be sympathetic too if someone else tried it and didn’t even consider until this thread where it was insisted that my historical interest MUST have some devious agenda behind it— it did cause me consider whether such a challenge might happen and whether I would support it— my issues about the Platform are where it is silent, not so much on where it speaks).
I will be posting an article on the 1972 bylaws. This stuff needs to be preserved as common Libertarian Party heritage. I am waiting to see if the 1974 bylaws are found.
At the risk of the conspiracy theories flying again, here is a new post from Robinson with an unexpected twist. My interest was always primarily in the 1974 tapes due to the Dallas Accord but here is a tidbit of something we *might* expect from the 1972 tapes which impact the current Oregon situation (and touch upon my interest in the SoP and platform planks):
Original Intended Purpose for the LP Judicial Committee
As Chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee at the Denver convention in 1972, I claim credit and culpability for the Judicial Committee in the original Bylaws. I originated it and the CB&R Cmte agreed decisively to report it to the floor.
The original intent was that JC function primarily only during a national convention. The JC was to function as a court of arbitration on platform planks as consistent or inconsistent with the Statement of Principles. The JC’s decision was to be in the nature of an advisory opinion to the whole convention to questions referred to it by vote of the convention. When a proposed platform plank was referred to the JC it was in effect send to committee for hearing off the floor of the convention before a final vote was taken on the motion to adopt the platform plank. Thus referring the plank question to the Judicial Committee meant that a vote need not be taken and then revived only by a difficult motion to reconsider.
The intention was to allow the convention to continue to consider other presumably less controversial, but essential, planks without getting bogged down on one or two highly contentious questions. The JC had to report before debate on the platform was adopted in one final comprehensive vote on the whole. When the convention adjourned the JC essentially ceased to function although it might be asked to offer opinions at the request of the LNC on platform and SoP issues only.
In short, the JC’s was a peer review panel of national party ideology, not LP administrative operations and NEVER the administration of affiliate parties.
Over time, it appears that efforts have been made to broaden the authority the of the JC to matters far beyond its original jurisdiction. I think this is a serious mistake.
I don’t know who this history lesson from a “Founding Father” will offend or gladen, but that’s my best effort recall of how the question was explained to the Denver delegates. In the future I intend to have audio tapes available to make public which either substantiate or refute my recollection of the Judicial Committee place in LP organizational structure in 1972. I have not yet been able to access that audio and I will accept responsibility if my recall is defective on any substantial point.
I am getting a copy of what is done in 1974. It will be pretty exciting to hear those voices, and there is apparently an easter egg of an apparently almost catastrophic parliamentary snafu involved in the formation of the LPCO. VERY interested in hearing that one!
Here is the latest update from Robinson:
Update on the LP Convention Tapes Project: I have a mechanical issue with my main HQ R -R tape deck. As manufactured it can’t play tapes at the normal speed the 1972 Denver tapes were recorded. I will try to finesse this in audio software, but I have no experience slowing a signal down that much and keeping it intelligible. If only I could find or have build a sleeve for the capstan, maybe, maybe, I could get better quality audio from the Denver tapes.
The alternative is to get a bunch of empty five reels and transfer and splice the seven inch Denver reels down on to five inchers and then play them on an alternate tape deck I have that will only play five inch reels. That is a tedious prospect, but with enough, I’d say, 8 empty five inch reels it could be done. I am now seeking to scavenge five inch reels which I can mount on the seven inch machine and spin the tape off on the smaller reels to play on the other machine at NORMAL speed. I hope that’s clear to anyone interested.
langa: Watch out, RC — I imagine it would be pretty hard to type while wearing a straitjacket!
me: See, now, this is what I’m talking about! Langa has made a true statement! All hail Langa! S/he has done his/her part to set us all free! 😉
cah: Because they can. This is fact.
me: Right. Just as if Obama reminded Putin that the US has a large nuclear arsenal. A fact. And a veiled threat, most apparently.
When I was being willingly brainwashed by the Randian Rothbardians, I really appreciated some of the historical facts that they brought to my attention. In school, I’d never learned about the horrific history of Japanese-American internment camps during WWII. That, I thought at the time, should really get people questioning FDR’s place in history…that he was one sick mo’fo’.
So, yes, one can look back at the history of the 89 and do forensic inquiries about their machinations, and remind the assembled that their “formal” “Accord” (singular, as if it was a real thing with a formal title!) stipulated X and Y. Or, you can — as I do — look at their arrogance made manifest with 2 booby traps (thanks again…there may be more!) and begin to consider their handiwork anew. You can read their language and bow down to their brilliance, or you can read terms like CotOS and — in the cold light of day — wonder “what WERE they thinking?!”
Funny you bring up the atheist haranguing Christians. I’m neither. Recently a born-again was trying to save my soul after I revealed that while I’m a big fan of the person who — if he existed — is allegedly quoted in the Bible, at least I find much truth in many of the quotes. If so, the born again wondered, why am I not accepting JC as my lord and savior?
Maybe I would. But first, who wrote the Bible? How do we know that this is an accurate account of actual events? What about the discoveries of other “gospels” that were excluded from the Bible? Why does the Bible contain so many contradictions?
With no real answers, we parted, him seemingly frustrated, probably thinking that my soul was headed for eternal damnation.
For me, truth trumps technicalities. If the inevitable technicalities don’t line up with truth, then I suggest that the technicalities be changed, for truth doesn’t.
LOL!
RC appears to have become completely unhinged!
Watch out, RC — I imagine it would be pretty hard to type while wearing a straitjacket!
I have noted that our Bylaws provide for disqualification of candidates, which they do. I have never stated any intent or interest in challenging any of the current platform. I don’t hide what I wish I do. I would like to add to it and I would support more explicit Accord language, but I have no intention in challenging any based on it (I have an interest in deleting the abortion plank but that has nothing to do with this topic or the SoP)
==In this thread, you maintain that the so-called “Dallas Accords” are “enforceable,” and yet you claim that you have no agenda?===
Because it hasn’t been abrogated. IF I believed it was abrogated, it would be enforceable. Accord is singular btw.
== And you remind us that “any platform plank can be appealed based on the SoP”?==
Because they can. This is fact. It is not my problem that you made a claim while being ignorant of the bylaws.
==The work of a dispassionate historian, or a person working a technical angle to revive the true beauty of ’74? Sounds like someone making a case….==
I am countering the historical idea that the Dallas Accord was completely informal. It was not. That is a historical question. History is never dispassionate. Since I do not believe the Dallas Accord (via the SoP) has been abrogated, it is inquiry into our history. If the platform ever did abrogate it, it could be challenged– and I would. If you are now subtly moving the goalposts to say I don’t have any current intention to bring something to the JC, but I have an overarching goal of keeping the LP true to the SoP….. that has never been denied. So do our bylaws.
I doubt we will speak again on this thread. I really feel bad for you that you cannot move on from this obsession. It reminds of an atheist who spends all their time on Christian forums haranguing them.
If I ever leave the Party, I will find much better uses of my time.
Back to my regular practice of skipping your posts.
cah, protesting too much? IIRC haven’t you mused about disallowing AP’s candidacy because he has publicly questioned the sanctity of the NAP?
In this thread, you maintain that the so-called “Dallas Accords” are “enforceable,” and yet you claim that you have no agenda? And you remind us that “any platform plank can be appealed based on the SoP”?
The work of a dispassionate historian, or a person working a technical angle to revive the true beauty of ’74? Sounds like someone making a case….
Why on earth would anyone care what 89 20-something Randians thought in the early 70s? They wrote effective technical booby traps. Next….
I can’t wait for the 1972 recordings to be analyzed. I heard that Nolan instituted a secret handshake and mandatory gift of one’s kidneys…. I can’t wait to bring this up to the JC!!
==Maybe you don’t. Maybe they are just historical musings, as you say.===
LOL. My keen and demonstrated interest in Libertarian Party history of all kinds is just a clever cover for my diabolical plot. BWHAHAHAHA.
Wow. Just wow.
Please troll another thread.
cah, I neglected to say Bylaws and Robert’s.
At 9:28, and in other comments, you seem to want to use the alleged Dallas Accord, SoP, and Bylaws to do something or other, employing technicalities toward I don’t know what ends.
Maybe you don’t. Maybe they are just historical musings, as you say.
My overarching point — sometimes colorfully put — is that I noticed that many L conventions involve a profound amount of legalistic machinations that I — with my many limitations — could not see how it had anything to do with advancing the cause of liberty. That’s the big picture I see, and if we have any “duty,” it’s to keep our eyes on the prize, and work toward that prize.
Instead, I lots of wrangling that I can’t believe anyone finds productive.
At least on IPR we talk about issues sometimes!
No one in million years, except you, found my historical musing to be a threat. That says something about your thoughts not mine.
Why would I want to bring something to the JC? I don’t think the current platform is out of compliance, particularly considering the language of the preamble.
For all your zombie apocalypse ranting, only one plank (AFAIK)has ever been successfully challenged, and that was in 1979. I do not know if there were ever unsuccessful challenges. And I disagree with that JC ruling BTW, but I am glad they had the fortitude to make it.
But I have no intent of challenging any current plank, and (I don’t have a crystal ball so I can’t say what anyone would approach me with), I don’t see that I would support someone else doing so. The preamble deftly states that the planks are not end-games, and I think they are great as goals and on the way to smashing the cult of the omnipotent state.
Sorry you will have to try again with your handy-dandy caricature creature machine. It will be without my participation.
And I never mentioned Robert’s either. I think you need to step back today, you are boxing at shadows.
cah: I considered it my duty as a potential delegate to know.
me: When I was still challenging the CotOS (that I didn’t believe existed in the latter years), I did my best to avoid or workaround the 89er’s handiwork. I hope to die never reading or even touching Robert’s Rules. And I feel very good about those decisions, as I find minutiae like that less useful than studying Esperanto.
To each his or her own, of course.
cm, it never once came up in the many deliberations I participated in.
Never once. There were plumbliners on the platcomm then, too, and they never brought it up that I can recall.
What we DID talk about — a lot — was to come up with previously approved language as a means to at least have something that looked at least kind of like a platform that kinda, sorta gave outsiders a sense of what Ls stood for.
cah, you may not think that bringing up that clause doesn’t come across like a veiled threat, but I suspect your non-plumbline L colleagues (the Lesser Ls, from your perspective, as you’ve previously indicated, IIRC) will very likely feel otherwise.
If Obama said to Putin: “As you know, Vladimir, we have thousands of nuclear weapons,” do you think Putin might take that as a not-so-veiled threat?
OTOH, as a L voter who’d like the country to move in a L direction, I actually wouldn’t mind if you used this nuclear option to have the JC blow up the platform, since I’m not a big fan of it.
And it isn’t just one section. It’s two. I would hope that the current PC knows this. I am a new member as certain commenters like to point out, and I knew this.
I considered it my duty as a potential delegate to know.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
It concerns me that someone who previously served on the platform committee was never aware that platform planks cannot conflict with the statement of principles. Is this something that needs to be pointed out to the current platform committee?
You’re getting hysterical.
There was no threat. This is historical interest nothing more. Where in the world you saw a threat speaks a lot.
I don’t believe the current platform abrogated the accord necessarily and I am not a hater of it. I like it in most ways.
Your continued attempts to twist things into your fevered caricatures is why I don’t speak with you.
Good day.
cm and cah, ya know, I’d never read that section, so thank you.
I would say this: If CAH REALLY wants to alienate and potentially destroy the LP, she should DEFINITELY follow through on this threat.
To me, it once again illustrates how sick and profoundly arrogant the 89 20-something (+ Rothbard and Evers) Founders were in the early 70s. They SO thought they figured it all out with their Dallas Accord and anarcho-friendly SoP, they added YET ANOTHER booby-trap. Booby traps within booby traps!!!!
I will say when I was in Portland and most of the platform was dropped, I tried to move to delete the whole fucking thing. Of course, I don’t know shit about parliamentary maneuvering, and the more I look at it in all its dysfunction, I’m glad I don’t! It’s a stinking pile of dogshit as far as I’m concerned! 😉
That Ls allow themselves to get SO wrapped around their axles and get lost deep into the weeds about meaningless legalistic minutiae, is it any wonder that the organization continues to drift toward obscurity?
Or maybe not! Maybe if people hear the plumbline on the NAP long enough from the diehard cadre, we’ll have a spontaneous national consciousness rising, and every barber, waitress, engineer, and bank manager will suddenly have a nuanced understanding of the vagaries of the intellectual property rights issue and a detailed 3-month plan to bring Marines home from all US embassies.
Bob,
I’m not sure why you keep arguing that point. The bylaws are crystal clear: you’re wrong.
I was in the process of copy & pasting the relevant bylaws provisions, but Caryn saved me the trouble.
You can argue about whether the bylaws SHOULD limit the platform to planks in compliance with the statement of principles; however, it’s not a matter for debate whether the bylaws DO currently limit the platform to planks in compliance with the statement of principles.
ARTICLE 4: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND PLATFORM
2. The Party Platform shall include, but not be limited to, the Statement of Principles and the implementation of those principles in the form of planks.
RULE 5: DEBATING AND VOTING — PLATFORM
7. Challenges of adopted Party planks believed by 10% of the delegates to be in conflict with the Statement of Principles shall be referred in writing, during the Convention, to the Judicial Committee by the delegates requesting action for consideration. The challenge shall specify in what manner the plank is believed to be in conflict. The Judicial Committee shall consider the challenge, decide whether the Statement of Principles is conformed to and report their findings and reasons to the Convention. If the plank is vetoed by the Judicial Committee, it will be declared null and void but can be reinstated by a 3/4 vote of the Convention.
cah, my ears are smoking trying to understand your point.
The LP *is* a gentleperson’s agreement, the whole thing is! IIRC, Rothbard and Evers and perhaps a few other anarchists joined with the 20-something Randroids in Dallas in ’74. Rothbard didn’t want the LP to exclude anarchists, so he convinced the Randroids to make the foundational docs anarchist-friendly. He won that argument with the young-ins, and then he and Evers later became Republicans.
The SoP can and has been changed in this voluntary organization. The bylaws call for a platform, and a process to write one and change one.
Are you seriously saying that because the SoP was written to be anarchist-friendly that therefore the platform HAS TO BE? Strikes me as tortured logic!
If the point was that the platform MUST be anarchist-friendly as long as the SoP is, then the 20-something Randroids, Rothbard, and Evers should have inserted that explicitly in the Bylaws. They didn’t.
Last post from Robinson on the 1974 tapes:
I have reached the end of the only tape provided to me for the 1974 Dallas convention before the Platform Committee Report. It is my conjecture that those proceedings were taped, but I do not have, nor did I ever have, a copy of that tape in my possession.
====
So apparently we do not have the Dallas Accord Platform discussion nor the SoP edits, but we have the results of those (the actual platform and the actual SoP) which are the artifacts of the agreement, and puts paid to the story that this agreement was informal. The informal part of it was this (or rather unenforceable either by reality or design– and even that isn’t entirely true): the platform would never take a stand as to whether or not government must exist. And the resulting platforms for years did not. Some argue that the current platforms since 2006 do (I don’t make that argument for several reasons). And narrowly speaking that is true, it was unenforceable. But more generally speaking, that is not true. The Statement of Principles is virtually unchangeable, and in that sense, enforceable, and also in the sense that any platform plank can be appealed based on the SoP, and four edits were made to the SoP in 1974– the last time any edits have been made. Two of the edits are not relevant here (changing a gendered phrase to a generic phrase and inserting the more general “free markets” language rather than laissez faire). However the other two edits are direct Dallas Accord nods to anarchy, and those are permanently (for all intents and purposes) embedded and thus “unenforceable.” Thus while certain people like to wax endlessly about the “myth” of the cult of the omnipotent state, I believe it is demonstrably true that there is a myth about the nature of the alleged unenforceability of the elements of the Dallas Accord and it being only relevant to those 1974 delegates. It *wasn’t* merely a gentleman’s agreement. That myth needs to die.
During a swap of the tape the Credentials Committee Report was apparently adopted and tape resumes with discussion of the Rules and Bylaws Committee Report.
[END OF NOTES SO FAR FROM ROBINSON]
Tape B has 60 cycle hum.
Commentary: The Chair and convention entertains motion by unidentifiable delegate from the floor to substitute another parilamentary authority for Roberts Rules of Order. The National Convention Parliamentarian, D. Frank Robinson, makes decision to bring reinforcements to the convention to prevent, in his opinion, potential disruption and party collapse. D. Frank Robinson may harbor conspiratorial suspicions, but that is irrelevant. D. Frank undertakes a mission on his own initative which will be presented after the luncheon recess on this tape. You are forewarned.
Susan Nolan gavels the delegates to take their seats after the recess. Susan request the presence of Bill White at the official’s table. Susan makes other announcements. Susan introduces convention officials on the dais, Bill Westmiller, (Bylaws) Georgeann Trammel, (Credentials) Ed Clark, (Platform) D. Frank Robinson, (Convention Parliamentarian), Ann Noble (Canandian Party observer and time keeper). Susan announces that until adoption of the Rules Cmte Report, the convention will operate under the rules of the 1972 convention.
First order of business is the report of the Credentials Committee with Winston Duke presenting the report. Winston Duke announces the five members of the convention Credentials Committee chaired by National Secretary, Georgeann Trammel, Winston Duke, William Froh, Susan Brown, Fran Youngsteen (?). (Spelling of many names in this account is provisional.) Credentials Committee Report delivered. By Special Order of the convention Roger MacBride and Toni Nathan are added as delegates, i.e. “Super Delegates”, to the convention. (No comments)
Tape A ends at approx. 3:55:00 before the Report of the Credentials Committee, if, and, as amended, is adopted.
No commentary on the Liberty Amednment Committee Chairman’s remarks. Speech ends at 37 minutes with the introduction of Roger MacBride to deliver a “Keynote address”.
Roger MacBride speaks until 1:01:22 on the tape. (No commentary.)
Susan Nolan, Presiding Chair, introduces Bob Meyer (?), National Fund Raising Chairman.
Bob Meyer delivers Treasurer’s Report for Pip Boyle, who could not attend. (No commentary.)
Jim Miller is introduced to explain a fund raising project.
Bob Meyer announces a Congressional Campaign strategy document by D. Frank Robinson of Oklahoma (not Kansas, but all those states look the same to Bob) smile emoticon Bob Meyer discuss various fund raising efforts in planning and execution. Bob directs delegates to confer with Wainwright Dawson for advice and assistance on state party fund raising. Bob Meyer’s remarks end at 1:10:26.
Susan Nolan resumes presiding with remarks about delegates organizing themselves by state pending the Credentials Committee report and the convention recesses at 1:12:08.
(To be continued. You may feel the heat.)
Notes from Robinson the 1974 tapes:
Notes from Listening to Audio Recording of the 1974 Libertarian Party Convention in Dallas, Texas.
Tape A:
Convention is called to order with welcoming remarks by Guy Story Brown.
Guy Brown turns the gavel over to Susan Nolan as Convention Chair.
Mike Holmes gives a brief history talk about Texas and libertarianism and mentions that Texas has a right to secede. Mike announces the availability of a “Who’s Who” for the 1974 Convention for $4. (D. Frank regrets he did not obtain a copy). Mike mentions the difficulty of talking to reporters about the distinction between libertarian anarchists and minarchists. Mike notes his presence at the Denver and Cleveland conventions and compliments the delegates and committee workers. Mike announces that if any delegate needs something to make their stay more comfortable – don’t call on him, find someone else to bother. He announces a reception for Toni Nathan in the evening, the 1972 LP Vice Presidential candidate who became the first woman in American history to receive an Electoral vote.
Mike Holmes notes that the convention was physically in Irving, Texas. He names persons who were especially helpful in arranging the convention, primarily the Brown family of Irving, also Chairs of the Dallas County and Harris County LPs.
Mike Holmes gives a brief history talk about Texas and libertarianism and mentions that Texas has a right to secede. Mike announces the availablity of a “Who’s Who” for the 1974 Convention for $4. (D. Frank regrets he did not obtain a copy). Mike mentions the difficulty of talking to reporters about the distinction between libertarian anarchists and minarchists. Mike notes his presence at the Denver and Cleveland conventions and compliments the delegates and committee workers. Mike announces that if any delegate needs something to make their stay more comfortable – don’t call on him, find someone else to bother. He announces a reception for Toni Nathan in the evening, the 1972 LP Vice Presidential candidate who became the first woman in American history to receive an Electoral vote.
Susan Nolan resumes presiding and calls on Bob Stiner (?) of New Jersey, former NJ Chair and presently candidate for Congress. Bob pays tribute to David and Sue Nolan. Bob makes sly allusion to people who “Browne Out” referring to Harry Browne, who was then anti-political. Bob urges LPers to not only educate, but to win elections too. Bob urges more candidates to run in 1974 and beyond because some may win and influence others from “inside”. Bob projects that the LP can “achieve freedom in our time by 1984.”
Susan Nolan resumes presiding. She introduces Lewis Powell (?), Chairman of the Liberty Amendment Committee and attendee to the two previous LP convention (Denver and Cleveland).
(This is the play-by-play for the first 18 minutes and 45 seconds of the convention.)
There are now raw recordings of 1974 Dallas! They are being cleaned up.
Precious history.
From the LP History group:
D Frank Robinson – Well, Houston, we have a problem. In short, my Akai tape deck can’t play the convention tapes recorded at 1 7/8 ips natively. It could play 3 3/4 ips tapes, but the capstan for that speed is missing. My plan was to play from the deck at the lower speed and then process the digital recorded signal down with software to equivalent of 1 7/8 with speed and pitch adjustment.
As it is, all that is audible, it is audible, sounds like a truck load of chipmunks mating.
I have heads thinking about this problem. Suggestions welcome.
Your humble Project Leader.
D Frank Robinson Update: The 1974 Convention tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips and should play once a capstan is found.
If it’s helpful, I have a working, professional quality, reel-to-reel deck.
(Also have a working 3/4 inch video deck, etc).
Joe
Would love to see them.
At some point, perhaps after 1974, Jim Turney (who served as National Chair 1988-1989) began making video recordings of Nat Conventions. I wonder if and where these are?
You can count me in to assist with the transcription process.
You can actually do some rudimentary speech-to-text through Google Docs (see http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-how-to-speech-to-text-in-google-docs/ for instructions). It’s not perfect, but it’s hard to compete on the price.
Very cool. I look forward to watching these videos.
Stewart, I have been following this for a while, and I am really thrilled to hear about it. I am particularly interested in the SoP edits of 1974. I think the context pretty conclusively can inferred as to what happened, but I would like to hear the words myself.
I think there will also be a very very discernible change from 1972 to 1974.
I would strongly urge Mr. Robinson to coordinate with the professional historians at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, who have a great deal of expertise in transcribing historical political recordings from this era. http://millercenter.org/
This is very interesting news. There are quite a few of us who would find listening to the tapes very informative. I’ve heard a few stories about what happened at these first two conventions, but listening to it would be great.
Commenting to subscribe. So excited about this project.