+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: What is James Chaney Looking Back at? (/thread-12101.html)
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - James Norwood - 01-02-2014
Marlene,
Thank you for your intervention and for your important reminder about free speech.
I honestly believe that Robert Dallek is a good presidential historian. He has made important inroads into our understanding of JFK's Vietnam policy. He is a cut above such popular historians as Robert Caro and Doris Kearns Goodwin, who are guilty of omitting from the historical record the criminal activities of Lyndon Johnson. By contrast, Dallek's book An Unfinished Life is a substantial work of scholarship that adds to our knowledge of JFK's presidency. It is deplorable that Dallek does not address the assassination with integrity. But that lapse does not invalidate his other research contributions. I expressed my views on Dallek on another thread, and Albert Doyle ridiculed me on that thread and now uses my opinions on Dallek to discredit my views on the Zapruder film. All the while, he offers no evidence of having read a single line written by Dallek. This is wrong.
Now, if we may get the thread back on track with Bob's posting of the photos of James Cheney, I would offer this observation as food for thought:
In photo #4, we see that James Chaney has advanced on his motorcycle about 1/4 of a mile down the Stemmons Freeway. He is leading the entourage of vehicles to Parkland Hospital. The large Hertz sign above the TSBD still indicates the time of 12:30. If the gunfire began on Elm Street shortly after 12:30, this means that if there was a limo stop, it had to be brief, as we see the limousine barreling down Stemmons in photo #4. It also means that in less than a minute, James Chaney passed the limousine on the right, stopped briefly to speak with Chief Curry in the pilot car, before proceeding down the Stemmons freeway.
Based on the 12:30 time indicated on the Hertz sign, Chaney should be visible in both the Nix and Zapruder films, as he passes the limousine on the right. That was precisely what he claimed happened, as indicated in his interview that appears on youtube. Yet, as Bob indicates, the Nix film depicts Chaney well in back of the limousine during the shooting.
The granddaughter of Orville Nix (Gayle Nix Jackson) has recently gone on the record by saying that she believes that when the government confiscated Nix's film, it was returned with splices. According to Gayle, frames of the film had clearly been deleted. Well, here is an example of what frames may have been omitted: Arguably, during a brief limo stop, James Chaney passes the limousine.
This is one of many aberrational elements with the Nix and Zapruder films, indicating tampering with this essential photographic evidence.
James
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - Bob Prudhomme - 01-02-2014
Hello James
I must reiterate that I posted incorrect information when I posted photo #4. Although Chaney did say, in an interview, that he led the procession to Parkland Hospital, he is not in that trio seen in photo #4. While many believe he can be seen sitting stationary under the Triple Underpass, it is possible he is leading the procession and was just not visible in photo #4.
As I said earlier, the Zapruder film showed three lead motorcycles making the turn onto Elm St., and, as the outside motorcycle makes a wide turn and gets lost from sight behind foliage, it was a popular belief this motorcycle did not turn but, rather, continued on Houston St. This would leave only two lead motorcycles, and it was assumed that Chaney made up the third part of the trio seen on Stemmons.
Once again, I ask you to look at this frame by frame version of the Z film. At the 2:00 mark, it is possible to see the third motorcycle appear from behind foliage for a few seconds on the north side of Elm St.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Lyv4wrJQU
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - James Norwood - 01-02-2014
Albert,
You certainly sound like an Old Testament prophet with all of those biblical references!
But your ramblings have nothing to do with the James Chaney thread.
Again, you are writing stream-of-consciousness nonsense that is an embarrassment to this site.
James
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - Keith Millea - 01-02-2014
AGAIN FROM MARLENE:
Quote:There is nothing wrong with squabbles - just that there is no need to insult a person for being incorrect about something or having a different opinion. We need squabbles to hash out the facts...
Quote:Again, you are writing stream-of-consciousness nonsense that is an embarrassment to this site.
James that's twice now that you have called Albert an embarrassment to this site.You can re-read the moderator's quote above.
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - James Norwood - 01-02-2014
Keith,
You too are an embarrassment to this site and a disgrace. In tracking your comments, I only have seen posts that seek to ridicule others, as if that is your sense of humor.
Marlene's comments are most germane to your posts, not to mine.
Do you have something to add to the Chaney thread? I suspect not. You would rather play the role of sanctimonious, pseudo moderator.
James
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - Keith Millea - 01-02-2014
James Norwood Wrote:Keith,
You too are an embarrassment to this site and a disgrace. In tracking your comments, I only have seen posts that seek to ridicule others, as if that is your sense of humor.
Marlene's comments are most germane to your posts, not to mine.
Do you have something to add to the Chaney thread? I suspect not. You would rather play the role of sanctimonious, pseudo moderator.
James
MODS:
Where are you?????
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - James Norwood - 01-02-2014
Keith,
You are engaged in "thread-wasting," which is in violation of the rules of this forum.
If you wish to communicate to the moderators like a cry-baby, why don't you try sending them a private message?
If not, let's get on with discussion of the Chaney thread.
James
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - Lauren Johnson - 01-02-2014
James Norwood Wrote:Keith,
You are engaged in "thread-wasting," which is in violation of the rules of this forum.
If you wish to communicate to the moderators like a cry-baby, why don't you try sending them a private message?
If not, let's get on with discussion of the Chaney thread.
James
Norwood, You really need to relax. IMO.
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - James Norwood - 01-02-2014
Johnson,
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite ready to "relax" when it comes to the lack of professionalism by the following two members of this site:
(1) Keith Millea: In an earlier thread on this site, I referenced an article that I wrote with Jim Fetzer. In multiple postings, Keith Millea attacked me for daring to collaborate with Dr. Fetzer. He never read my article, but felt compelled to chastise me for this association. I felt that this was a kind of McCarthyism that reflected poorly on this site. There was even innuendo that I should be "banned" because I published an article in collaboration with Dr. Fetzer.
(2) Albert Doyle: In an earlier thread, I indicated that there was some value to the books of Robert Dallek. In multiple threads, Doyle ridiculed me for expressing my opinion. Somehow my admiration of Dallek meant that my views on the Zapruder film were not valid. Even when moderator Marlene Zenker interceded, he kept up the assault on me regarding Dallek.
Both of the members above have an agenda with regard to whatever I post on this site. And now, you are suggesting that I need to "relax"?
Well, I have some advice for you, Johnson: You need to raise the bar in challenging members of your clique to higher standards of scholarship and professionalism, IMO.
James
What is James Chaney Looking Back at? - Bob Prudhomme - 02-02-2014
Well, all infighting aside
, how would they go about concealing a motorcycle passing the limousine when it stopped, and second, as many have asked, what would be the purpose of concealing this movement?The question of why is difficult to answer. It may have been to cover up the fact the limo came to a stop and gave Chaney enough time to ride ahead and bring Curry up to speed on the situation. I'm interested in any ideas people have on this.
The how is actually much easier. Beginning at frame z275 in the Zapruder film, the limo almost seems to drop out of the bottom of the picture. At one point, we are only able to see Connally from the shoulders up. The film stays like this until about z320, when Zapruder's camera pans downward to show us the entire limo. It has been suggested that Zapruder suffered from vertigo, and his secretary was there that day to steady him on the concrete pillar he was standing on, should he become dizzy.
My question is this; would an episode of vertigo cause a person filming the motorcade to lose the limo in the field of view for 45 frames? Here is another question; could a motorcycle have slipped by the limo, on the limo's right side, and be sufficiently out of the picture as to not appear on the Zapruder film?