DPD James Chaney's interview by ABC's Bill Lord 11/22/63: YOUTUBE
SecretServiceguy
http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=nYdB3e6yQ9E
In yet another gem from the vast Vince Palamara archives, DPD
motorcycle officer James "Jim" Chaney, riding with JFK's limousine on
11/22/63, is interviewed that very same day by ABC's Bill Lord. The
heavy commotion and chaos of the Dallas Police station is evident in
this important interview. Posted by request of Ryan Wilson, the oldest
of 2 grandsons of Patrolman Jim Chaney. :)
Vince Palamara
http://www.youtube.com/user/VincePalamara
Bud
Too noisy to catch much of the dialog. I did like when Chaney said
the shots came from over his right shoulder, but nodded his head
indicating his left. Dallas cops are not he sharpest knives in the
drawer....
rho...@tx.rr.com
If you looked at the film again, you'll see that Chaney SAID his left
shoulder and LOOKED over his left shoulder. But NOT being the sharpest
knife in the drawer, it would be indicating toward the right from YOUR
position!
Rhonda CHANEY Melton
David Von Pein
Bud is right (as usual).
At 1:18 into this video, Chaney nods toward his LEFT as he says the
words "it was back over my right shoulder":
Bud
I did as you suggested, and watched it again. I was right again.
Chaney tilts his head indicating his left shoulder, while saying right
shoulder. At around the 1:20 mark.
Bud
> Bud is right (as usual).
Yah, I`ve been burnt a few times shooting from the hip, I generally
won`t say things like this unless I`m near positive. Thanks for the
confirmation, David.
> At 1:18 into this video, Chaney nods toward his LEFT as he says the
> words "it was back over my right shoulder":
It shows he is human, is all. The interesting thing is in this
instance, we have all the necessary information to determine it was a
mistake. But with, say Hill putting it out over the air that an
automatic was used to kill Tippit, what is needed to confirm that a
mistake was made might not exist in the evidence (although there are
plenty of indicators it was a mistake). I`ve seen it posed by kooks
"How can a police sergeant mistake an automatic shell for a standard
shell", while with this Chaney film, the question could be posed "How
can a patrolman not know his left from his right?" The answer in both
cases is the same, they aren`t only cops, they are also human.
aeffects
Dudster sitdown.... you don't belong on the dance floor..... LMFAO!
Walt
In this interview Chaney said that he looked to his LEFT just as the
second shot struck JFK in the face. Chaney's action is exactly what
is recorded in James Altgen's photo...... He is seen alongside of the
Lincoln looking over his LEFT shoulder at JFK.
The reporter asked if he saw the shooter ( or the source of the shots)
and Chaney said they were back over his right shoulder. "Back over
his right shoulder" covers a large area..... Which isn't very
helpful. But It's strange that he didn't say anything about the
shots coming from HIGH above him.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
When Chaney was talking about seeing the President hit, he said he was
looking over his left shoulder ( exactly what is recorded by James
Altgen's photograph) but when he was talking about he thought the shot
came from he said it was over his right shoulder but kinda nodded to
his left. His nodding action doesn't mean much....it certainly don't
negate his words.
Since you apparently are Chaney's daughter perhaps you could help
define what he meant by "over his right shoulder". You would know
your fathers way of speaking and perhaps have a better understanding
of his words.
If the shot had come from the sixth floor of the TSBD I would think he
would have said that the shot had came from above his head???
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
At the time the head shot the sniper's nest of the TSBD was four times
farther behind than above Chaney.
Herbert
Bud
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 5:25 pm, SecretServiceguy <vincebet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=nYdB3e6yQ9E
>
> > > In yet another gem from the vast Vince Palamara archives, DPD
> > > motorcycle officer James "Jim" Chaney, riding with JFK's limousine on
> > > 11/22/63, is interviewed that very same day by ABC's Bill Lord. The
> > > heavy commotion and chaos of the Dallas Police station is evident in
> > > this important interview. Posted by request of Ryan Wilson, the oldest
> > > of 2 grandsons of Patrolman Jim Chaney. :)
>
> > > Vince Palamarahttp://www.youtube.com/user/VincePalamara
>
> > Too noisy to catch much of the dialog. I did like when Chaney said
> > the shots came from over his right shoulder, but nodded his head
> > indicating his left. Dallas cops are not he sharpest knives in the
> > drawer....
>
> In this interview Chaney said that he looked to his LEFT just as the
> second shot struck JFK in the face. Chaney's action is exactly what
> is recorded in James Altgen's photo...... He is seen alongside of the
> Lincoln looking over his LEFT shoulder at JFK.
Actually, Chaney isn`t along side of the limo when Altgen`s photo
was snapped, it only appears that way because of the telephoto lens
Altgen`s used.
> The reporter asked if he saw the shooter ( or the source of the shots)
> and Chaney said they were back over his right shoulder. "Back over
> his right shoulder" covers a large area.....
But not the grassy knoll.
>Which isn't very
> helpful.
Nothing these witnesses supplied was very helpful. You generally
need to see things to place things, and precious few saw anything.
> But It's strange that he didn't say anything about the
> shots coming from HIGH above him.
Do you think you can place sound from a distance behind you well?
Bud
I thought actions spoke louder than words. In any case, back over
his left or right shoulder is essentially the same area.
> Since you apparently are Chaney's daughter perhaps you could help
> define what he meant by "over his right shoulder". You would know
> your fathers way of speaking and perhaps have a better understanding
> of his words.
<snicker> Keep those moron credentials intact, Walt.
Walt
Yer the moron, Dud. No other word better describes a person who
would believe the single bullet theory.
Chaney's daughter said that he dad thought the first "boom" was a
motorcycle backfire, and since he was the senior motorcycle officer
and had warned the other motorcycle officers against back firing their
bikes he was irritated at the guy who triggered a backfire of his
bike. ( It was a simple matter to make those old bikes backfire) So
when he looked back over his right shoulder he was looking for the guy
who triggered the backfire so he could give him a scathing look. He
was NOT looking up and he was NOT looking for a gunman.
>
>
>
> > If the shot had come from the sixth floor of the TSBD I would think he
> > would have said that the shot had came from above his head???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
No, it`s you, and I can prove it. Read what you write. See?
> No other word better describes a person who
> would believe the single bullet theory.
Yah, one bullet going through two people, incredible!
> Chaney's daughter said that he dad thought the first "boom" was a
> motorcycle backfire, and since he was the senior motorcycle officer
> and had warned the other motorcycle officers against back firing their
> bikes he was irritated at the guy who triggered a backfire of his
> bike. ( It was a simple matter to make those old bikes backfire) So
> when he looked back over his right shoulder he was looking for the guy
> who triggered the backfire so he could give him a scathing look. He
> was NOT looking up and he was NOT looking for a gunman.
But he was looking back, right? He was the closest DPD officer to
the knoll, why would he look behind him?
Walt
Duh!.... He thought the sound he heard was one of the motorcycles
behind him backfiring. Where would you expect him to look for his
companion officers....On top of the TSBD??
Bud
And his not looking towards the knoll as the source would have you
conclude that no shots came from there, right?
Walt
Dud.... We're talking about the FIRST detonation that Chaney heard.
He thought that that explosion came from one of the motorcycles behind
him.
We don't know where he thought the next shots came from.
Bud
Ok, he heard a noise, thought it was a motorcycle backfire, so he
turned and looked towards the motorcycles behind him, and you think
this is telling of something?
> He thought that that explosion came from one of the motorcycles behind
> him.
He drew the conclusion it was a motorcycle, and turned towards the
motorcycles, is that it? What part is getting your stupid-juices
going, that you think he should accurately place a loud noise behind
him?
> We don't know where he thought the next shots came from.
Back over his right shoulder. If he thought the shots came from all
over, you think he wouldn`t mention this?
Walt
Duh.... I'll type this real slow ..... He thought the sound was a
motorcycle back fire. He said NOTHING about the source of any
SHOTS.
Bud
A lot of people associated the loud noises they heard as
firecrackers or backfires. Is that what you think they were?
Walt
Why do you always try to distort the evidence? Many witnesses
thought the FIRST .... FIRST.... detonation (singular) was a
motorcycle backfire or a large firecracker. They didn't think ALL of
the detonations they heard were backfires or firecrackers.
And..... Yes, I do believe that the FIRST detonation was a large
firecracker.
Bud
> On 24 Jun, 03:26,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 11:17 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 10:36 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:35 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 5:48 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:22 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Jun, 19:13, rhoj...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
So, you are saying there weren`t any witnesses who thought they
were all firecrackers? Heres Virgie Rachley telling the FBI that she
"...heard three explosions spaced at intervals which at first she
thought were firecrackers".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rachley.htm
> And..... Yes, I do believe that the FIRST detonation was a large
> firecracker.
That joins a long list of things you believe which are wrong.
Walt
Hey stupid.... That's only ONE witness..... The vast majority thought
that the FIRST detonation sounded like a backfire or a large
firecracker.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rachley.htm
>
> > And..... Yes, I do believe that the FIRST detonation was a large
> > firecracker.
>
> That joins a long list of things you believe which are wrong.
Oh really??? The majority of the witnesses thought that the FIRST
detonation sounded like a backfire or a large firecracker and you
think "I'm" the one who is wrong??? You should have taken me up on
my offer of a couple of months ago.....Remember... I offered to help
you pull yer head outta yer ass.....
Bud
You said "They didn`t think ALL of the detonations they heard were
backfires or firecrackers". "They" meaning the witnesses. I only
needed one to show you were wrong, and that at least one of the
witnesses did think they were all firecrackers.
>The vast majority thought
> that the FIRST detonation sounded like a backfire or a large
> firecracker.
I only looked at two witnesses, and found one who thought all three
were firecrackers. You are welcome to support the claim you just made
by giving a breakdown of all the Dealy witnesses.
Walt
That's already been done several times. I know the list has been
presented right here in this NG. I'm sure you've read it ....but
being the liar that you are you will deny it.
Bud
Sure, sure.
> I know the list has been
> presented right here in this NG. I'm sure you've read it ....but
> being the liar that you are you will deny it.
<snicker> Projecting, aren`t we? Weren`t you the liar just caught
saying all of the witnesses only believed the first shot was a
backfire or firecracker?
Walt
Really?? Perhaps you should learn to think before you speak ( Forget
that, You're not equipped to think) ....Because you yourself posted
that ALL of the witnesses thought that the FIRST shot was a backfire
or a big firecracker. You cited Rachley as ONE person who thought ALL
of the shots were firecrackers.
So by your own dim witted post ALL of the witnesses thought that the
FIRST shot was a backfire.
Bud
It still exist in this post, idiot, why continue to lie? I wrote "A
lot of people associated the loud noises they heard as firecrackers or
backfires." How does "a lot of people" become "ALL"? You wrote "they",
with no qualifier, so you meant ALL the Dealy witnesses. So I supplied
one to prove you wrong.
>You cited Rachley as ONE person who thought ALL
> of the shots were firecrackers.
It was your contention that people only thought the "FIRST....
FIRST" one was a firecracker or backfire, but that wasn`t true, as
shown by the example I gave.
> So by your own dim witted post ALL of the witnesses thought that the
> FIRST shot was a backfire.
I wrote "A lot of people associated the loud noises they heard as
firecrackers or backfires". You should try addressing what I actually
wrote, and not what your mind turns it into.
>
>
> > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rachley.htm
>
> > > > > > > And..... Yes, I do believe that the FIRST detonation was a large
> > > > > > > firecracker.
>
> > > > > > That joins a long list of things you believe which are wrong.
>
> > > > > Oh really??? The majority of the witnesses thought that the FIRST
> > > > > detonation sounded like a backfire or a large firecracker and you
> > > > > think "I'm" the one who is wrong??? You should have taken me up on
> > > > > my offer of a couple of months ago.....Remember... I offered to help
> > > > > you pull yer head outta yer ass.....
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the shot had come from the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Walt
Here's exactly what I wrote you flippin moron.....
"Many witnesses thought the FIRST .... FIRST.... detonation (singular)
was a
motorcycle backfire or a large firecracker. They didn't think ALL
of
the detonations they heard were backfires or firecrackers."
Can you comprehend that the "they" in this paragraph is referring to
"Many witnesses" at the first of the paragraph.
How many grades have you completed Dud.... This is sixth grade
grammer.
>
> >You cited Rachley as ONE person who thought ALL
> > of the shots were firecrackers.
>
> It was your contention that people only thought the "FIRST....
> FIRST" one was a firecracker or backfire, but that wasn`t true, as
> shown by the example I gave.
>
>
>
> > So by your own dim witted post ALL of the witnesses
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -