Chaney Rides Forward?

[Paul Rigby]

5. If so, do you think the "entire photographic record is fake, or at least suspect" argument will ever be accepted by the mainstream media, academia, and even the public at large?

1) The mainstream media haven't accepted the arguments for conspiracy advanced on the basis of a lot of fake photography after, what, forty-odd years? So your argument is, presumably, we keep doing the same thing?

Very convincing.

2) And we should keep doing this thing that has so singularly failed, even though we don't believe it, and it isn't true?

6. If not, would you agree that pushing this argument on people just gaining an interest in the assassination might very well do more harm than good?

We present arguments based on likelihood of acceptance (see above) regardless of their veracity?

What a weird & cynical approach.

[John Dolva]

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.

john dugan you are entitled to you own opinion that is a given but in your next post you did mention something to the effect there was no attack meant, my words, yet in your first you made the accusation of lunacy... tell you what fellas i called it as it appeared to me and there have been so many denials so quickly all claiming to be innocent ..me thinks though doest protest too much...it appears to me and obviously that i hit a nail on the head somewhere or would not have received those denials so quickly...as they put it the game is afoot so imo do not try to deny it to me,i have watched it for many years and it is very apparant in many threads so go have a search and a good long read..and keeping mind this type of behaviour is far from new...you can fool some of the people some of the people some of the time but..and that is my opinion so, go try and convince others you are not making any headway here.but do..take care all...b

Bernice, when I posted, I did think someone would at some point say ''me thinks thou dost protest too much''. I think this is just a matter of what one chooses to believe. My post was deliberately phrased to preempt the posting of conclusions promised by Jack, hoping it will not be without the original in unretouched full res photo so others can analyse his conclusions properly.

I think then an excusable suspicion on your part kicked in, and it appears to you as you say, but it's not so. The choice is basically to believe that or not.

[Bernice Moore]

thanks john to tell you the truth i think there is an overwhelmingly protesting too much about jack's work it is another of those times that we have seen in the past where many who will and do jump on board for the sake of either not having any studies of their own to compare or ..not knowing of what they speak or c just to be seen as going along to get along..it is the get jack show sometimes called THE JACK ATTACK... i do not know where he gets his stamina from it must be TEXAS and the many have piled on and that cannot be denied...all one must do is go through the threads it is a shame that, as i feel it only demeans the research community as a whole and makes one wonder if at times we do more hsrm to ourselves than many an outsider could possibly but it is allowed and will carry on...we all must live and learn as they say only trouble is as we both know some never do..txs for the come back...take care//b ps imo there certainly is too much protesting i have not changed my mind...on that point

Edited February 6, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Martin Hinrichs]

Thanks for that,

I was wondering if that black slotch that appears in the last frame in front of Hill's face, is that debre from JFK's head or a splotch on the film?

BK

Thank you Bill.

This blotch is a damage of this frame and appeared in every Nix film i'am aware of.

I obtained this frames from Groden's "Case of conspiracy". Some of this frames are interlaced.

I recognized it first as the Gif was stabilzed. Thats the reason why this Gif shivers in some frames.

But i thought for this purpose (Chaney) it's good enough, John Dolva.

Duncan's forum is flooded with LN'er.

That's not true Martin.

I think it will become the first LN'er forum ever.

Hell will freeze over before I ever let that happen, and besides, the Poll below suggests otherwise

Duncan, flooded is maybe not the best word. Sorry.

But it is in comparison to other forums the one with most LN'er, which is not bad at all.

It cause motivation and traffic.

Let's see what the future will tell us.

best to you

Martin

[John Dolva]

Yes, I agree, Martin, it's just that I spent so much time with Frank and others looking at the Nix in Missing Nix Frames, reworking and reworking that then led on to other things, ultimately some speculations and then a divergence as I focused on Muchmore, which I DO think has been altered more than any other film and when used with Dons plat creates some irreconcilable problems, it was here I found three areas each correct, but not joined together as in a traversing equipment error until I found out that it's from three sections taped together by Jack and given to Don as its basis. So I'm sucpicious of Muchmore, and must be sucpicious of any past work on it using what I think are flawed fundaments...anyway, back at the ranch, it's a great gif, I see things I hadn't seen before, and we did encounter the same problem with interlaced frames (Solved by Frank with all the material we ended up using.) and there is also an alignment error, but it doesn't detract from the basic point you make, it's good enough, in fact, for the purpose, the best I've seen. Sorry, I can get picky.

Edited February 6, 2010 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Paul, how is it incompatible?

Angle of shadow; and the comparative lengths of shadow and the street light casting it.

The shadow cast by the light, measured from tip to base of light, is almost as long the light itself.

Given the elevation of the sun in Dallas at 1230hrs on November 22, 1963 - 37 degrees - the ratio of shadow to light is impossible: It would require a sun elevation of circa 46/7 degrees to furnish a 1:1 ratio.

If that section of Altgens whatever had been taken on November 22, at approx 1230hrs, the street lamp length should be in the ratio of roughly 7:10 to its shadow.

Ergo, given the history of this photo (composite) and its dissemination, that portion of the photo manifestly predates the assassination.

How CIA collected photint in 1950s and 60s

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-...i2a03p_0001.htm

APPROVED FOR RELEASE 1994

CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM

18 SEPT 95

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Intelligence market for the product of the camera fan's fun.

SNAPSHOTS AT RANDOM

Jane Schnell

Everyone who has taken photographs in a foreign country has collected potential ground photographic intelligence. The traveler turns his camera upon anything that excites his interest -- the civil engineer on peculiarities in the construction of dams, roads, bridges, and city buildings; a woman perhaps on clothing, jewelry, and hair styles; a doctor on things related to disease and therapy; a farmer on crops and tools and methods of farming. The more widely traveled the man behind the camera and the broader his interests, the more discriminating he is likely to be in photographing subject matter peculiar to a particular place. But the potential intelligence thus collected is often lost; there are two minimum requirements for transforming it into actual photo intelligence. One is that the pictures must be identified, at least by the name of the place or subject, the direction the camera was facing, and the date. The other is that they must get to the market.

The most omnivorous and insatiable broker for the photo intelligence market is the CIA Graphics Register. If you have a batch of photos taken anywhere abroad, properly identified and preferably with negatives, the Register would like to look them over. If they were taken in London or Paris or Vienna, say, the pickings may be slim, but the Register would like to decide for itself. And if it knows in advance that you are going to have a tour in some less well frequented place, it may be interested enough in promoting your hobby to supply you with camera and film. With a minimum of effort, adding to the pictures you normally would take anyway a notation of the place, time, and direction and as much descriptive data as you can, you are likely to produce some useful photos.

Targets of Opportunity

The results will be much better, however, if you add to this minimum effort a little more and become as familiar as you can with photo collection manuals and lists of requirements on the area. Graphics Register can refer you to general publications on these subjects;1 and attaché offices in all the U.S. diplomatic missions have such manuals and requirements lists in detail for their particular areas. You can pick out of the listings a few things that are of interest to you and accessible for photographing in the course of your normal day-to-day activities. One standing requirement, for example, is photographs of prominent persons in almost any field, especially the military, political, economic, and scientific. If an election is coming up and campaigning is in progress, why not take a few pictures of the speakers? If they are within 50 feet of a 35 mm. camera, the heads can be enlarged to an identifiable likeness. The closer the better, naturally, but the main thing is to get them on film and in focus.

The fact that an object may have been photographed previously by no means disqualifies it: changes, or the absence of changes, in it over a period of years or of weeks may be important. And changes aside, it is amazing how many pictures of the same object can be taken without telling the whole story. Although I must have seen hundreds of photographs of the Eiffel Tower before I went to France, it wasn't until I walked under it that I realized the first balcony has a big hole in it. So looking up, I photographed the tower through the hole; and then, just for fun, I kept trying to find another photograph that showed there was such a hole in the middle of the balcony. It was three and a half years before I saw one. A good photographic practice is to take the normal view of an object and then try to think up a different viewpoint and take that also. Few people look up, and it is often by looking up that you find an extraordinary picture.

If a new gas storage tank is being built in the city where you are stationed and you drive past it going to work every day, why not photograph it once a week or once a month? The photos will tell how long it takes to build it, what types of materials and methods of construction are used, and how much gas storage capacity is being added. Maybe you don't know what a gas storage tank looks like, and all you see is a big tank being built. Take a picture of it anyway; obviously it is built to store something. What you don't know about it the analyst will. That is what he is an analyst for, but he can't analyze it if you don't get him the pictures.

Captions

A bit of extra effort put into captioning your shots will pay off, too. One kind of information you may not be in the habit of noting for your own purposes, technical data, may be of importance to the Register. This includes the kind of camera and lens, the type of film, and the speed of exposure, as well as a serial number for each roll and frame. You should especially make note if you have used a telephoto or wide-angle lens. Information on the type of film and exposure speed will not only assist in its development but also make it possible for you to get advice on how to correct any mistakes you make and improve your technique.

Roll 20, frame No. 3. 2 May 1959. 1100 local time. Malaya, Kelantan state. Town, road, waterway.

Main road between Kota Bharu and Kuala Trengganu looking south at ferry toward village of Jerteh. Note cut at right for bridge under construction (see frames 1 and 2 for other shots of bridge).

Most important, however, is good identifying data about each picture. The essential elements are the date (and the time of day may be useful); the precise place; the subject or subjects, with special note of particular features of intelligence interest; and the direction the camera was facing, by compass or with reference to landmarks. It might be noted, for example, that frame no. 7 of roll 2 was exposed at 1330 on 17 November, one mile east of Otaru, Hokkaido, on the road to Sapporu, looking north and showing a Soviet trawler in the bay. Or from a second-floor street window of the Hotel Europe in Bangkok, looking down on a passer-by identified as so-and-so on his way to the corner to hail a samlor.

These essentials can frequently be supplemented to advantage with additional comments or with printed matter bearing on a particular picture. Perhaps the idea of the target came from facts you read in the newspaper; clip the article out and send it along. You find your way around unfamiliar cities with the help of guidebooks, free tourist maps, and maps bought at local survey offices or book stores. The analyst can use the same material to find his way around your photographs; if you can't send copies, at least make reference to the tools of travel you used. In the absence of printed material it is extremely useful to draw a sketch showing the relationship of pictured objects. A sketch is particularly good when there are several shots of the same subject from different vantage points, or of different subjects near each other, or of subjects that are not mapped. The analyst never complains that he is given too many facts about a picture.

Spies and People

You may want to shoot beyond your targets of casual opportunity and make trips or excursions expressly for the purpose of getting useful pictures. Fine; but since you are presumably abroad on some other government business, it is paramount that you remember you are taking pictures for fun. You should never take photos at the risk of your proper work, your purpose in being there. This need for discretion is of course a greater limitation in some places than in others. Once you have decided upon a target, the thing to do is become as familiar with it as possible, learn for sure just what the limitations of law and discretion are, and forget completely why you want the pictures. Try to take them for some other reason than intelligence collection.

I once wanted to photograph a new electric power plant in Malaya. So far as I knew, nobody would question my taking the pictures; but it is a little odd for a girl to go around photographing power plants. First, I had to find it, somewhere around a certain town. I drove out the main road from that town, which finally passed under some high power wires. After taking pictures of the road in both directions, and the wires and towers in both directions, I drove on, planning to take the next road turning off either right or left parallel with the wires. But at the next turn a sign pointed to the power plant.

I photographed the side road and then drove down it until I came to a one-way bridge with a policeman at each end and the power plant on the other side. The first policeman waved me to a stop. I got out of the car, camera in hand, and went up and asked him why. He said I had to wait a few minutes, the Sultan was coming. I asked what was the big building on the other side of the river. "That's our new power plant," he said proudly. "That's nice," I said, "Does it work now?" "Oh, yes." "Golly," I said, "Can I take a picture of it?" "Sure, why don't you go to the other end of the bridge, you get a better shot." So I shot a lot of pictures, some including the bridge and a nearby railway bridge, with a lot of kibitzing, until the Sultan came past in his Mercedes. Then I thanked the policeman and left, congratulating myself that nothing could have been easier. If I'd been as smart as I thought I was I'd have got a good picture of the Sultan and one of the policeman. No matter how much you see, if it isn't in your camera it's worthless.

The biggest hazard to the camera fan who has ulterior motives is people-himself, ordinary people, and people who might suspect him. If you act suspicious even the ordinary people will become suspicious. If you act quite ordinary even the suspicious people will think you quite ordinary. That is why it is important for you to forget the reason you are taking your pictures. Just take them; but know what you will say if you are questioned. Sometimes if people are watching me take pictures it makes me nervous, so I retaliate by turning my camera on them to make them nervous. In the places I've been they are either so pleased they stop being inquisitive or suspicious or else they are embarrassed and go away. I have been told that in the Middle East they often throw things, and that in the Soviet bloc it can be quite dangerous; but in Asia usually they giggle. Some friends of mine in Borneo used a polaroid camera to divert the people with pictures of themselves while they took candid shots. One Dyak requested a photo of the tattoo on his back; he had never seen it!

Refer to Hard Copy for Image

Roll 27, frame 11. February 1960.

Burma, Kachin state, Shwegu village. Sociological.

Man cutting bamboo.

The necessary equipment for ground intelligence photography consists of one camera and plenty of film. A camera, like a pair of shoes, is an individual and personal matter. I prefer a 35 mm. negative because its 20 or 36 frames per standard roll last longer without changing film, and larger cameras are too heavy and bulky. I would not use a smaller one, of the subminiature class, except for some special reason; the negative is so small that enlargement potential is seriously limited. And ordinary people, if they bother to think about it, think spies use tiny cameras that can be hidden. If you go around more or less like a tourist with a popular-sized one you avoid being conspicuous.

There are many publications on cameras and photographic techniques, on special lenses, on the respective advantages of black-and-white and color, of fine-grain and fast film. I haven't tried to touch on these subjects. All I have tried to do is point out that an opportunity exists for travelers interested in photography to make a considerable contribution to basic intelligence through collecting ground photos. I collected them because I thought it important, because it helped me learn about the place where I was living, and because it was fun.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Guide for Graphics Coordinators. INR/State, October 1960. An excellent new handbook.

A Manual for the Collection of Ground Photography and Related Data. Bureau of Aeronautics, NAVAER 10-35-650, March 1953. This is the best previous guide, illustrating many techniques and giving many examples.

Techniques for Producing Good Ground Photography for Intelligence Purposes. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I-198, 18 July 1956.

Volume 4-Political Affairs, of Foreign Service Manual. TL:PA-28, 7-25-60.

A Guide to the Collection of Ground Intelligence Photography on Ports and Harbors. Confidential. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, PIM-2, September 1957.

Amateur Photography from Commercial Aircraft. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I--205, 14 August 1956.

Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Intelligence Photography. Confidential. Air Force Manual 200-9, 1 February 1955. Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Industrial Recognition. Air Force Manual 200-7, 15 December 1955.

Intelligence Collection Guide-Telecommunications. Confidential. Army Pamphlet 30-100, July 1955.

Thanks for the CIA photo manual! Great info.

Could you elaborate on the shadow length ratio? Did you consider that the slope of the ground on Elm is about 2.5 degrees?

Can you post the lamppost image and shadow you are referring to. I am not sure which one you refer to.

Jack

[Jack White]

Note also that Jackson, while a bit erratic, nevertheless repeatedly admitted stopping, which would serve to confirm the Nix film, which would serve to confirm the Zapruder film.

Of course, that's not how the "everything is fake" crowd will see it...

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Nice, Pat. What I hope the "everything is fake" crowd notes is two more witnesses saying they saw JFK wounded just above the right ear ... and his head exploding outward there.

Bests,

Barb :-)

WHAT I HOPE IS THAT THE "NOTHING IS FAKE CROWD" NOTES WHAT I HAVE BOLD FACED ABOVE.

[Pat Speer]

Note also that Jackson, while a bit erratic, nevertheless repeatedly admitted stopping, which would serve to confirm the Nix film, which would serve to confirm the Zapruder film.

Of course, that's not how the "everything is fake" crowd will see it...

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Nice, Pat. What I hope the "everything is fake" crowd notes is two more witnesses saying they saw JFK wounded just above the right ear ... and his head exploding outward there.

Bests,

Barb :-)

WHAT I HOPE IS THAT THE "NOTHING IS FAKE CROWD" NOTES WHAT I HAVE BOLD FACED ABOVE.

Jack, I hope you realize that basically ALL the witnesses made inconsistent statements over the years... and that by cherry-picking a few words here and a few words there you could concoct a scenario where there were ten shots all from the front fired by a ghost.

[Jack White]

Note also that Jackson, while a bit erratic, nevertheless repeatedly admitted stopping, which would serve to confirm the Nix film, which would serve to confirm the Zapruder film.

Of course, that's not how the "everything is fake" crowd will see it...

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Nice, Pat. What I hope the "everything is fake" crowd notes is two more witnesses saying they saw JFK wounded just above the right ear ... and his head exploding outward there.

Bests,

Barb :-)

WHAT I HOPE IS THAT THE "NOTHING IS FAKE CROWD" NOTES WHAT I HAVE BOLD FACED ABOVE.

Jack, I hope you realize that basically ALL the witnesses made inconsistent statements over the years... and that by cherry-picking a few words here and a few words there you could concoct a scenario where there were ten shots all from the front fired by a ghost.

Your only correct statment is "there were ten shots".

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Note also that Jackson, while a bit erratic, nevertheless repeatedly admitted stopping, which would serve to confirm the Nix film, which would serve to confirm the Zapruder film.

Of course, that's not how the "everything is fake" crowd will see it...

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Nice, Pat. What I hope the "everything is fake" crowd notes is two more witnesses saying they saw JFK wounded just above the right ear ... and his head exploding outward there.

Bests,

Barb :-)

WHAT I HOPE IS THAT THE "NOTHING IS FAKE CROWD" NOTES WHAT I HAVE BOLD FACED ABOVE.

Thanks for highlighting those, Jack.

I began stopping my motor

that car just all but stopped…just a moment.

A motorcycle 15 - 20 feet away did stop to take a look. So what?

And Connally reacted to being hit by the second shot .... yes, I agree, after JFK had already been hit in the back by the first shot.

Nothing here says the limo came to a stop.

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

Note also that Jackson, while a bit erratic, nevertheless repeatedly admitted stopping, which would serve to confirm the Nix film, which would serve to confirm the Zapruder film.

Of course, that's not how the "everything is fake" crowd will see it...

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Nice, Pat. What I hope the "everything is fake" crowd notes is two more witnesses saying they saw JFK wounded just above the right ear ... and his head exploding outward there.

Bests,

Barb :-)

WHAT I HOPE IS THAT THE "NOTHING IS FAKE CROWD" NOTES WHAT I HAVE BOLD FACED ABOVE.

Thanks for highlighting those, Jack.

I began stopping my motor

that car just all but stopped…just a moment.

A motorcycle 15 - 20 feet away did stop to take a look. So what?

And Connally reacted to being hit by the second shot .... yes, I agree, after JFK had already been hit in the back by the first shot.

Nothing here says the limo came to a stop.

Barb :-)

The Z film shows Jackson ACCELERATING past Chaney.

The Z film does not show the limo JUST ALL BUT STOPPED.

The Z film shows Jackson coming past the rear fender of the limo, and NOT STOPPING.

Saying Connally not reacting till the second shot DISPUTES THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY.

And Bests Barb claims to know the evidence.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Yes, I agree, Martin, it's just that I spent so much time with Frank and others looking at the Nix in Missing Nix Frames, reworking and reworking that then led on to other things, ultimately some speculations and then a divergence as I focused on Muchmore, which I DO think has been altered more than any other film and when used with Dons plat creates some irreconcilable problems, it was here I found three areas each correct, but not joined together as in a traversing equipment error until I found out that it's from three sections taped together by Jack and given to Don as its basis. So I'm sucpicious of Muchmore, and must be sucpicious of any past work on it using what I think are flawed fundaments...anyway, back at the ranch, it's a great gif, I see things I hadn't seen before, and we did encounter the same problem with interlaced frames (Solved by Frank with all the material we ended up using.) and there is also an alignment error, but it doesn't detract from the basic point you make, it's good enough, in fact, for the purpose, the best I've seen. Sorry, I can get picky.

Thanks John.

I see you've analyzed it carefully and your critic is well deserved.

Please be picky. It helps to get things better.

My next Gif will be without interlaced issues.

And thank you for your kind words.

best to you

Martin

[Paul Rigby]

See for example this Cancellare photo which, it seems extremely likely to me, is not a composite of an earlier photo. But those shadows look pretty short.

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure we're seeing the top of the shadow. There's no bulbous top profile as in other street lamp shadows, indicating that the real top may be lost in the grass or lost in photo reproduction.

Jerry

The Cancellare photo above is a blatant composite, as the shadow thrown by the figure at (viewer's) left on the south curb of Elm does not align with the direction of the shadows thrown by the various figures on the north curb (foreground). The shadow cast by the former is from a later portion of the day, or some other day.

Unless, of course, we are to believe that there were two suns at work above Dealey Plaza that day!

[Jonathan Cohen]

>The Cancellare photo above is a blatant composite, as the shadow thrown by the figure at (viewer's) left on the south curb of Elm does not align with the direction >of the shadows thrown by the various figures on the north curb (foreground). The shadow cast by the former is from a later portion of the day, or some other day.

>Unless, of course, we are to believe that there were two suns at work above Dealey Plaza that day!

A composite of what and what? All of the people on the right side of the grass (ie. the Newman family) are visible in nearly these exact positions in other photos/films of the post-shooting scene.

[Craig Lamson]

See for example this Cancellare photo which, it seems extremely likely to me, is not a composite of an earlier photo. But those shadows look pretty short.

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure we're seeing the top of the shadow. There's no bulbous top profile as in other street lamp shadows, indicating that the real top may be lost in the grass or lost in photo reproduction.

Jerry

The Cancellare photo above is a blatant composite, as the shadow thrown by the figure at (viewer's) left on the south curb of Elm does not align with the direction of the shadows thrown by the various figures on the north curb (foreground). The shadow cast by the former is from a later portion of the day, or some other day.

Unless, of course, we are to believe that there were two suns at work above Dealey Plaza that day!

Dang, I love it when people posit on the size and direction of shadows! More please Mr. Rigby!

Edited February 8, 2010 by Evan Burton