Jerry Logan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) My sincere apologies to all those who knew it must be coming and dreaded the moment. We spent a lot of time studying the memories of various witnesses. I'd like to get comments on these two photos. Can they be reconciled with the view that Officer Chaney sped ahead of the Presidential limousine to inform Chief Curry of what had transpired? Many thanks to Robin Unger for maintaining the archive from which these images were taken. I think it should be known that Robin spent a substantial sum of his own money to obtain the Altgens photo from Corbis and all his efforts are much appreciated. Edited February 4, 2010 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) My sincere apologies to all those who knew it must be coming and dreaded the moment. We spent a lot of time studying the memories of various witnesses. I'd like to get comments on these two photos. Can they be reconciled with the view that Officer Chaney sped ahead of the Presidential limousine to inform Chief Curry of what had transpired? Many thanks to Robin Unger for maintaining the archive from which these images were taken. I think it should be known that Robin spent a substantial sum of his own money to obtain the Altgens photo from Corbis and all his efforts are much appreciated. Hi Jerry Thanks for the comments. Here is the "full size" Altgens 7 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...10001/10356.jpg Edited February 4, 2010 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 No, Jerry, it can't be reconciled. I am looking forward to Jack posting a full res unretouched photo that he states shows it along with his interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dugan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 No, Jerry, it can't be reconciled. I am looking forward to Jack posting a full res unretouched photo that he states shows it along with his interpretation. its going to be his usual garb. Everything is faked, everything is altered. But he wants other people in the forum to do research on photos. Pure lunacy. This picture (which is great btw) is perfect photographic evidence that refutes the Chaney riding forward theory. Well, let the denial start flowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) imo this does not look good it gives me the impression this thread was planned and started deliberately by the two?? three ?? or more sitting back watching...???waiting...with heads together who now are sitting and waiting to pounce of course no matter what he replies it will be thoroughly pounced on and distorted let alone dennounced ...imo this type of thing does not give any credit to any forum let alone an educational..one....but it will proceed i am sure..but imo it does look bad..that the get at jack has gotten to this stage by some..it makes them to me appear very small....give them a break IMO Jack and do not reply it would serve them right. .and look very good on them... ..b..imo Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Darn it, busted. not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) Dont write off the history, or Jack, just yet. There is enough evidence that Altgens photos were altered - crowds looking at the photographer but not the limo; the appearance of Billy Lovelady wearing an Oswald-style shirt, standing next to a figure whose head is blacked out. If the framing of the limo in the Z-film head shot frames is skewed in a way that prevents seeing what happens on the limo's right, then there is no full-frame reference from which to judge what happened, and the other films are insufficient, in innocent ways or other. Edited February 4, 2010 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) imo this does not look good it gives me the impression this thread was planned and started deliberately by the two?? three ?? or more sitting back watching...???waiting...with heads together who now are sitting and waiting to pounce of course no matter what he replies it will be thoroughly pounced on and distorted let alone dennounced ...imo this type of thing does not give any credit to any forum let alone an educational..one....but it will proceed i am sure..but imo it does look bad..that the get at jack has gotten to this stage by some..it makes them to me appear very small....give them a break IMO Jack and do not reply it would serve them right. .and look very good on them... ..b..imo Bernice, You are a good woman with a kind heart. I hope you'll believe that the only person who planned anything about this thread was me. During the seemingly endless rounds of Chaney witness discussion I repeatedly asked Jim and Jack to address the McIntire and Altgens photos and they never answered. The photos are important and I've given Jim and Jack every opportunity on multiple occasions to explain how these photos fit into what they believe happened. John Dolva and I have never communicated in anyway whatsoever except in our public posts on the Forum. I've seen John Dugan's posts but I don't think we've replied to each other much less formed a secret plan. You can think whatever you like of me, but John and John are not part of some grand scheme and I would hate to see them tarred by the same brush with which some seem to be seeking to paint me. I appreciate your defense of Jack but if you check the record I think you'll see that my "attacks" have largely consisted of questioning his conclusions and asking him to present evidence and analysis. Jack, on the other hand, has called me a dunce, ignorant, an agent of disinformation, a twister of words and a wolf in sheep's clothing. What I'm trying to convey is that Jack has tried to make this some type of personal issue and replied with a great deal of personal invective while I've tried to avoid this. I confess that I've occasionally risen to the bait when I've been tired or particularly annoyed but my default inclination is to simply discuss the evidence and leave personal attacks out of the equation. They are a distraction as evidenced by the fact that we're reviewing who said what about who in what should be a serious thread on the Education Forum. I've never thought calling people names was useful and, although I've been snippy on occasion, I've never called Jack a name or questioned his motives or sincerity. Bernice you are so sweet and it hurts me (yes, really) that someone as nice as you could think so badly of me. I hope you might go back and reread some my posts as well as Jack's and reconsider. My very best regards to you, Jerry Edited February 4, 2010 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Yes, I think that is one of the greatest impediments, complete quality representations of what is purported to be true. So many images have been cropped, often irretrievably in the initial development stage, other times like the cancellare which is cropped at just the right point and the version that completes the pic is available but at a vastly reduced quality, slicing edges off altgens 6 for example. Those who knowingly withhold such from the public stand in the way of progress. AFA the other matter goes, Zapruder believes, as is shown in the beginning and the end of the film that what he sees through the viewfinder is that which is projected onto the film. While he is looking at the Limo in frame, the lens is looking elsewhere, IMO a reason to consider it's not altered in such dramatic ways as others will have it. It displays so much of the characteristics of an untrained/ignorant filmer. (I should know, I am one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Dont write off the history, or Jack, just yet. There is enough evidence that Altgens photos were altered - crowds looking at the photographer but not the limo; the appearance of Billy Lovelady wearing an Oswald-style shirt, standing next to a figure whose head is blacked out.If the framing of the limo in the Z-film head shot frames is skewed in a way that prevents seeing what happens on the limo's right, then there is no full-frame reference from which to judge what happened, and the other films are insufficient, in innocent ways or other. We're discussing a different Altgens photo that Jack has acknowledged was taken by Altgens. The photo we are discussing ran in papers on the evening of the assassination and Altgens identified this photo as his own. Even by Doug Horne's account this picture appeared in it's present form well before anyone had decided what needed to be altered in the Zapruder film, much less what needed to be altered in other films to support the altered Zapruder film. That's why this photo is such a problem for the Chaney theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 imo this does not look good it gives me the impression this thread was planned and started deliberately by the two?? three ?? or more sitting back watching...???waiting...with heads together who now are sitting and waiting to pounce of course no matter what he replies it will be thoroughly pounced on and distorted let alone dennounced ...imo this type of thing does not give any credit to any forum let alone an educational..one....but it will proceed i am sure..but imo it does look bad..that the get at jack has gotten to this stage by some..it makes them to me appear very small....give them a break IMO Jack and do not reply it would serve them right. .and look very good on them... ..b..imo Bernice, what in the world are you talking about? "Started deliberately?" I think all anybody is trying to do here is have a productive discussion about the evidence. All one can hope is that Jack is willing to do the same when confronted here with photographs that seem to invalidate his theory about Chaney riding forward. There's nothing personal here. Let's talk about the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Bernice, this is a valuable thread. This is not some bushwhacking of Jack. In the last few weeks, Jack has injected his personal opinion that all the photo evidence is suspect into every discussion. Whenever someone points out something in the autopsy photos that Jack has missed, or points to a photo which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, he argues that ALL the photo evidence has been faked for one reason or another, and is not to be relied upon. Well, he slipped up. He suggested that he believes this Altgens photo is legitimate. Well, then... WHY doesn't it support what he says happened, and show Chaney racing up to the Curry car? Jerry's been trying to get answer on this for the last week or so. His creating a separate thread to once again raise this question and ensure an answer, if only the answer of avoidance, is only proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dugan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 No bashing here, just trying to understand Jack's logic, if its possible. The proof is in the photograph. And if the Altgens photo ran on the evening of the assassination, how could it have been altered? when was there time? and WHY? Like I have said earlier, there are many things that are fishy in the Z-film and those should be researched and discussed. But "not seeing Chaney ride up beside the lead car in the Z-film" is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 imo this does not look good it gives me the impression this thread was planned and started deliberately by the two?? three ?? or more sitting back watching...???waiting...with heads together who now are sitting and waiting to pounce of course no matter what he replies it will be thoroughly pounced on and distorted let alone dennounced ...imo this type of thing does not give any credit to any forum let alone an educational..one....but it will proceed i am sure..but imo it does look bad..that the get at jack has gotten to this stage by some..it makes them to me appear very small....give them a break IMO Jack and do not reply it would serve them right. .and look very good on them... ..b..imo Bernice, you are correct. It has been going on for many years, with just some new bashers added occassionally. The games they play are woefully obvious! Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 My sincere apologies to all those who knew it must be coming and dreaded the moment. We spent a lot of time studying the memories of various witnesses. I'd like to get comments on these two photos. Can they be reconciled with the view that Officer Chaney sped ahead of the Presidential limousine to inform Chief Curry of what had transpired? Many thanks to Robin Unger for maintaining the archive from which these images were taken. I think it should be known that Robin spent a substantial sum of his own money to obtain the Altgens photo from Corbis and all his efforts are much appreciated. YES...Chaney rides forward. Any photos which contradict the evidence are suspect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now