Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Scally

Members
  • Posts

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chris Scally

  1. Well said, James. I would only add that Gary's work stands out like a beacon of light in the darkness, and sets the standard (albeit a high one) for real research, and the way in which such research should be presented. Chris.
  2. Thanks Gary - I've downloaded Volume 1. I don't think will constitute a "little light reading for the weekend" !!! Best wishes, Chris.
  3. Thanks for posting these great pictures, Rick. They are very helpful and informative for anyone who hasn't been to Dealey Plaza for whatever reason. Strange how, despite the passing years and the subtle changes in the Plaza, it somehow still remains the same !
  4. Hi Gary: May I add my congratulations and sincere thanks to you for all your work over many years, and all the help you have given so willingly to me and and many others. I wholeheartedly agree with Joe McBride's comments about your early work on the Tippit case - outstanding, and it has stood the test of time. I am eagerly awaiting reading "Chained To Fate" in due course.
  5. John Butler: For whatever reason, you seem intent on blaming me for having "convinced him [Pat Speer] that the boy's story was not true. Your investigations refute what Alan Smith stated in his statement to the Chicago Tribune. In doing so you and Speer painted the young man as an inept, immature, and confused young man." As previously explained, I believe Alan Smith's story, so I can only conclude that you have misread, misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented what I wrote back in 2014, and again yesterday. Which of those is correct is not for me to decide, but I can only repeat that I had no "agenda" of any kind, and to the very best of my knowledge, I have never communicated with Pat Speer on any subject, either directly or through any forum or newsgroup. I was, to the best of my recollection, completely unaware of any similar research Pat Speer had done, or was or might have been doing in regard to Alan Smith back in 2013-14. That said, I am too busy with other things to continue this conversation. I stand by what I said, and would reiterate that I have no animosity whatsoever towards Alan Smith, and apologise to him (if he is even aware of this thread) for any embarrassment it may have caused him. As for you, John, you could at least have extended me the courtesy of spelling my name correctly !
  6. John Butler wrote: "Speer and Scally denigrate Alan Smith as “mysterious”, “he claimed”, “was not able to confirm”, “whether he attended the school he claimed to have attended”, “was only 14 at the time”, “made a tentative ID”, “honest mistake”, “how many 14 year-olds know from the suburbs know”, “a wide-eyed 14 year old”, etc. They made a 14 year old student a bogey man. I have spent nearly 3 decades around 14 years-old kids. You can’t just say they are goofy because they are age 14 as Speer and Scally do. Kids are always surprising and many are more mature and intelligent than most think. Speer and Scally do a continuous ad hominem attack on Alan Smith to destroy his testimony. They had an agenda." John, I find your attack on me to be highly offensive, and would very much appreciate an apology from you on this Forum. I never had any "agenda", nor do I have one now. If you had taken the time to read my published article (referenced elsewhere in this thread), you would realise that my entire search for the two schoolboys in many of the photographs taken on the north side of Elm at and after the shooting came about as an indirect result of something else I was researching at the time. I have never met Alan Smith, and never never spoken to him, so as far as I'm aware (and hope), he is a healthy and happy man in his late 60's. In case you are interested, I concluded my research on Alan Smith in 2014 by writing: "We know that Alan Smith, a student at Stockard Middle School on Ravinia Drive in Dallas, was a witness to the assassination. We know he was in Dealey Plaza with some college friends, possibly from Stockard and the nearby Kimball High School. We know he was standing with a friend (who almost certainly was not Daniel Kendrick) on the north side of Elm Street when the shots were fired; that they both ran up to the shelter at the eastern end of the pergola after hearing the shots; and they then followed DPD Officer Clyde Haygood to the top of the grassy knoll, where it joins the railway embankment. We have also established that Bob Goodman is not Alan Smith, and was not even at the same school as Smith. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Goodman may initially have seen the story in the New York Times sometime after the assassination, and embellished his story from there." Furthermore, you would also know the relevance of Bob Goodman to the story if you had read my article. I wrote: "Ian Griggs [a UK-based author and researcher, and retired UK police officer] first met the man purporting to be Alan Smith in Dealey Plaza on Wednesday 25th November 1992. The man, who gave his name as Bob Goodman, said that as a 14 year-old who had skipped school without permission and was afraid of getting into trouble, he used the name ‘Alan Smith’ when he ‘phoned the local press and told them that the President had been struck in the forehead. Goodman said that at the time of the assassination, he had been in the north pergola with a friend." As for the man named Daniel Kendrick (referenced above), he was interviewed "at the very spot where he stood 50 years ago" on camera in Dealey Plaza on the 50th anniversary of the assassination by BBC North America Editor, Mark Mardell. Kendell said he was a 15-year old schoolboy who was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting. Viewing the interview footage, it took place at - or very close to - the spot where Alan Smith and his friend stood at the time of the shooting. Unfortunately, my extensive efforts to find Kendrick were unsuccessful, although I was as certain as I could be that he was not, in fact, Alan Smith's friend. In light of the foregoing, I would invite you to review and revise your information on this issue, as well as your highly erroneous and ill-informed opinion of me and my motives, before you insult me further, and I look forward to reading your apology here in due course. Chris Scally
  7. Ray / Paul: The officer in the Bell and Couch frames above is B.W. Hargis, who was riding to the left of the presidential limo and who, having abandoned his motorcycle in the left-most lane of Elm Street just seconds after the shooting, ran across Elm towards the lamppost. He is also seen in other photographs (one of the Bond slides, I'm almost certain) returning to his motorcycle a few seconds later. Chris.
  8. I, too, believe we have had more than enough of this back-and-forth, tennis-style, trading of insults and personal attacks. I agree that this thread should be now be closed.
  9. James: There may be many people who will respond after the weekend (especially this weekend, with St. Patrick's Day AND a rugby Gland Slam AND Rory McIlroy winning the golf tournament in the USA last night AND a Bank Holiday today here in Ireland!), so perhaps giving them a little more time before deciding to let it slip into obscurity might hopefully elicit more responses. I - for one - would certainly be extremely sorry to see the demise of this Forum. For myself, my slow response was partly due to the fact that I was trying to figure out how to get the IGNORE facility to work, which Michael Clark kindly explained to us a few hours ago (Thanks, Michael). As a result, I have set a few people to IGNORE status, and if that works, and if others were to follow suit, the people concerned might begin to get the message that their vitriolic and (in a few cases) foul, potty-mouthed contributions are neither appreciated nor wanted. In terms of your own comments and your point of view, I totally agree with you, and I think Mark Knight's words were also very well chosen. The English language is a very rich and powerful one, but it is also flexible to the point where unscrupulous people can say one thing while clearly meaning another. So I totally agree - language IS important, as is respect for the POV of others, and indeed RESPECT as a general concept. Sadly, this is not the only Forum where the most basic standards of human decency to one's fellow man (and woman) have slid to an level which is unacceptable to many of us. However, the level of moderation needed to control the few are totally beyond the level that we, the membership, should ask of you and your team. Accordingly, I would recommend wholeheartedly that those of us who are interested in intelligent and civil discourse on the true subject matter of this Forum (as opposed to some of the totally insane theories which are sometimes peddled here and elsewhere) consider the simple option of ignoring all posts from those who seek to bring this Forum to its knees. To allow the Forum to close is to allow the keyboard bullies and loonies to get exactly what they wanted in the first place, and I would hate to think that we allowed that to happen through our inaction. Just my tuppence worth !!! Chris
  10. Jamey: I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in the age-old dispute over the authenticity of the Zapruder film, but I am very interested in your comment about how one "could also use information from other assassination films and photographs such as the Nix film and others which have also been altered" when studying the Zapruder film. Any information - supported by authentic documentation and/or photo evidence, if possible - that you can provide to establish either the current whereabouts of the camera-original Nix film or that it has been altered, would be most helpful to current on-going research. Any assistance will be very much appreciated, please. Chris.
  11. Thanks, James, and a Very Happy Christmas to you and yours also.
  12. On Thursday, David Josephs posted (above): "If Chris can comment on what he believes happens to the Rowley Film (not offered in this timeline) it would be appreciated... I've exchanged emails and discussed this with Chris but cannot find any conclusions...." David: I’ve just seen your post (quoted above), so apologies for the delay in replying. I’ve effectively “retired” from JFK assassination research since early last year, but I still like to keep in touch with developments. As a result of my “retirement”, however, most of my files have been boxed-up and put into storage, so I can only give you a response as best I can from memory. The Rowley Film, as you accurately describe it, was one of what I believe were two copies of the film, given by Zapruder to Max Phillips on the night of the assassination (one of the two copies of the film was in a Kodak film box, with the number #0186 on it – I got a photo of the box from NARA some years ago; as I recall, they found it for me in a Secret Service file). Phillips sent one copy to Chief Rowley later that night, on a Navy jet which left Dallas Hensley Field Naval Air Station on Mountain Creek Road (or Lane?) almost certainly prior to midnight. There was a story in circulation at one time that Zapruder himself had taken the film to the air station, but I was never able to verify that. The second copy given to Phillips, as I recall, was given to Forrest Sorrels (or his secretary, Lillian Ryan?) probably early the next morning, November 23. As I recall, the copy Sorrels received was a 16mm-wide copy (ie. An unslit version), as his boss, Insp. Kelley supposedly loaned it the FBI on the Saturday morning. Also, I seem to recall, the FBI kept that copy of the film, and – having failed to get it copied in Dallas - sent it to headquarters on an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Baltimore early on Saturday evening. The Secret Service had to ask for its return on Monday afternoon, and eventually got it back from the FBI sometime on Tuesday. This would also explain why Sorrels didn’t have a copy of the film over the weekend – he was depending on Zapruder to project his (Zapruder’s) copy of the film for him over the weekend. Unfortunately, despite many years – and I do mean “years” – of searching, I could never fully and completely document the chain of possession of that Rowley Copy of the film after it arrived in Washington - or indeed, of any of the other first-day copies either. While I have this opportunity, I should add that I also made a determined effort over an extended period of time to find out what version (or versions) of the film Life obtained on the morning of Saturday, November 23. Having spoken to a number of the individuals concerned (including Richard Stolley and – via a third party – the Life Editor in Chicago to whom the film was sent on Saturday midday/early afternoon), I believe that Stolley sent the camera original film to Life in Chicago on a commercial flight from Love Field in Dallas to Medway (or Midway?) airport in Chicago, a belief supported by the person to whom it was addressed in Chicago. This supposed camera-original film was copied by/for Life in Chicago on Saturday evening, while they were preparing the November 29 issue. Three B&W copies were made, and Rollie Zavada has told me that he is fully confident - having examined one or more of those copies – that it was made from a camera-original film, and not a copy. And that leads me to another element of the story. In 2011, I had the very good fortune to be given access to a copy of one of those 16mm black-and-white copies, which was clearly and undoubtedly made before it was slit to 8mm width or damaged by Life or anyone else. I was able to examine the film at great length, and because it was in unslit format, I could view the two sides of the film simultaneously (which is a little disconcerting the first time you view it, as the image on one side is moving in one direction, while the other half of the screen is moving simultaneously in the opposite direction!). However, viewing the film this way also allows you to view the complete - and rarely (if ever?) seen - footage of Zapruder’s grandchildren playing in his back yard, as well as the full Lillian Rogers “office” scene (Side A), while looking at the assassination side (Side B of the film at the same time. Examining the film this way shows that there is no splice or other damage on Side B, but perhaps more importantly, it clearly shows not discontinuity or unnatural movement on Side A either. It is that, more than anything else, which has convinced me that the film was unaltered and un-tampered with at that point in time – the evening of Saturday November 23, in Chicago. To return to your original question, I think the problem is that we do not have what can honestly and incontrovertibly be described as a complete, documented and verifiable chain-of-possession for ANY of the copies of the Zapruder film, or even the original itself. However, by working backwards to as close as possible to around 9 pm on the evening of the assassination, when Zapruder left Kodak with his original and copies, we can make what I can only describe as “educated guesses” about where each print of the film was at any given time. I know that isn’t what we would like, but it unfortunately seems as if that is all we will ever be able to do. Sorry for the length of this reply, David (et al), but I was working from memory and tried to include as much as I could remember, without getting into any of the authenticity issues. If you wish, I’ll try to answer any other questions you may have, but I must emphasize that my responses will only be good as my memory! Regards, Chris
  13. Mr. Harris: Can I just reiterate - from my own personal experience - that NOBODY knows of the existence and contents of every piece of paper in every file in NARA. I will add that even the originators of some of those documents themselves don't remember anything about them. I can give you a very recent specific example of this - the NARA staff copied a series of documents for me recently, and I subsequently contacted the originator of the documents through a third party in order to follow-up on the contents of the set of documents. The originator, who was a research attorney for the HSCA, has no recollection of the anything to do with the subject matter (which was of some serious interest to the HSCA), much less the contents of that specific series of documents. Contact with a member of the HSCA Panel which dealt with the issue, and with which the panel member in question had personal involvement, got the same reply - no recollection whatsoever! Take that in the context of the voluminous JFK assassination files at NARA, and it is a constant source of amazement to me that the under-resourced staff at NARA can find even half of what that do find. The record-keeping of such as the HSCA and ARRB was shamefully inadequate, incomplete and inept, and if Gary says he found a particular document, then I would have no reason whatsoever to doubt him. Just my tuppence-worth! Chris.
  14. I've had the same message repeatedly for the past 45 minutes, but it seems to have cleared again.
  15. Jim: I've always suspected - but without any evidence to support it - that they might have been told to to keep quiet by someone. On the other hand, I understood Mr. McFarland was a top surgeon in the UK at the time, so he may have made the decision to keep his mouth shut of his own volition. Looks like another thing we will never know for certain. C.
  16. Good article, John, and thanks for bringing it to our attention, Jim. I can just add a small side-note to this story, which may be of some interest. In June 1976, I was living in England, and I decided to contact Dr. & Ms. McFarland, who were on the bus journey from Nuevo Laredo to Mexico City with Osborne and Oswald. In a letter to the McFarlands dated June 20, 1976, I asked them if they could identify a photo of one Fred Lee Crisman as the man who sat with Oswald on the bus - you may be aware that back then there was some discussion about Crisman, Osborne and Bowen possibly being one and the same person. Their reply, dated June 24 and signed on their behalf by someone whom I believe to have been Dr. McFarland's secretary, simply said that "Mr. and Mrs. McFarland have given their evidence with regard to this matter and have nothing further to add." I always thought it was a rather bland, formal and "official" reply ... ! Chris
  17. Michael, As far as I can recall, and I'm reasonably certain of this, there was such a timing analysis done a number of years ago. I don't have it to hand right now, but I know I've seen such a document (and it wasn't Myers' study). Sorry I can't be more specific right now, but I will try to get more details for you in the next week, if that helps. Chris
  18. George: If the camera-original film was at Life in Chicago well into the Saturday evening, as the evidence clearly suggests, then how could Dino Brugioni have been looking at a slit, 8mm film at NPIC around 10pm that same evening, and believe it to be the original? In addition, it is worth looking at exactly what Brugioni said in his interviews with Peter Janney in May 2009 and Doug Horne in July 2011: Peter Janney (PJ): There’s a paper trail a mile long of the film having been processed in Dallas (on Friday) … that’s where it gets confusing. Because your testimony is that the original arrived at NPIC the next day (Saturday), at 10 pm, and that there was no doubt about it, that it was an 8mm film, and that you were working with the original. Dino Brugioni (DB): I know it was an original because we all put on white gloves. PJ: But you don’t remember the Secret Service saying that they had come from Chicago, or Dallas, or Rochester? DB: No, no, no. ....... Doug Horne (DH): Dino, do you think you had an original home movie, or a copy? Dino Brugioni (DB): No doubt in my mind we had the original. DH: And why do you say that? DB: Because two reasons. One, the – the, eh, the fact that the Secret Service was bringing it in, and the second thing is when I looked at it – it, it was not processed in, in a typical commercial fashion. It [unclear, but sounds like “wasn’t”] in a box, a little box, or anything like, like that. It was very well controlled all the time. That film was controlled by the Secret Service all the time it was there. [Some discussion skipped] DH: Do you recall any image bleed-over … DB: No. DH: … between the sprocket holes? DB: No. DH: … OK. So, Dino Brugioni "knew it was an original because we all put on white gloves", the film was not in typical commercial packing, and because the Secret Service brought it to NPIC and were very protective of the film. It is also important to remember that he said he did not see any inter-sprocket imagery on the film he studied, which should have been the case if it were the original film. I am not suggesting for a single moment any dishonesty on the part of Mr. Brugioni, and I fully respect him as an expert in his field. However, I would suggest that his memory might be slightly at fault on this issue. Given that he was being asked about the detail of something that had happened over 40 years earlier, and that he was well advanced in years when he was first asked about the film, he may well have mis-remembered part of the details - it happens to all of us, I'm afraid. That is my take on the situation, however, but I do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth, so - while I firmly believe I'm correct - I accept that I could be wrong !!!
  19. Hi, George: There is no evidence to show that the original film was at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination, and much evidence to indicate that it was not there. Zapruder had the original from Friday evening until Saturday morning, at which time he gave it to Life. It was then flown to Chicago, where three B&W copies were made as a first step. The frames they wanted to use in the November 29 issue were then identified, and prints were made in preparation for the magazine. The film was then damaged by a lab technician in Chicago, and it was send to Life headquarters in New York on the Sunday morning. My research into the history of the film indicated that the first copy that NPIC got was probably (almost certainly) one of the two copied that Zapruder delivered to the Secret Service office in Dallas late on the Friday night, and which they sent later that night to Headquarters - the second copy that went to NPIC was probably the second Secret Service copy, which the Dallas office had loaned to the FBI on Saturday morning, and which was then forwarded to FBI HQ by the FBI in Dallas on a commercial flight on Saturday afternoon. Chris
  20. Jeff: Excellent article, very fair and balanced, as are your later comments in this post. Personally, I find it very frustrating to listen to this debate about how the film could have been "manipulated" by the CIA/FBI/Hawkeye on the night of the assassination, or early the next day. Zapruder didn't give the original film to Richard Stolley of Life until mid-Saturday morning, and Stolley sent it directly to Life in Chicago. Three black-and-white copies were made off the then-still-unslit camera-original film in Chicago that evening during the preparation for Life's November 29 issue, which actually appeared on the following Tuesday/Wednesday, as I recall, and in which some of those B&W frames appeared. It was not until after those three B&W copies were made that the well-known damage to the film was done by a Life lab technician in Chicago that same evening. In July 2011 I had the very great fortune to view and study one of those three copies, and I will happily go to meet my maker in the certain and unshakable belief that the film had not been altered or manipulated in any way at that time. Karl, you are absolutely correct - the ARRB failed/refused to conduct proper or effective tests suggested by Zavada on both the original film and on Zapruder's actual camera. Chris.
  21. Robin: I wouldn't bother waiting for that apology - I suspect that we won't be hearing further from "Mr. Butler".
  22. John: I am fully aware that I used a frame which was not the same as the frame you used. My point is (and was) that the officer at the corner of Main and Houston was "real", and not a "cut apart policeman", and was actually DPD Sgt. Harkness. The unstated basis for your claim that "my" frame was an edit and yours was not is, to say the very least, difficult to understand. There is an abundance of evidence (photographic and audio) to support the presence of Harkness at that corner at the relevant time. He was told by the radio dispatcher to set up his traffic control position a few minutes before the motorcade arrived; when the official cars had passed through the intersection, the Hughes film shows him crossing to street to his motorcycle, which was parked on the west side of Houston and is also visible in a few frames from the Hughes film; and he is then seen travelling down Main towards the Underpass in (IIRC) the Paschal film, and again in the Daniels film as the limo exits the west side of the underpass. Confirmation that he is indeed a Sergeant is found in the Hughes frame below, where his shoulder stripes are clearly visible. I have tried to be helpful to you and your research, but as you wish to persist in claiming that many/most of the assassination films have been altered, and ignoring all/any evidence which is contrary to that view, then I believe my efforts are and would continue to be in vain. Accordingly, I wish you well in your endeavours, but will not be responding or commenting further in this thread. Chris.
×
×
  • Create New...