Jump to content

The Chaney witnesses speak


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know about truth but I can certainly help with reading comprehension. The statement says the motorcycle got out of the way and the limousine entered the underpass. It's a mystery how Jim and Jack get from that to the motorcycle led the limousine into the underpass. But I'm sure there must be more. Right?
We can all be grateful that Jerry Logan is here to help us in our search for truth! You're doin' great, Jer!

Logan, feigning incomprehensibility, pretends not to understand

after the motorcycle got out the way

Nobody said anything about "led the limousine into the underpass". Those are Logan's words.

The quote says...

after the motorcycle got out the way

Unless Logan is dumber than he pretends, that is a very clear statement.

NOW, we will put Logan to the test. He needs to show us any Zapruder frame where a motorcycle

is in the way of the limousine.

Next?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Jack, are you sure that's what you want to say? Are you sure that's what Jim means? Because Jim has been strutting around like a peacock claiming that the Simmons statement shows the motorcycle met up with the lead car in the triple underpass. So just to be sure - you don't think Simmons statement says anything about the motorcycle entering the triple underpass? When Simmons says "Yes, sir, went directly under us", he means the limousine, correct? The only reason the statement is important is because it talks about a motorcycle getting out of the way and the photo record doesn't show a motorcycle in the way? Is that right? I Just want to be sure we understand each other before I explain the photos to you.

I don't know about truth but I can certainly help with reading comprehension. The statement says the motorcycle got out of the way and the limousine entered the underpass. It's a mystery how Jim and Jack get from that to the motorcycle led the limousine into the underpass. But I'm sure there must be more. Right?
We can all be grateful that Jerry Logan is here to help us in our search for truth! You're doin' great, Jer!

Logan, feigning incomprehensibility, pretends not to understand

after the motorcycle got out the way

Nobody said anything about "led the limousine into the underpass". Those are Logan's words.

The quote says...

after the motorcycle got out the way

Unless Logan is dumber than he pretends, that is a very clear statement.

NOW, we will put Logan to the test. He needs to show us any Zapruder frame where a motorcycle

is in the way of the limousine.

Next?

Jack

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOGAN STILL DOES NOT COMPREHEND:

The statement says a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Any reasonable person would interpret that statement to mean, well...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Now if

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

should the Zapruder film show...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine?

Any reasonable person would say if...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

...and the Z film does not show

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

then a major discrepancy exists.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jerry, I think, is turning into one of the grand time-wasters in the history of this forum. Like Lamson, he relies on the tried and true technique of NEVER FINDING THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT, virtually regardless of its quantity or quality. My own opinion is that he is a smooth operator in the tradition of distraction and obfuscation. Sorry, Jer, but that's my take. Your every post confirms it. I think we've got your number!

How many witnesses do we need, Jerry? The testimony is clear and there is only one reasonable explanation. I think you'd be a great Florida real estate or used car salesman. You'd make a mint!
Jim,

If those are the only two alternatives you can imagine you have a very limited capacity to grasp the complexity of the real world.

Still, I don't think that subtly changing eyewitness statements is justified just because of your limited view.

The Triple Underpass was known as the Triple Underpass - Curry broadcasts that the lead car is at the Triple Underpass.

So when we have the well-know "Triple Underpass" and the Stemmons underpass why would you assume without note that Sorrels has chosen for reasons unknown to rename and downgrade the Triple Underpass?

Since you like to reason things out - why didn't Sorrels mention the limousine stop?

Jerry

Jerry Logan is a silver-tongued devil. The Triple Underpass is called the

"underpass" because that is its name. Since Jerry admits that there is

ample proof that Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the

president had been shot, WHEN COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED? Unless

the motorcade stopped, there would have been no serious possibility.

Official account (ala Jerry Logan):

(a) Greer said he hit the accelerator after the second shot (Connally).

(B) From that point on, it was a high-speed race to Parkland Hospital.

© Cheif Curry would have known by then why they were racing there.

(d) There was no point in Chaney informing him what he already knew.

Revised account (John Costella, Jack White, Jim Fetzer, and others):

(a') Greer brought the limo to a stop (as 60 witnesses have reported).

(b') Chaney saw JFK hit in the head, probably the shot from behind.

(c') He took the opportunity to motor forward to inform Chief Curry.

(d') When the limo roared past, they all headed for Parkland Hospital.

No other scenario makes any sense. It would not have happened if

the limousine were already traveling at high speed to the hospital.

They were in contact with Chief Curry by phone and he would have

already known before reaching the exit to the Stemmons Freeway.

As long as Chaney actually did motor forward to inform Chief Curry,

there is only one scenario that fits: the limo came to a stop; JFK was

hit in the back of the head; Chaney motored forward to inform Chief

Curry. Jerry Logan, who came out of nowhere, is a smooth operator.

And smooth operators can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded.

Thanks for posting the photo of the BRIDGE, which is CLEARLY not an underpass,

and is CLEARLY far away from Dealey Plaza where the witnesses described the

ACTIVITIES IN THE MOTORCADE.

I will give an example of the use of the words AS TEXANS USE THEM at least.

I live in Fort Worth, the 17th largest city in the US. Fort Worth has only FIVE

UNDERPASSES that I can think of...BUT IT HAS HUNDREDS OF BRIDGES. Texans

know the difference between a bridge and an underpass. In an underpass, THE

SIDES ARE ENCLOSED. Think of the word TUNNEL. An underpass in usually a

short TUNNEL under an obstruction (in Dealey Plaza a large number of rail tracks(.

On the other hand, bridges have NO ENCLOSURE. Bridges are a means of

transporting traffic OVER an obstruction, such as a road over a river or a road

over a river, or in some cases over an otherwise unsuitable area, like a swamp.

So word-splitter Logan would be laughed out of court trying to prove that the

Stemmons BRIDGE constituted an UNDERPASS. It is absurd. There is no

inclosure under the bridge making it into a tunnel. Traffic passing under a bridge

does NOT make it an underpass!

And from the Stemmons Freeway, Chief Curry could not look back into his

rear view mirror to see the activity he described about the JFK limo, BECAUSE

BY THAT TIME THE LIMO HAD ALREADY PASSED HIM.

Deliberate obfuscation of the truth shows which side Logan is on....truth or

COVERUP.

Jack

Ok Jack, I think we've had enough fun so let's get serious .

As you see it, it's all in my mind - that's a bridge not an underpass.

And no Texan, no one from Dallas in particular would call it an underpass because it's a bridge as any fool can plainly see, right?

They'd laugh someone out of court who called that anything but a bridge.

Well, as I'm sure you know, Officer Murphy and his three wheeler were assigned to sit on top of that "bridge" to provide security for the motorcade.

So, where exactly was Officer Murphy assigned?

assign.png

And where did Officer Murphy think he was?

murphy.png

He wasn't assigned to a bridge - he was assigned to the overpass and he seemed to think he was on the Stemmons Freeway overpass.

What's underneath an overpass Jack?

If an overpass is above, what's below?

Jerry

Jack, are you sure that's what you want to say? Are you sure that's what Jim means? Because Jim has been strutting around like a peacock claiming that the Simmons statement shows the motorcycle met up with the lead car in the triple underpass. So just to be sure - you don't think Simmons statement says anything about the motorcycle entering the triple underpass? When Simmons says "Yes, sir, went directly under us", he means the limousine, correct? The only reason the statement is important is because it talks about a motorcycle getting out of the way and the photo record doesn't show a motorcycle in the way? Is that right? I Just want to be sure we understand each other before I explain the photos to you.
I don't know about truth but I can certainly help with reading comprehension. The statement says the motorcycle got out of the way and the limousine entered the underpass. It's a mystery how Jim and Jack get from that to the motorcycle led the limousine into the underpass. But I'm sure there must be more. Right?
We can all be grateful that Jerry Logan is here to help us in our search for truth! You're doin' great, Jer!

Logan, feigning incomprehensibility, pretends not to understand

after the motorcycle got out the way

Nobody said anything about "led the limousine into the underpass". Those are Logan's words.

The quote says...

after the motorcycle got out the way

Unless Logan is dumber than he pretends, that is a very clear statement.

NOW, we will put Logan to the test. He needs to show us any Zapruder frame where a motorcycle

is in the way of the limousine.

Next?

Jack

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my questions. I appreciate someone's who's willing to make his position perfectly clear.

You're right - a reasonable person would interpret the statement "the motorcycle got out of the way" to imply there was a motorcycle in the way.

Unfortunately, you've interpreted it to mean "a motorcycle was in front of the limousine." Once again, demonstrating the unfortunate tendency you and Jim share to leap to unfounded conclusions on limited evidence.

To simplify for your benefit, something is in my way when it impedes my progress in any direction. You seem to have completely forgotten that the limousine not only moved forward after the head shot, it also moved into the right lane from the center lane. I'm sure you'll recall that Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore all show a motorcycle in the right lane beside the limousine shortly after the head shot. The motorcycle slowed and got out of the limousine's path to the right lane.

And since Simmons was viewing the events head on and centered over the right lane the motorcycle did, in fact, "get out of the way" and allow the limousine to move into the right lane directly beneath him.

Would you like pictures?

LOGAN STILL DOES NOT COMPREHEND:

The statement says a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Any reasonable person would interpret that statement to mean, well...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Now if

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

should the Zapruder film show...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine?

Any reasonable person would say if...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

...and the Z film does not show

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

then a major discrepancy exists.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Jack, you keep repeating this even after I posted the DPD duty assignments and Officer Murphy's statements which all call the "bridge" an overpass. You're right, a lawyer wouldn't keep repeating the same old things long after they've been demonstrated to be incorrect. Lawyers realize most people find that unpersuasive.

Didn't someone say Jerry is a lawyer? That may explain his twisting words

to mean what he wants them to mean...like a bridge is an underpass.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my questions. I appreciate someone's who's willing to make his position perfectly clear.

You're right - a reasonable person would interpret the statement "the motorcycle got out of the way" to imply there was a motorcycle in the way.

Unfortunately, you've interpreted it to mean "a motorcycle was in front of the limousine." Once again, demonstrating the unfortunate tendency you and Jim share to leap to unfounded conclusions on limited evidence.

To simplify for your benefit, something is in my way when it impedes my progress in any direction. You seem to have completely forgotten that the limousine not only moved forward after the head shot, it also moved into the right lane from the center lane. I'm sure you'll recall that Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore all show a motorcycle in the right lane beside the limousine shortly after the head shot. The motorcycle slowed and got out of the limousine's path to the right lane.

And since Simmons was viewing the events head on and centered over the right lane the motorcycle did, in fact, "get out of the way" and allow the limousine to move into the right lane directly beneath him.

Would you like pictures?

LOGAN STILL DOES NOT COMPREHEND:

The statement says a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Any reasonable person would interpret that statement to mean, well...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Now if

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

should the Zapruder film show...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine?

Any reasonable person would say if...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

...and the Z film does not show

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

then a major discrepancy exists.

Jack

He does not grasp that A MOTORCYCLE in the way of the limo speeding up BEFORE IT REACHES THE UNDERPASS

IS NOT SEEN IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my questions. I appreciate someone's who's willing to make his position perfectly clear.

You're right - a reasonable person would interpret the statement "the motorcycle got out of the way" to imply there was a motorcycle in the way.

Unfortunately, you've interpreted it to mean "a motorcycle was in front of the limousine." Once again, demonstrating the unfortunate tendency you and Jim share to leap to unfounded conclusions on limited evidence.

To simplify for your benefit, something is in my way when it impedes my progress in any direction. You seem to have completely forgotten that the limousine not only moved forward after the head shot, it also moved into the right lane from the center lane. I'm sure you'll recall that Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore all show a motorcycle in the right lane beside the limousine shortly after the head shot. The motorcycle slowed and got out of the limousine's path to the right lane.

And since Simmons was viewing the events head on and centered over the right lane the motorcycle did, in fact, "get out of the way" and allow the limousine to move into the right lane directly beneath him.

Would you like pictures?

LOGAN STILL DOES NOT COMPREHEND:

The statement says a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Any reasonable person would interpret that statement to mean, well...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine.

Now if

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

should the Zapruder film show...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine?

Any reasonable person would say if...

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

...and the Z film does not show

a motorcycle was in the way of the limousine

then a major discrepancy exists.

Jack

He does not grasp that A MOTORCYCLE in the way of the limo speeding up BEFORE IT REACHES THE UNDERPASS

IS NOT SEEN IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM!

Jack

Does Logan finally understand? He has not responded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another...Lumpkin:

Officer Lumpkin, one of three cops riding ahead of the Curry lead car (seen in McIntire) says:

1. They were stopped at the time of the shots (seen in Bell film just beyond the underpass).

2. Looked back saw commotion in limo.

3. Chaney rode up to Curry car to tell him the president had been shot.

4. We were still stopped at that time.

5. Curry came on radio and said "Let's go, boys".

6. Chaney came forward and joined the 3 at the Stemmons entrance ramp.

7. Lumpkin, Gray and Chaney led the way to Parkland.

post-667-1265162333_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is about all over now. I have found an image of Chaney's motorcycle approaching

the Chaney car. It had been overlooked all these years because the frame is very dark,

but when enhanced, the object can be nothing except a fast moving motorycle in the middle

of Elm Street aproaching the Chaney car which is not in the underpass. It shows exactly what

all the witnesses said. I will post it after I do a few finishing touches.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is about all over now. I have found an image of Chaney's motorcycle approaching

the Chaney car. It had been overlooked all these years because the frame is very dark,

but when enhanced, the object can be nothing except a fast moving motorycle in the middle

of Elm Street aproaching the Chaney car which is not in the underpass. It shows exactly what

all the witnesses said. I will post it after I do a few finishing touches.

Jack

Awesome Jack

Cant wait to see the image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is about all over now. I have found an image of Chaney's motorcycle approaching

the Chaney car. It had been overlooked all these years because the frame is very dark,

but when enhanced, the object can be nothing except a fast moving motorycle in the middle

of Elm Street aproaching the Chaney car which is not in the underpass. It shows exactly what

all the witnesses said. I will post it after I do a few finishing touches.

Jack

I am holding up for a little while on posting this. I am having email discussions with John

Costella about the image. He wants me to make sure it is not some other object in the street

before posting it. Admittedly the image is blurry, but it looks very much like a motorcycle.

Most of you except Logan will think it appears to be a motorcycle approaching the Curry

car, which is still in sunlight outside of the underpass.

I have been reviewing the Bell film for about an hour. I will post the image shortly unless

Costella proves the blurry image is something else.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is about all over now. I have found an image of Chaney's motorcycle approaching

the Chaney car. It had been overlooked all these years because the frame is very dark,

but when enhanced, the object can be nothing except a fast moving motorycle in the middle

of Elm Street aproaching the Chaney car which is not in the underpass. It shows exactly what

all the witnesses said. I will post it after I do a few finishing touches.

Jack

I am holding up for a little while on posting this. I am having email discussions with John

Costella about the image. He wants me to make sure it is not some other object in the street

before posting it. Admittedly the image is blurry, but it looks very much like a motorcycle.

Most of you except Logan will think it appears to be a motorcycle approaching the Curry

car, which is still in sunlight outside of the underpass.

I have been reviewing the Bell film for about an hour. I will post the image shortly unless

Costella proves the blurry image is something else.

Jack

Well...back to the drawing board. Costella has sent me a SUPERIOR frame than the very

dark Groden frame I used. In it, it can be seen that the blurry object is the JFK limo, not

a motorcycle, even though it is smaller than the Curry car ahead of it. I find this rather

curious, but will do a new composite and post it. You will be able to see why I think it

looks like a motorcycle.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...