Dean Hagerman

Yea, perfect, exactly as I remembered. You BLEW IT OFF! Just like Mary Poppins. Gasbag..... That thread did get cut off a little short, I thought I posted a more in depth study of the pictures I took I guess I didnt, unless I posted more on Duncans forum

Woodland is nice, I believe that Northern Califonia is the most beautiful place on earth, I am very biased of course

Here is the link Craig "I need a study for every theory that Dean comes up with" Lamson Bush thread

How about the LINK to the actual post??? Lets see the work.... I will look for it

I posted my Pyracantha Bush study Craig, remember? Here are a couple of the pics I took of the bush in my front yard, maybe they will jog your memory

Your the only one asking me to post scans, why would I do that when you have what I would post in your home?

Why would anyone buy an explanation from Craig "I just make stuff up" Lamson"?

The day you posted the photos of you bench-pressing "homeless bums" in Seattle was also very amusing...

I laugh like crazy on this forum I even laugh at Craig posts, he always makes up names that make me laugh, like today he used Cliff "I have no clue how the sun works" Varnell that made me chuckle Michael Hogan has amazing sarcasm that has me rolling Greg Burnham has posted stuff thats had me in stiches The old fights between Bill Miller and David Healy are a howl I also look for humor in everything because im super laid back and love to joke around

The other problem is his tendency to lash out at those who disagree with him. I must admit I was shocked when he lashed out at me However he was fighting many people at the same time, so I can understand the fact that Jim came out swinging when lots of members disagreed with him over Judyth Water under the bridge for me

Hey Dean? You all hot air or are you ever gonna post those artifacts seen in both Zapruder and Mary Poppins? I already told you, grab your copy of TGZFH (you told me you got a copy from Tink) and read Why would I waste my time scanning the pages and posting them when you can satisfy yourself at home?

Couldn't agree more, John. In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing. The Zapruder film on the other hand... "2001 A Space Odyssey" Remember Kubrick started filming 2001 in 1965 Dean, is this really a good comparison? The man responsible for the special effects in that film was a guy named Doug Trumbull. If you know anything about him, Trumbull was probably the number one guy at that time in his field. He took a method of special effects that was not really preeminent at the time--front projection--and made it state of the art. The method used in most films at the time was something called rear projection--which is quite detectable. Front projection was much harder to detect. But more difficult to do. Further, they had a lot of problems perfecting the techniques on that film. Which is one reason it took so long, and for that time, cost a lot. Remember, there are no big stars in that film--the budget was used mostly in production. Jim I was replying to Martins post "In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing" That was why I said 2001 in response to Martin 2001 for reasons you stated as well as others is not a good example as far as Z-film alteration is concerned Kubrick is my favorite director by far and 2001 is one of my top 5 films ever, the special effects are stunningly beautiful for a film made before computers and CGI My grandpa saw 2001 in theater in Los Angeles, he told me that he felt like he was dreaming about seeing the film because the special effects had him mezzmerized He had never seen a film like that before

Craig admits that its ok to be wrong? And sometimes he is fooled? The temperature in Hell just hit 32 degrees

Again I said "the same kinds of anomalies" not the same anomalies You always misquote me Craig, such a shame

Its real I own that same exact Moter Home

I said "we see some of the same kinds of anomalies" I never said anything close to we see the same mistakes as the frame above

Couldn't agree more, John. In fact very few Hollywood special-effects movies made before computers took over still look convincing. The Zapruder film on the other hand... "2001 A Space Odyssey" Remember Kubrick started filming 2001 in 1965

Show us.... Get out your copy of TGZFH and look at Jacks section

Even though Jim and I got into it over Judyth it never changed my opinion of his sincerity I still like and respect Jim, even if I disagree with him on some subjects I still agree with him on the subject that matters most to me

Some time ago, Bill MIller posted a number of frames from Mary Poppins, complete with visable matte lines, sections of image areas cut off my poor artwork, etc. The long and short is Mary Poppins does not enhance your position...it destroys it. Here is the "amazing" Bill Miller study that Craig is pimping The funny thing is that Craig refuses to admit that we see some of the same kinds of anomalies in the Z-film Where is old Bill Miller anyways? I miss him about as much as I miss Craig when he ducks out for a week or so

Greg, I think you're being a little unfair. There was absolutely nothing "idiotic" about Robert's "challenge." At all. If 1963 technology has already been proven adequate to the task of creating the highly sophisticated fruad you claim the Zapruder film is, then you should have no problems posting the proof here, right? Martin Go watch "Mary Poppins" from 1964

Game over Im like Lindbergh and your like Nungesser and Coli

I have forgot more about the assassination then you will ever know Why dont you send me a copy of your book, I think I have some room in my basement for it

The weak link...deano BELIEVES! I also believe in finding the truth about who killed JFK Something you care nothing about Really? Or is it all about trying to support your worldview? The funny part is that if I told you my world view you would be shocked to learn how conservative it is