Dean Hagerman

Only if you promise to get me one of Ruby's twistboards the next time you, Lee Harvey, and Sparky get together for your next all-night elbow-bending party at the Carousel. Deal?

So I take it that you accept my apology?

What in the world are you talking about, Dean? You'd better re-read my post. It's the CTers who love to prop up Markham's 1:06 timeline--not me. Tippit was shot at approx. 1:14 to 1:15. (Bugliosi likes 1:12 and Myers likes 1:14:30.) Did you really think I was endorsing Markham's incorrect 1:06 time? BTW, in an FBI report, Markham also claimed the shooting occurred at "around 1:30". So much for her accuracy on the time. Im really sorry Dave, I totally misunderstood your position Thanks Lee for pointing that out to me in a PM My bad Dave, I just woke up, im super hung over and didnt read much of this thread Sorry

I'll bet you love her "1:06" time for the Tippit shooting though. Right, James? Markham was real good at telling time Dave When LHO stood in front of her she covered her face with her hands for a "few minutes" and when she took her hands down he was STILL standing in front of her! TMWKK Go to the 5:15 mark Dave to listen to Markham's amazing story Im sure after Oswald killed Tippit that he had nothing better to do then to stand in front of a woman who had her hands covering her face for "a few minutes" Hellen Markham has no concept of time Dave The fact that you use her for your 1:06 time is by far the most laughable point you have ever tried to make

Awesome come back post Frank!

I agree David Waco: The Rules of Engagment is in my top 5 documentaries of all time I own the DVD and recommend it to everybody

Jim I have heard that Groden owns the original un-altered Nix film I have heard (I have no idea if this is true) that in Grodens copy of Nix the film keeps going and you can see Clint Hill grab Jackie and push her back into the limo We dont see that in Zapruder I cant say much else because of course I have never seen this copy that Groden is said to own

Dont you think thats important Jim?

How would he have known that? When filming the motercycles how would he have looked on Houston to see how far back the limo was? With his other eye? With all the onlookers and obstructions I dont think he would have been able to see how far away the limo was on Houston St.

Robert I quoted your whole post with all the testimony that you posted within my post How is that sleezy? Dean, it's sleazy because you only talked about him saying that he couldn't be sure. But you omitted him pointing out that what he meant was that he couldn't tell if a random frame here and there was missing. This was the clincher, I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell. Why not talk about the infinitely more important fact that there was nothing he could see that was wrong with the film, and that if the entire turning sequence had been removed, he would certainly have seen that? Ok Robert Post Zappys testimony where he said that he stopped filming and then started back up again when he saw the limo after it made the turn onto Elm If you can do that I will back down

I dont think so Jim Listen to what Orville Nix says Also Marie Muchmore said she did not recall shooting the Elm St part of her film I could go on and on Jim, but why when these witnesses got the films back from the government they had suspisions about the films that they took?

Robert I quoted your whole post with all the testimony that you posted within my post How is that sleezy?

Stay gone please

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection. According to who? You? If you think thats not true then... ...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal. The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration I will not accept the following answer "Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo" Then you should listen to Zapruder testifying in the Shaw trial in 1967. They brought in a projector and ran the movie several times and asked him whether the film was as it originally was. He said that although he wouldn't know if there was a frame missing here and there, the film appeared to be exactly as it was in 1963. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made? A: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film. Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy? A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir. THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it? THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing. THE COURT: What is your answer? THE WITNESS: I couldn't say. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November? A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you. Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film? A: Yes, sir. Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: One copy to the FBI? A: Correct. Q: And one copy to Life Magazine? A: Yes, sir. Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies? A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office. Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct? A: No. It was given to me in his office. MR. DYMOND: That is all we have on traverse, Your Honor, and we submit the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of this film in evidence. THE COURT: Take the Jury out, Sheriff. (WHEREUPON, the Jury retired from the courtroom.) THE COURT: The objection is well taken for this reason: Mr. Zapruder did not bring this film with him, and I would suggest before I make a final ruling that you roll the film for the benefit of Mr. Zapruder only so that he can see what is depicted on that day. You could then renew your offer and I will rule on it. MR. OSER: All right, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is it necessary for us to black out and cut the lights out in the room? MR. OSER: I think so, Your Honor. THE COURT: Very well. Sheriff, will you throw those switches. Mr. Zapruder, when this equipment is properly rigged up and they play this film, don't say anything while they are playing the film. You will be asked questions after the film is played. (WHEREUPON, the film was shown.) THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness. MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge. THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first. BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas? A: I would say they do. THE COURT: I didn't hear you again. THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing? A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so? Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film? A: I couldn't tell you. Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct? A: I could not. THE COURT: Bring the Jury back. (WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.) THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed. BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas? A: Yes, it does. MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped? A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell. Do you read anything before you post it Robert? Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing? A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so? Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film? A: I couldn't tell you. You just proved my point beyond a doubt Robert Thanks for doing the work for me Please keep posting in this thread

Are you going to ignore yourself for the same reasons that you listed? Sir, I do think that if YOU ignored me, once and for all, everybody would be happy. /F.C./ You just said you are going to ignore me altogether (along with Lee, Bernie and Bill) Why do you keep replying to me? You cant help yourself can you?

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection. According to who? You? If you think thats not true then... ...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal. The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration I will not accept the following answer "Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo"

Are you going to ignore yourself for the same reasons that you listed?

Amen Martin Why do you think you get so much flack Francis? Treat others how you would like to be treated, like Martin said you came on this forum and in your first post said "I know as much as anybody here" How did you think we would respond? Then you send Lee and I 1,234,654 of the same emails Come on if you want to be taken seriously then you need to respect other members

Then you say "I also knew that OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty." What twisted logic

edit delete double post

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection. According to who? You?

Yes On his "Denounced" side he has Atom Bomb Test Im positive LHO would back a man like Sobell who was still in prison fighting to get out in 1963 I own an autographed 1st edition copy of his book "On Doing Time" Very interesting read, even more interesting now that he has confessed

Huh? How can you "highly recommend" a book that you have not read? Dean, not only does Robert highly recommend it, he has it ranked #13 on his list of the best books to read on the JFK assassination. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16281&view=findpost&p=201712 You have got to be kidding me!

That is an awesome documentary