Chaney Rides Forward?

[Jack White]

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.

You know, of course, that the unretouched photos are not available.

[Jack White]

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.

Sir, you are part of the problem that calling me a lunatic will not resolve.

Denial that photos can be retouched is NOT RESEARCH. Calling me a lunatic

is NOT RESEARCH.

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks, David, for approaching evidence with an open mind.

Some here approach it with an EMPTY mind.

Jack

[Jack White]

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

Bernice is TOO SMART to be taken in by "sweet talk". She and I have fought

unscrupulous internet attacks for more that a dozen years.

I have battled so many provocateurs that I have lost count. At least they get

paid for their efforts. I am an unpaid volunteer seeking truth.

[Jack White]

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.)

DOLVA MAKES AN ACCURATE AND IMPORTANT TRUE OBSERVATION!

The provenance of all films and photos of the assassination is unknown.

So far as we know, all films and images of the assassination were at some UNKNOWN point in the

hands of the "government". We can only speculate what happened to them during this UNKNOWN

period of time. Therefore we look for clues of authenticity or inauthenticity. Relying on ANY of the

photos as showing the truth is unwise. Relying on what anyone such as Trask says about them is

unwise.

[Jack White]

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.

Photos are very easily retouched. Photos are inadmissable as evidence without testimony

of the photographer that the photo accurately represents what he saw when taking the picture.

I HAVE NO THEORY regarding Chaney riding forward. It was reported by MANY credible witnesses,

whose testimony TAKES PRECEDENCE over any photo, which can be easily faked. Some photos

took years to surface. The McIntire photo WAS UNKNOWN TO ME until it was published in a

book by The Sixth Floor Museum in 1996.

[Jack White]

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.

Speer joins the attack dogs. It is very simple. ALL JFK PHOTOS ARE SUSPECT. I cannot show them unretouched

since those who did that work concealed the unretouched originals. We can only look for the mistakes that the

retouchers made.

What Altgens photo did I suggest was legitimate? My position is that we do not know which if any photos are

legitimate.

[Jack White]

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.

The proof IS NOT in the photograph. ALL PHOTOS ARE SUSPECT. No photo can be entered into

evidence of provenance and the photographer. Witness testimony is stronger than photos.

[John Dolva]

While I think my statements are correct, it doesn't follow that I agree the provenance of ALL films/photos is unknown nor that ALL were in the hands of the coverupperers. We do speculate, look for clues etc and in the process find that as Joshia states regularly ''they self authenticate'' - in minute detail. Remaining skeptical about them one way or the other is good imo, or what anyone says about them. I have come across a few inconsistencies that I think the why of can't be known as far as truth goes, but the preponderance of studies that don't support an across the board contiguous falsification of the photographic material is, imo, legion.

I've said it before, while I find myself usually disagreeing with Jack, as a student I find tackling his ideas as open mindedly as possible over the years educational, plus Jack often provides valuable information about photography, or at least prompts the search for such. Ditto David. However my own attempts often seem to fall in line with Joshia, Jerry, Barb, Craig, Sherry, Pat and a number of others (and sometimes Bill). I make no apologies for any of that.

[John Dugan]

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.

Speer joins the attack dogs. It is very simple. ALL JFK PHOTOS ARE SUSPECT. I cannot show them unretouched

since those who did that work concealed the unretouched originals. We can only look for the mistakes that the

retouchers made.

What Altgens photo did I suggest was legitimate? My position is that we do not know which if any photos are

legitimate.

Well, why not assume that all photos are originals till proven otherwise? If there are Altgens photos out there that are different from each other, then there is a case for alteration. But if EVERY photo you have ever seen is exactly the same, why not assume original, and move on? Unless there is proof. Everything else is just speculation

And for the record, I never called you a lunatic, but rather your thought process on this topic.

Everything is not suspect.

[Paul Rigby]

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.

Delighted to oblige.

In the full version of the Altgens photo at issue - you'll find a very good version in Trash's That Day In Dallas: Three Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, New & enlarged edition, 2000), p.67 - you'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers.

Contemplate the shadow cast on the south curb of Elm by the street light directly behind JBK - it's entirely incompatible with shadow cast by the car.

Conclusion? The Altgens photo at issue is a composite, utilising photos taken some time apart.

Oh, if you really want to see how bad a gaff it was/is, compare with the shadows cast by street lights in the following Bothuns:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=0

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=2

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Bernice is TOO SMART to be taken in by "sweet talk". She and I have fought

unscrupulous internet attacks for more that a dozen years.

I have battled so many provocateurs that I have lost count. At least they get

paid for their efforts. I am an unpaid volunteer seeking truth.

Above, in post #17, you said:

Sir, you are part of the problem that calling me a lunatic will not resolve.

Denial that photos can be retouched is NOT RESEARCH. Calling me a lunatic

is NOT RESEARCH.

But it is, in your mind, RESEARCH to call people out as "major players" disingenuously, to call people shams,

and fakes and liars and disinfo agents and provocateurs? The only sin one commits to be thus subjected to personal attack by

you is to disagree with you on what you believe or what you present as evidence. Double standards really never serve anyone

well, Jack. Perhaps especially not those who refer to others as "the hypocrites." This isn't the comfy cocoon of the DellaRosa forum

where you were protected from any vigorous disagreement. Not everyone here agrees with you or your "proofs."

Buck up. Spare me a cavalier airy retort like you had to being pantsed with your "major players" ruse ... the one where you were

"afraid" "the hypocrites" wouldn't catch onto your Bible reference.

[David Andrews]

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.

As actually witnessed recently in yellowed November 1963 newspapers?

[Paul Rigby]

In the full version of the Altgens photo at issue - you'll find a very good version in Trash's That Day In Dallas: Three Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, New & enlarged edition, 2000), p.67 - you'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers.

Contemplate the shadow cast on the south curb of Elm by the street light directly behind JBK - it's entirely incompatible with shadow cast by the car.

Conclusion? The Altgens photo at issue is a composite, utilising photos taken some time apart.

Oh, if you really want to see how bad a gaff it was/is, compare with the shadows cast by street lights in the following Bothuns:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=0

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=2

Or, then again, the shadow cast by Toni Foster in the Z-fake (version 2, naturally).

[Paul Rigby]

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.

To the contrary, once you know where to look - and have access to the full photo, something I note you denied readers of this thread, doubtless for entirely innocent reasons - one sees immediately that Jack is entirely right to be sceptical in the extreme.