Talk:24: The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU

From Wiki 24

Where the heck did "August 26, 2002" come from? I've read the book several times and don't recall ever seeing a specific date. --Proudhug 14:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's on the bottom of every page. Also on the title page after the Key Events at a Glance section. --StBacchus 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy friggin' crap, how did I never even noticed that there before!?! That's gonna help out a lot for my timeline! I'm glad you pointed that out. However, you're interpreting it wrong. Day 1 takes place during 2002. Here's the timeline:

• April 2002 - Day 1 happens.
• June 10, 2002 - The House Special Subcommitte's hearing takes place. (from title page)
• August 26, 2002 - The hearing dossier "accidentally" becomes declassified and is leaked to Marc Cerasini. He begins working to publish this document publicly.
• October 2002 - David Palmer wins the U.S. presidential election.
• January 2003 - Palmer is sworn in as President
• Early 2003 - Cerasini's compilation, The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU, is published by HarperEntertainment. (perhaps on January 21st, the "real" date of publication)
• October 2003 - Day 2 happens.

Stanford Shepard's "Political Correctness" segments were written specifically for Cerasini's publication and mention that Palmer won the election, but has yet to be sworn in. I always suspected this was when it all happened, but never had any concrete proof until now! Woohoo! I feel a lot better about the potential subjectivity of my timeline now. --Proudhug 16:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the hearings took place in November and December. Page 133: "We're almost ready for the midday break, then it's Thanksgiving recess..." and page 141: "...a month ago David Palmer was elected president...." So, the primary had to have been in 2001 or earlier. Oh, and there are two separate Stanford Shepard articles. One written in December before Palmer was sworn in, and the other for Cerasini's report. No, wait, I take that back...they aren't separate.... Hmm. --StBacchus 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, your right. Shit, I'd totally forgotten about the Thanksgiving thing. That screws everything up again. I guess I'm back where I started, with only about 70-80% of known information seeming to point towards Day 1 taking place in 2002. What do you suppose those two dates, "6/10/02" and "8/26/02", refer too? There are way too many abbreviations and acronyms there for it to make any sense to me, but it definitely doesn't look like a date of publication.

I hadn't read the book in a while, so I'd forgotten that "Political Correction" (not "Correctness", oops) was written by several people, not just Shepard. It is all supposed to be one article, though. --Proudhug 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I totally misread the Political Correction thing as a second title - oops! His article also ends with a statement to Fox News that they should hire Maureen Kingsley, and another article later on says that she was hired by Fox News, so that also suggests to me that Shepard's was written earlier. My guess is that 6/10/02 was when someone went through and took out the secret parts and 8/26/02 was the date the report was officially declassified. But yeah, I don't know what the alphabet soup means, either. --StBacchus 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

According to page 185, Mark DeSalvo was assigned to the Mobile Underground Detention and Detainment system in 2002, so it can't take place earlier than that. Those dates on the title page seem to be meaningless, unfortunately. --Proudhug 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)