What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

And before anyone says "not JFK" watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gcAQNunbM

Then watch this short from the Nix film and see if it matches Chaney's words:

BTW, the Zapruder film does not show Chaney in a position beside the limo, nor does it show Chaney passing the limo.

If Chaney stopped, with the other three motorcycles, as seen in the Nix film, how did he get this far ahead of the limo, if it sped off after the head shot?

Are these the same cops? They look like they haven't a clue that anything has happened!?!? Actually, in some repros of this photo, if I recall correctly, one of them has one hand on his thigh - kinda nice and relaxed!!! I guess they had a bit of a surprise when the limo suddenly sped past them!?!?

They're not the same motorcycle officers.

Two rows of motorcycles were further ahead of the limousine and Curry's car.  One row of these officers, the four ahead of Curry's car, came out of the motorcade on Houston Street and instead of taking the turn on Elm they instead carried on straight up Houston.  God knows why...

In McIntyre 1 Chaney's motorcycle can be seen in the distance under the triple overpass.

I thought there were only three motors ahead of the motorcade, as seen in the opening of the Zapruder film.

I don't quite get what you mean.


The opening of Zapruder shows three motorcycles but one of them continues down Houston Street and only two of them turn onto Elm.  This is where the splice is that the Warren Commission wanted us to believe Zapruder stopped filming even though Zapruder stated he didn't think he did.


As far as what happened to the configuration of the motorcycles during the splice I have no idea.  Whether they changed formation with each other is anyone's guess.


Regardless of this the McIntyre 1 photograph posted erroneously states that Chaney is present in the three motorcycles ahead of Curry's car and the Presidential limousine.  Chaney is the small silhouette in the distance under the triple overpass.  The photograph I posted demonstrates that there were seven motorcycles in front of Curry's car while the motorcade was on Main Street.  Behind Curry's car we have Jackson, Chaney, Hargis and Martin.

You are correct about Chaney not being in the three lead motorcycles entering Stemmons Freeway. I forgot that Chaney stayed under the Triple Underpass after informing Curry of the assassination. The labelled photo I posted is in error and the name of the man on the right is actually Grey.

However, although it appears that one of the three lead motorcycles continues down Houston St. instead of turning on Elm, how do we end up with three lead motorcycles entering Stemmons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Lyv4wrJQU

If you watch this frame by frame version of the Zapruder film, it is possible to see there were only three lead motorcycles to begin with, and all three made the turn onto Elm St. The rider on the right becomes lost behind the trees but reappears for just a few frames before the footage of the motorcycles ends.

Traveller11 wrote:You are correct about Chaney not being in the three lead motorcycles entering Stemmons Freeway. I forgot that Chaney stayed under the Triple Underpass after informing Curry of the assassination. The labelled photo I posted is in error and the name of the man on the right is actually Grey.

However, although it appears that one of the three lead motorcycles continues down Houston St. instead of turning on Elm, how do we end up with three lead motorcycles entering Stemmons?

This is what I meant by what happened during the splice in the Z-film being anyone's guess.  We don't know what we don't know.

I've reviewed the Zapruder film again with sprocket area in view and I think I'm in error concerning one of the motorcycles continuing down Houston Street.

If you look at the formation of the three bikes they are not turning in a straight line with each other because of the curve in the street.  They make the turn and are left in a formation that leaves them at a 45 degree angle.  The bike on the right being ahead of the bike in the middle and the bike in the middle being ahead of the bike on the left.  Therefore it looks like the motorcycle on the left is continuing down Houston street but he is simply making a wide turn that takes him behind the tree foliage so we can no longer see him.

It doesn't show it in the film but it's a safe bet he reappeared on Elm Street once he comes back in view from behind the tree foliage.  The splice occurs before we see this take place.

EDIT: posted before I saw your reply.  You have better eyes than me because I didn't see him reappear.

Actually, if you watch the frame by frame I linked to, it shows the missing motorcycle appear briefly on the north side of Elm St.

I am more interested, though, in the interview with Chaney I linked to, in which he states he looked back over his left shoulder at the sound of the first and second shots and saw JFK struck in the face. This is something clearly NOT shown in Zapruder but, I believe, shown in Altgens 6.

There is also no evidence in Zapruder of Chaney going ahead of the limo to contact Chief Curry in the lead car, under the Triple Underpass.


Edit: The motorcycle is visible in the frame by frame Zapruder film I linked to from about the 2:00 minute point on.

Traveller11 wrote:Actually, if you watch the frame by frame I linked to, it shows the missing motorcycle appear briefly on the north side of Elm St.

I am more interested, though, in the interview with Chaney I linked to, in which he states he looked back over his left shoulder at the sound of the first and second shots and saw JFK struck in the face. This is something clearly NOT shown in Zapruder but, I believe, shown in Altgens 6.

There is also no evidence in Zapruder of Chaney going ahead of the limo to contact Chief Curry in the lead car, under the Triple Underpass.


Edit: The motorcycle is visible in the frame by frame Zapruder film I linked to from about the 2:00 minute point on.

You'll just end up chasing your tail going down the "Chaney rode forward" path and Jim Fetzer, who is the biggest mouthpiece for this quicksand, has never come up with any interesting, logical, or sensible reason why on earth removing Chaney riding forward was needed.

His ramblings on this matter require LSD to appreciate.

His belief that every single frame of the Zapruder film was altered to the point that motorcycles were removed riding forward resulted from a single sentence uttered by Chaney where he was obviously mistaken as to when he rode forward.  Fetzer's nonsense resulted in him also having to claim that McIntyre 1 is fake as well.  The logical, sensible and simple answer is that McIntyre shows Chaney riding forward under the triple overpass chasing Curry's car to inform them.

Lee Farley wrote:

Traveller11 wrote:Actually, if you watch the frame by frame I linked to, it shows the missing motorcycle appear briefly on the north side of Elm St.

I am more interested, though, in the interview with Chaney I linked to, in which he states he looked back over his left shoulder at the sound of the first and second shots and saw JFK struck in the face. This is something clearly NOT shown in Zapruder but, I believe, shown in Altgens 6.

There is also no evidence in Zapruder of Chaney going ahead of the limo to contact Chief Curry in the lead car, under the Triple Underpass.


Edit: The motorcycle is visible in the frame by frame Zapruder film I linked to from about the 2:00 minute point on.

You'll just end up chasing your tail going down the "Chaney rode forward" path and Jim Fetzer, who is the biggest mouthpiece for this quicksand, has never come up with any interesting, logical, or sensible reason why on earth removing Chaney riding forward was needed.

His ramblings on this matter require LSD to appreciate.

His belief that every single frame of the Zapruder film was altered to the point that motorcycles were removed riding forward resulted from a single sentence uttered by Chaney where he was obviously mistaken as to when he rode forward.  Fetzer's nonsense resulted in him also having to claim that McIntyre 1 is fake as well.  The logical, sensible and simple answer is that McIntyre shows Chaney riding forward under the triple overpass chasing Curry's car to inform them.

Were you able to see the third motorcycle on Elm St.? Its red lights are quite visible.

From the Warren Commission testimony of Chief Jesse E. Curry, DPD, April 15, 1964:




" .......didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it



was above us or where, but this was followed by two more reports, and at that



time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s



caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to



be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer



Chancy rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he



said, “Yes,” and I said, “Has somebody been shot?” And he said “I think so.” "



Hard to say, Lee, but it seems that Curry is telling us Chaney got to the lead car before the limo did.

Stan Dane wrote:In Altgens 6, Chaney, looking left, is seen wearing sunglasses. In McIntyre 1, the guy on the left—said to be Chaney in the photo caption—is not wearing sunglasses.

Yes, Stan, I was mistaken about that being Chaney on the right in the three lead motorcycles entering Stemmons. These are the original three lead motorcycles seen making the turn onto Elm St. in the Zapruder film. Despite popular belief to the contrary, one of these motorcycles did NOT continue on Houston St., and can be briefly seen at the 2:00 mark in this frame by frame version of the Zapruder film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Lyv4wrJQU



P.S. The red lights on the front of the motorcycle are most visible at 2:07.

Traveller11 wrote:

Lee Farley wrote:

Traveller11 wrote:Actually, if you watch the frame by frame I linked to, it shows the missing motorcycle appear briefly on the north side of Elm St.

I am more interested, though, in the interview with Chaney I linked to, in which he states he looked back over his left shoulder at the sound of the first and second shots and saw JFK struck in the face. This is something clearly NOT shown in Zapruder but, I believe, shown in Altgens 6.

There is also no evidence in Zapruder of Chaney going ahead of the limo to contact Chief Curry in the lead car, under the Triple Underpass.


Edit: The motorcycle is visible in the frame by frame Zapruder film I linked to from about the 2:00 minute point on.

You'll just end up chasing your tail going down the "Chaney rode forward" path and Jim Fetzer, who is the biggest mouthpiece for this quicksand, has never come up with any interesting, logical, or sensible reason why on earth removing Chaney riding forward was needed.

His ramblings on this matter require LSD to appreciate.

His belief that every single frame of the Zapruder film was altered to the point that motorcycles were removed riding forward resulted from a single sentence uttered by Chaney where he was obviously mistaken as to when he rode forward.  Fetzer's nonsense resulted in him also having to claim that McIntyre 1 is fake as well.  The logical, sensible and simple answer is that McIntyre shows Chaney riding forward under the triple overpass chasing Curry's car to inform them.

Were you able to see the third motorcycle on Elm St.? Its red lights are quite visible.

From the Warren Commission testimony of Chief Jesse E. Curry, DPD, April 15, 1964:




" .......didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it



was above us or where, but this was followed by two more reports, and at that



time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s



caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to



be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer



Chancy rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he



said, “Yes,” and I said, “Has somebody been shot?” And he said “I think so.” "



Hard to say, Lee, but it seems that Curry is telling us Chaney got to the lead car before the limo did.

Bob,

There has been literally millions of words written about this on many different forums.  Jim Fetzer created the same insanity over the whole 'Mary Moorman stepped into the street' nonsense that he created over this Chaney issue.

Try selling this to John Q Citizen and they'll look at you like you've got two heads.  If anybody can give me a sensible answer as to why the Zapruder film would be altered to hide this inconsequential action of Chaney then they're free to discuss it until the cows come home.  

This really is a non-issue IMO and the problem for me is that it supports Fetzer's endgame on the lunatic/disinformation fringe by giving to people who don't hide the fact they are trying to undermine our efforts ammunition to fire at all researchers, many of whom have found new and important information that deserves to be looked at but is clouded by this type of stuff that ultimately takes this case nowhere and paints us all as crackpots.

On the issue of the motorcycle on Elm Street, yes, I had another look and could see the lights.

Bob,

You have today written this over at Deep Politics Forum


"I agree with you, the matter of Chaney passing the limo, in order to alert Curry in the lead car, is an important puzzle that simply will not go away.

However, I have found that merely mentioning this matter on JFK forums is enough to draw instant ridicule, despite the indisputable fact that so many high ranking officials testified to the fact that Chaney arrived with the news at the lead car well before the limo arrived there. I believe the reason for this is that the possibilities this raises simply stagger the imagination of the average man. If Chaney actually did pass the limo, there are a great number of films and photos that had to be altered to conceal this fact."

Can I ask at what venues/forums you have found "instant ridicule" when mentioning Chaney riding forward?

Lunatic/disinformation fringe? Crackpots?

Traveller11 wrote:Lunatic/disinformation fringe? Crackpots?

Robert,

I think you're misunderstanding. All that was said is that you going down this path supports Fetzer's agenda - and Fetzer most definitely is on the lunatic fringe. 

It was further suggested that this is all good -- IF ---  "anybody can give... a sensible answer as to why the Zapruder film would be altered to hide this inconsequential action of Chaney." 

There's your challenge, Robert. Instead, you have gone off sulking, claiming that you have been immediately ridiculed for mentioning any of this. Not only haven't you been ridiculed, but what you are citing as ridicule was hardly "immediate" anyway. We're on page two of the thread for chrissakes.

It will come as no shock that I agree with Lee. You follow Fetzer's bullshit at peril to own credibility -- UNLESS you can come up with better, more rational explanations than Fetzer.  Like something a person not wearing a tin foil hat can grasp.

Your work in other areas is much appreciated. Unless you have an answer to Lee's challenge here, you are merely detracting and distracting from that other good work. 

Just my 2 cents worth, and you are free to ignore it.

Okay, for your information, I was actually referring to the JFK Assassination Forum, home of the disinfo campaign.

I just got a little annoyed at Lee for posting my post from another site on here and demanding an explanation, so I fed his own words back to him.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ why Chaney's passing the limo was concealed, but I do feel that if it was ever proven, it would bring down the whole house of cards on the Warren Commission; as would proving any single segment of the Z film was altered.

If Mr. Farley is worried about being called a "crackpot", I'm afraid he is in the wrong business. We're called crackpots and kooks just for showing up on these forums.

Traveller11 wrote:Okay, for your information, I was actually referring to the JFK Assassination Forum, home of the disinfo campaign.

I just got a little annoyed at Lee for posting my post from another site on here and demanding an explanation, so I fed his own words back to him.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ why Chaney's passing the limo was concealed, but I do feel that if it was ever proven, it would bring down the whole house of cards on the Warren Commission; as would proving any single segment of the Z film was altered.

If Mr. Farley is worried about being called a "crackpot", I'm afraid he is in the wrong business. We're called crackpots and kooks just for showing up on these forums.

Thanks Robert,

I respectfully disagree with your take on the z-film. Even if it was proven that anything was altered, you cannot prove it was done to hide anything pointing to a conspiracy in the assassination. Get the proof to a standard so high that even LN's can't dispute it, and what you'll then find is that there are 500,001 innocent explanations for it - of which a half a dozen may actually even be semi-valid. 

So asking why they would want to conceal Chaney passing the limo is really integral to success in your endeavor. As is, I can only repeat, you are helping Fetzer's agenda - and it is because of the Fetzers of this world, we all get lumped with the "kook" label. It is a tactic - but only one that is possible because in the name of "unity" so many on "our side" either embrace people like Fetzer, or at least live with his presence. Fuck that. He is as much the enemy as any "Lone Nutter". I refuse to sit around the camp-fire singing "Kumbaya" with utter scumbags.

I'm not saying Fetzer and I hang out together on weekends, but I still smell a rat every time I see that film, despite the fact I refuse to follow Fetzer down the rabbit hole.

You are aware that the 500,001 innocent explanations will also apply to just about any other facet of this case we manage to come up with indisputable evidence on, aren't you?

Traveller11 wrote:I'm not saying Fetzer and I hang out together on weekends, but I still smell a rat every time I see that film, despite the fact I refuse to follow Fetzer down the rabbit hole.

You are aware that the 500,001 innocent explanations will also apply to just about any other facet of this case we manage to come up with indisputable evidence on, aren't you?

So far.

We'll see how that holds up when they discover which government official was related to which Dealey Plaza witness.

We'll see how that holds up when they see which witness was friends with which person connected to Youth House. 

We'll see how that holds up when they see which government spook was tailing the Oswald family in the '40s and '50s 

We'll see how that holds up when they discover the identity of the kid in the Irving Barber shop.

We'll see how that holds up when they realize the significance of the location of a spook safe house.

We'll see how that holds up when they see the real significance of giving the Soviets radar info.

And more that I couldn't explain without giving away who I'm talking about.

---------------------------------

Your work on the rifle and ammo is significant and important and is NOT something that can be attacked with any success by calling you a "kook".

You continue with this at peril to your credibility - unless you can answer Lee's question. But we each - rightly - make our own choices.

greg parker wrote:So far.

We'll see how that holds up when they discover which government official was related to which Dealey Plaza witness.

We'll see how that holds up when they see which witness was friends with which person connected to Youth House. 

We'll see how that holds up when they see which government spook was tailing the Oswald family in the '40s and '50s 

We'll see how that holds up when they discover the identity of the kid in the Irving Barber shop.

We'll see how that holds up when they realize the significance of the location of a spook safe house.

We'll see how that holds up when they see the real significance of giving the Soviets radar info.

And more that I couldn't explain without giving away who I'm talking about.

I take it the answers to these "We'll sees" are in your soon-to-be-released Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War book?

Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...