Dean Hagerman

I have 0 Reputation!

Thats good and bad

They killed him because he was innocent? If the evidence was so flimsy...why did they arrest him? Then they hold him for 48 hours where presumably Oswald convinces them of his innocense and thus leaving them no alternative but to have him killed so as to cover up a false arrest?

And then stick to that story for another half century???

Good questions Bernie

I don't do witnesses.

Why not?

Bearing that in mind - no prizes for anticipating what's coming - show me exactly the same from any one of your preferred (non-car) locations.

None of my preferred locations were right out in the open for the whole world to see like Greer was

And I have explained my stance on Z-film alteration like 500 times Paul, im sure you have read it on this forum

I dont buy Greer as an assassin for a second

Purely out of curiosity, Dean, if you don't buy the eyewitnesses, and you think the Z-fake's a fake, what exactly are you relying upon? Is there something that we've all missed?

Or, if you are persuaded by some eyewitnesses, but not others, what are your criteria for so discriminating? Nothing too esoteric, mind, as it's getting late.

Show me an eyewitness that said "The driver turned around and shot JFK in the head!"

I believe a lot of the eyewitnesses Paul, I also believe that certain parts of the Z-film were altered, not the entire film

Effective assassins don't multi-task during an operation. I suppose, if after turning off of Main, Greer had "floored it" accelerating down Houston Street at 60+ mph and intentionally slammed into the TSBD in order to kill Kennedy, then I could buy him as the assassin.

For some reason I got this picture of Greer with a crazy look on his face doing a kamikazi into the TSBD and started laughing

I dont buy Greer as an assassin for a second

Howdy Doody

What are you trying to say?

That im from a hick town? LMAO

The Don Rickles of Spartacus.

Cliff

The scenario that you back up is possible, no doubt in my mind

But for my personal shooting scenario it just does not fit

Dean, I'd like to hear more about how you see it happening...

Shot #1 DalTex: Hits curb, fragments strike Tague

Shot #2 Picket Fence/Grassy Knoll: Hits JFK in throat

Shot #3 TSBD: Hits Connally in back, wrist, thigh

Shot #4 DalTex: Hits JFK in back

Shot #5 TSBD: Hits JFK in head

Shot# 6 Picket Fence/Grassy Knoll: Hits JFK in head just after shot #5

6 shots, 2 shots from each position

Actually, the car didn't only SLOWED down. It didn't only STOP either.

Actually, Bill Greer PARKED the limousine and lighted a cigarette.

Unfortunately, we can't see it BECAUSE THE FILM WAS ALTERED.

Too bad !

/F.C./

Not funny

This is arguably the most likely scenario.

I dont think so Cliff

I will believe a shot around Z190 (or a little after) from the front, but not a blood soluble flechette from the BDM position

Hi Dean,

This scenario matches the neck x-ray perfectly: bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of

the right T1 transverse process, subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. There

was no exit and no round recovered. Same thing with the back wound -- shallow, no exit,

no round was recovered.

This scenario also matches the testimony of Rosemary Willis, who described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who happened to "disappear the next instant." The HSCA photography panel examined Willis #5, taken a split second after the throat shot, and observed a "distinct straight-line feature" which was "near the region of the hands."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

This scenario was first put forth by the prosectors themselves at the end of the autopsy.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Cliff

The scenario that you back up is possible, no doubt in my mind

But for my personal shooting scenario it just does not fit

And before anyone says dont you believe the film was altered?

I do, but not in the way that the entire film was fabricated

I believe that for sure the limo turn was taken out, the limo stop was taken out, the head shot was altered, along with some other minor alterations

The footage we see of the limo occupants was the film that Zappy shot (sans the head shot)

So I believe that we can watch the Z-film for the timing of the first shot

I think Duncan is correct

I think JFK is reacting to a shot from the front that hit him in the throat

This is arguably the most likely scenario.

I dont think so Cliff

I will believe a shot around Z190 (or a little after) from the front, but not a blood soluble flechette from the BDM position

I see no signs of JFK reacting to being shot as early as the Z190s. None at all.

So is this what its like to see through the eyes of a LNer?

No ad hominem attacks, please.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Hey Francis, why dont you send me 9 emails in a row again smart guy?

Ah, come on Dave,

Next you'll be telling us the B ackyard photos and Zapruder film are fakes too.

Holden Caulfield

I wonder if Ray thinks Mark Chapman is 100% innocent as well?

I'm French and learning English, but DiEugenio makes it hard for me by inventing new definitions for some words.

Under DiEugenio's definitions,

a xxxx = "someone who tells the truth to the American people, but whom I (i.e. DiEugenio) don't like" (for instance, John McAdams falls into that category. He tells the truth, so DiEugenio calls him a xxxx).

fiction = "the truth, supported by science and all the available evidence, but which I (i.e. DiEugenio) do not want to hear about, since I would love people to believe in my idiotic theories" (for instance, the single-bullet theory falls into that category. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, so DiEugenio calls it fiction)

He has everything in reverse !

Poor man !

Good thing I use a dictionary when I want to learn English vocabulary. No sane person would want to speak DiEugenio's English ...

/François Carlier/

Weak

The guy is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

Yes.

Best answer of all time Jack

I bet Robert had a near fatal heart attack reading that

Ignorance continues to breed ignorance...

I know that you laughed when you read Jacks reply Craig

-- Bud; August 3, 2010

Hey Dave

Tell your LN buddy to join the Ed forum and post his own garbage on here instead of hiding behind you

Yes, it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete stop. The evidence is abundant and compelling.

Farting around with a fabricated film and treating it solemnly as though finding some minor slowing

would vindicate its authenticity is entering the theatre of the absurd. Just get ahold of THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX AND STUDY IT! This pretentious ignorance of the alteration of the film is

beyond silly. This is a huge distraction and massively misleading. Do you really know no better?

Thanks Jim and all,

At this time, I just wanted to see if there was a general consensus among the forum members who replied.

I am working on Zfilm timing/sync marks right now.

chris

There is really no doubt that the limousine slowed. Alvarez did a frame-by-frame study and concluded it went from 12 to 8 MPH.

And did they also "fabricate" the Nix and Muchmore films to make them sychronize, as even Dr. Mantik has admitted?

That was fast work on the Muchmore film since it was on television on 11/25/63.

And when they fabricated those other films, how exactly did they do it in way in which there were no improperly spaced gaps between the frames in which images were removed?

And were frames removed during the time that Clint Hill was running? How did they manage to make his motions appear unbroken?

Since Kodak will stop processing movie film for Zapruder's camera at the end of this year, why don't you guys shoot a simple movie in DP and then alter it the way the perps did, using only 1963 technology? Then you can do more than just tell us that they did it, you can at least PROVE that it was possible.

Yes.

Best answer of all time Jack

I bet Robert had a near fatal heart attack reading that

The film has been altered Robert

You know my stance

Yea right, now I suspect you will quote that hoax..hoax....

What did you say Craig?

Talk louder I cant hear you

But tell me. Do you think that's really Mrs. Connally we are seeing in the film? Or is it an actress playing the part? And if you think it really was Nellie, then do you think they drew in an artificial head to make it appear that she looked back at JFK? How did they go about creating the false impression that she did exactly what she said she did??

Yes I really think that in the altered Z-film we see the real Mrs. Connally

And im sure that she looked at JFK when she said she did

I do not believe a shot occured at frame 285

Dean, would you agree that Mrs. Connally at least thought she heard a shot between the time she saw JFK react and the explosive head wound, and that she spun around to tend to her husband, beginning at 291-292?

And would you agree that she reacted at the same time that Mrs. Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer reacted?

No and No

Dean, you seem to have a habit of making statements that you are unable or unwilling to support. Do I actually have to cite Mrs. Connally stating that she thought her husband was hit after she saw JFK in distress and before the explosive head wound? Have you listened to her statements in the interview which is at the beginning of the video presentation I linked? Why don't you cite the testimony she gave which convinced you that this was not what she said?

And if you do not agree that she turned to her husband and pulled him back to her at 291-292, then when do you see her doing that? What frame number?

Robert Harris

The film has been altered Robert

You know my stance