[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Selective quoting? How deceptive of you. There is a difference between looking back (opposite of ahead) and away, then back (in the direction you were looking before you looked away). Here is, in context, what Chaney said:

So where's the "deceptive quoting?"

I stated that Chaney said he was looking at the President, then I quoted his words saying this.

You also quote his words saying this.

WHO DID JAMES CHANEY STATE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT?

He said he was looking back over to his left. That would be in the general direction of Hargis and Martin (which is consistent with what we see in the Altgens photo).

Dragging the truth out of a believer has much in common with nailing jello to a wall.

The question was WHO DID JAMES CHANEY STATE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT?

Your answer fails to address the question.

Would you like to try again?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Notice that he first looked away from and then back at the President. As we all know, the Altgens photo corresponds to Z frame 255 and the head shot to Z-313 (about 3 seconds later). Since Chaney is out of the frame in Z-255, he must be behind the limo, which is also what we see in Altgens. He's not looking ahead (in the direction of JFK) in the photo, but to his left (in the direction of Hargis and Martin).

Nope... speculation will not change James Chaney's position... nor who he stated he was looking at.

I wasn't speculating. You're just wrong. Chaney isn't looking at JFK in the Altgens photo. He's looking to his left, in the direction of his fellow officers.

Who did Chaney STATE that he was looking at?

Why does the question frighten you so much?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gcAQNunbM[/youtube]

Now, the question becomes, why did the Warren Commission completely ignore a police officer, less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, WHO WAS FILMED STATING THAT HE WAS WATCHING THE MURDER VICTIM AS HE WAS BEING MURDERED...

I can well understand why you refuse to answer... there isn't one from the believer's side.

The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

Dead silence...

Mark couldn't answer this question...

Oh, I thought you hated speculation. I don't know why Chaney wasn't allowed to testify (and neither do you).

Ah! But I DO KNOW WHY CHANEY WASN'T CALLED TO TESTIFY.

And you know very well why he wasn't called as well...

But that reason reveals the biases held by the Warren Commission. Biases you should be familiar with... The Warren Commission never even tried to discover who shot the President... they merely tried to prove that Oswald did.

Now, would you like to try to answer the question?

[Patrick C]

Chaney heard the shots fired from the TSBD Ben.....behind him.

Exactly how he interpreted that atop his Harley in the heat of the moment hardly matters. They came from behind him.

One shooter, a simple act of murder. Get over it.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Chaney heard the shots fired from the TSBD Ben.....behind him.

That's an interpretation, one that can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect.

If it were correct, then believers would not be afraid to quote James Chaney accurately. I don't recall any debate on James Chaney where a believer accurately quoted James Chaney on where the shot came from. Even after the correct quote is supplied, believers can't seem to make use of it.

Patrick C Wrote:Exactly how he interpreted that atop his Harley in the heat of the moment hardly matters. They came from behind him.

One shooter, a simple act of murder. Get over it.

This is the common tactic... proven wrong, instead of admitting that Chaney's testimony would not have been desired by the Warren Commission for good and valid reasons, you take to arguing that the closest Police eyewitness to the crime was wrong.

Without any ability to order his thoughts, and cross-examination to bring out essential points...

let's get back to the topic...

Here it is again:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

And how exactly would he have done that Ben...?

Are you willing to admit that I answered your question in a credible and reasonable manner?

My guess, since you keep avoiding this, is that you aren't willing to admit that you learned something new... The Warren Commission knew what James Chaney would testify to - and he was simply too credible a witness to denigrate as they did with other eyewitnesses who reported things they didn't want on the record.

The testimony of James Chaney would have demolished the SBT - thus proving a second shooter.

If Connally was struck by a bullet that did not strike JFK first - then he was hit too soon for the Mannlicher Carcano to recycle... since it was demonstrated that the Carcano couldn't be recycled any faster than 2.3 seconds, and the extant Zapruder film shows Connally being struck less than 2.3 seconds after JFK.

[Patrick C]

"The testimony of James Chaney would have demolished the SBT - thus proving a second shooter."

BS. It would have done no such thing. A testimony under those circumstances proves NOTHING.

I wonder why I have joined this forum when I am reminded of your illogical and frankly amateurish sleuthdom Holmes. I would be embarrassed had I posted that hogwash.