Dean Hagerman

I nominate this thread for "Worst thread of all time on any forum in the history of the internet"

Besides the JFK case I have studied the Leopold and Loeb case more then any other More so because I am completly obsessed with and believe in Nietzsche

Mike Have you watched "Full Metal Jacket" as many times as I have?

An interview with Paxton was taped for the Oral History project at the Sixth Floor. Has anyone either listened to the interview or read the transcript? Thanks, BK From everything I've read about the Paxton/Hanks collaboration it is to be a documentary...an Ozzie did it documentary. I forget where I read it, but a google search should suffice. Hi Norman, The Paxton/Hanks collaboration is slated to be a HBO TV Serial dramtization of Vincent Bugliosi's non-fiction Reclaiming History, and will include a separate, short documentary on the assassination based on Bugliosi's book. Neither the docudrama nor the documentary are in production, but slated for release for the 50th anniversary of the assassination in 2013, three years from now. Paxton is from Texas, and was in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination, and is said to be seen in photographs of the crowd in front of JFK as he addressed them in front of the hotel a few hours before the assassination. Since Paxton is a witness to certain events, and a major motion picture guy (The Greatest Game), who has endorsed Vincent Bugliosi's Bogus book on the assassination, and helped sell it to Hanks and HBO, and had previously hawked pro-conspiracy themes for a film, I was wondering what he told the Sixth Floor Muse Oral History Project. The Sixth Floor, having recently become the official repository of records from the Dallas DA office, should open its records totally, posting the transcripts of their oral historys and the recordings themselves, to allow researchers and ordinary citizens to read and hear the history and decide for themselves what to believe. In fact, since these records were produced by the tax-paying citizens, and actually belong to the people and not any private enterprise, they should be made totally available to anyone who wants to read/hear them, as should all of the government's records. Now if someone has actually gone to the Sixth Floor Muse Reading Room and read the transcript or heard the tape of what Bill Paxton had to say, or has a copy of the transcript, I'd like to read it or know what Bill had to say at the time. And if no one as, I will reward anyone who goes over to the Sixth Floor, requests this record, makes a copy of it, and shares it with me and anyone else who is interested. The Sixth Floor, like the NARA and the government itself, has a responsibility not only to preserve these public records, but to make them readily available without having burglars going in to steal them. Bill Kelly Bill, a few months back there was an article claiming Paxton was in Texas working on the film. It is gonna be a 10-part mini-series, a la The Pacific, a Hanks/Goetzman production on WWII that just finished up. I read that as well Pat

Maybe Woody will win the auction

Agreed Kathy

Censorship is BAD I control what my children watch on TV and view on the internet Its my job to censor what my children view Its not the USAs job to censor what I as an adult watch or view

I think this sums up what is going on right now in this thread

This is absurd. I second that I think this needs to be looked into, something is not right (fake photo/switched photo) I have a question for those who think pictures of a naked LHO are offensive Are you offended when your spouse walks out of the shower naked? Do you turn away and say "Holy cow thats so offensive! Please cover up my eyes cant take it!" Do you run out of the locker room of the gym screaming "Its offensive Its offensive!" Maybe I have just been around alot of naked people in my life because the photos do not offened me at all They do not change the fact that LHO is innocent in my eyes (Im still trying to understand what Greg is talking about) Jack and Todd are correct

What a freaking joke

I agree with Jim Of course I think we need to look into this and try to find out whats going on Jim I hope you can find that picture, if you do find it and it shows an even larger LHO then I think there is a real case of a fake photo, or a switched photo I think this is a big deal, there are many films and photos that I consider altered for sure, this is looking like yet another case of that Jim if you find this photo that you know you have please email it to me ASAP Dean

Good points, Stephen. I will employ my skills at conciseness. The key will be evidence that relates to the four main assertions. Only FOUR assertions? There are hundreds! Spot on again Jack. Dean only plays by his pro-Judyth rules. He looks more and more silly as this thread moves forward. The funny part is that I answered his question about what proof I would need and said a picture of Judyth and Lee together would do it for me. Barb has shown Dean the passage in Judyths book that claims a picture of Judyth and Lee and now he seems to be ready to dismiss this claim instead of follow up with Barb. What more do I have to do Dean? Are you going to keep ignoring my answer of a picture proving Judyths story to me?

Jack Thank you for finding and posting the second picture Jim is this the autopsy photo that you have and you and I have been talking about?

You hit the nail on the head Jack Dean has already stated he will ignore my questions and answers How can anybody reading this thread think for one second that Dean is being fair and open? This thread is worthless because Dean wants to pick and choose the answers that will fit his view on Judyth, he will not accept answers that do not fit his view Please I ask the members who are reading this thread to go back and read Deans reply to me

I agree not to reply Great idea Jack I look forward to your pictures and studies

This picture IMO shows LHO to be circumcised, the B&W photo (The Hi-res scan that Jack sent me) looks to me like LHO is circucised in that photo as well So this is bad for Judyth when we look at the Email from Dave Reitzes But the issue that I wamt to look into is the size of LHOs member Something is going on, thats for sure Just looking at the huge difference between the color slide that I have and the B&W scan I got from Jack (thanks agan Jack) anyone can see that the sizes are way different Not only that the closer you get with the camera the bigger its going to appear, in this case the picture taken farther away shows the large johnson while the photo up close shows the small (or below avarage) johnson This need to be researched and I am willing to do any work on this to help besides my own studies that I have already started Dean

What gives you that impression? How do you know a conversation with me would not be constructive? You have never had a conversation with me so how can you feel like you have had a more constructive conversation with some other people when we have never had a conversation for you to base your odd statement off of? And the last part of your statement is very telling "So I appreciate their answers more" Let me tell you what that means I only appreciate answers that I want to hear Your questions are a joke

I voted C before viewing the votes

Dean, does your photo include the identifying autopsy number in the photo? Thanks, Barb :-) No it does not Barb

Dean I have two possible theories on why you like to ignore me 1. You are blind 2. You dont like my answers Its a real slap in the face when you say "No reply to this question" and "No one has answered this question" when clearly I answered those two questions on the first page right after you asked them Why even ask for opinions on Judyth when all you do is ignore the replies?

Jack Thank you for posting the LHO Black and White autopsy photo I can say this for sure there is a huge difference between the B&W picture that Jack Posted and the color picture that I have and sent to Jim Jim I just sent you a PM Please read it

Sure. Let me tell you what I know. First off, Keith is not a member of this Forum and will not join. He's quite busy. His hypothesis is not "new." We corresponded and then met in person at the ARRC conference about five years ago. Right now, I am not sure this hypothesis is correct. I expect to spend some time determining the question for myself. However, right now I can give you this capule presentation of the view. First, there is abundant evidence from earwitnesses that the last two shots were bunched. This is one of the few really significant facts that emerges from a study of earwitness testimony. The last two shots found on the DPD dictabelt come 0.7 seconds apart at Z 313 and Z 328. Second, the medical evidence as to the condition of JFK's head is a real mess. It permits but does not necessitate the conclusion that he was hit twice in the head. Third, the blast of brain and blood debris over Officers Martin and Hargis, the location where the Harper fragment and other bone fragments were found, the backward and leftward snap of JFK's head recorded on the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films... all of this evidence points to the impact of a shot from the right front at Z 313. Fourth, there is abundant evidence of impact debris thrown forward. Occupants in the car were struck by blood and brain debris. Kellerman and Greer had same on their backs and shoulders at Bethesda that night. Robert Frazier's forensic team found brain and blood debris as far forward at the hood ornament. A bullet fragment hit was observed on the interior surface of the windshield as well as blood and brain debris. Damage to the chrome strip was apparently also caused by a bullet or fragment impact. All of this evidence points to a hit on JFK's head from the rear. This hit could not have occurred prior to Z 313. Fifth, Keith Fitzgerald pointed out to me that the greatest forward movement of JFK's head occurs between Z 327 and Z 328. In addition, the character of JFK's head wound in the Zapruder film changes markedly at this point. Other indicia of a hit at this point have also been observed by Keith Fitzgerald. At this point, I would describe this hypothesis as "likely but not proven." I look forward to having the time over the next year or so to definitively answer the question. Obviously, Professor Fetzer hasn't a clue with respect to all this. However, that should not be news to any of us. Josiah Thompson Very nice! Thank you Tink, I will start checking out my copies of the Z-film and zero in on frames 327 and 328 as well as the frames in front and behind I will report back with my thoughts I hope I can see or find evidence of a hit at 327/328 Thanks again Tink Dean

Professor Fetzer has great difficulty getting anything right... as we’ve seen again and again on this thread. Once again, he bloviates far from the truth. He says that he has “in the past even supported Josiah Thompson’s work until he convinced me that he is no longer seeking the truth by going to the extent of even disavowing his own best work in the form of the “double hit” om SIX SECONDS which he no longer supports..” How many misstatements can a single sentence contain? First, Fetzer has never ever supported any part of my work and certainly not the hypothesis offered in Six Seconds of a double hit on Kennedy’s head between Z frames 312 and 314. That is just for starters. Nor have I abandoned the hypothesis that Kennedy was hit twice in the head.... first from the front, next from the rear. David Winp’s work has persuaded me that all the occupants of the limousine begin sliding forward in their seats at approximately Z 308. Only Kennedy, reacting to a bullet hit at Z 313, is thrown forcefully backward and to the left. The forward motion of his head that I believed occurred between Z 312 and Z313, Wimp explains was not real motion but apparent motion introduced by the smearing of Z 313 as Zapruder moved his camera in startle response. Insofar as I can determine at present, there is no forward motion between Z 312 and Z 313 that can be ascribed to a bullet hit. However, the inside of the windshield was struck by a bullet fragment and lead removed from its interior surface. Frazier’s forensic team found blood and brain debris scattered as far forward as the hood ornament. Obviously, then Kennedy was hit in the head by a bullet fired from the rear. That bullet could not have been fired prior to Z313. It appears that bullet impacted Kennedy’s head at approximately Z 328, 0.7 tenths of a second after the Z 313 hit. It accelerated Kennedy’s head to he fastest forward speed it ever achieved and changed radically the appearance of the wound to his head. I am indebted to Keith Fitzgerald of Concord, New Hampshire for his excellent development of this evidence. Kennedy was hit in the head from the front at Z 313 and hit in the head from the rear at Z 328. At least that’s the way it looks to me now. Fetzer’s understanding of all this is non-existent. Josiah Thompson Tink Is Keith a member of this forum? If not can you get him to join and talk about this new theory I am very interested in what he (and of course you) have to say about this new theory I still believe in your original double head shot between 312 and 314 as I have told you many times But I am open to this new theory Tink, I want to study this myself Thanks for sharing your new thoughts on this theory that is super important to me and my studies Dean

Her outlandish claims I mean all you have to do Dean is look at the new JVB poll Not looking like many members believe Judyth at all And if you think the poll looks bad now just wait a couple days when its say 100 votes for No to 3 votes for Yes What does that tell you Dean?