Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dean Hagerman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,402

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dean Hagerman

    In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    You weren't out drinking with Jack Ruby and LHO at the Carousel last night, were you Dean?

    You'd better be careful being seen with those guys, or else somebody will be accusing you of planting a bullet on the wrong stretcher at Parkland, or planting a bullet shell in the Sniper's Nest that couldn't possibly have been fired from the patsy's rifle on Nov. 22.

    Hey! Maybe that's the answer! The goofball plotters were hungover and/or drunk on Assassination Day! That might help explain their incoherent and idiotic-beyond-belief "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" scheme.

    So I take it that you accept my apology? :lol:

    In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    The fact that you use her for your 1:06 time is by far the most laughable point you have ever tried to make.

    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

    In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    ...just how bad Markham was.

    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" :lol:

    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

    Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Dean:

    Maybe it is and maybe it is not.

    But this is the real point: If he saw the original films, then why did not notice the difference in the assassination sequence? To me, for the plotters to do what you are saying they did, they must have wanted to eliminate something dramatic about that sequence, or why do it? And it would have taken more than a few frames.

    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

    Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    And it makes sense that he would have stopped the camera because the lead motorcycles were a considerable distance in front of the limo.

    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.

    Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    That's sleezy, my friend. If you intend to cite a witness out of context you need to do it when the rest of his testimony is not in front of our faces. And if the entire turn onto Elm was missing, he would have certainly have said so.

    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

    Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    The content is false.

    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

    What's the point ?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Let it be known that I shall from now on IGNORE ALTOGETHER four people in this forum : Bill Kelly, Dean Hagerman, Lee Farley and Bernie Laverick.

    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?

    Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    The content is false.

    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"

    More Unanswered Lone Assassin Questions

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    What a crock!

    You began hurling insults the minute you started posting on this forum, Francois. You never get into the facts of the case you simply spend your time disrupting threads with rude, patronizing, condescending remarks about how anyone who doesn't accept the evidence you've blindingly embraced is living in a fantasy world. Not once have you offered anyting of value to any discussion you've arrogantly barged into. And now you have the gall to complain about the way members have treated you in return?

    I sincerely hope you stick to your pledge and start discussing the evidence from now on, Francois. But I sure as hell ain't holding my breath.

    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

    In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Does he mean Morton Sobell?

    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

×
×
  • Create New...