Dean Hagerman

I am aware of Groden's intros to both TKOAP and TSFLHO. But thanks. :-) Let's see, you asked for a name of a lab in New Jersey, I provided more than one cite. You mocked a safe, I provided a quote from Groden, you mocked his working in any film lab in 1964 because you said he was 19 and in the Army .... he was 18 until November of '64, and I cite David, in Pig on a Leash, who tells you Groden worked in a lab making slides after being medically discharged from the Army after less than a year, having dropped out of school and joined the Army when he was a junior in high school. Oh yes, do lecture me. :-) Any time you need a leture on Z-film history just ask I will help you

I agree. Josiah, how many photos did you take of the 1st gen copy Z film? Jack, you forgot #6 on your top 5, the William Greer "Bionic Man" head snap. To me, that's the most suspicious. Good call John "Blody Treason" has a great section on the Superman head turn from Greer

Why do you keep trying to make the point of proving alteration to John Q. Citizen? If the lay person wants to learn about alteration they first need to learn the basics of the assassination All they then have to do is read "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" to learn about alteration You seem hell bent on asking us to prove alteration to people who have no clue about the JFK assassination Why is that so important to you? Dean I've had to read your comments and questions quite a number of times for them to actually sink in. Wow! First off: I'm not asking you to "do" anything. Secondly: I thought I'd given a reasonable explanation in my direct reply to you yesterday. Third: If you're happy to leave the "education" of John Q. Citizen to the Sixth Floor Museum then knock yourself out - take your kids there, it's only $13.50 for adults, $12.50 for youths and free for the under 5's. May I ask you a question? What is all this about? What are we all doing this for? Bill Kelly has the right idea by framing his own education and research around gaining a future Grand Jury trial. Doug Horne writes of his experiences of working inside the ARRB after performing a public service to the citizen's of the U.S. by releasing millions of pages of documents. John Judge organises COPA events several times a year. Jim DiEugenio goes on the airwaves to give a balanced interpretation of the evidence each week. Jim Marrs is working with Alex Jones on a new assassination documentary. If you're more interested in spending all your spare time looking at shadows and blades of grass that shouldn't be where they are in the Zapruder film and then high fiving people of the same persuasion and beliefs then fine - if the forum is still running I'll check in with you in 47 years to discover what new anomoly you are discussing. If you can't read my posts properly and ask questions that relate to the content of what I have written then I can't force you to. I'm not arguing for you "to prove" alteration of the DP films to John Q. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing "against" trying to "prove "alteration" to John Q. Citizen. It's an issue that is over complicated. Pat Speer mentioned yesterday in a separate post that in the event of a spokesperson being selected to talk to the media in 2013 you have to be incredibly careful as to what content/issues are used so as to not be torn a new one. You want to keep calling yourself an "alterationist" so be it. You want to give the Gary Mack's of this world the perfect opportunity to label you as a "kook" then that's your choice. It simply enables Mr Mack to lump anyone who thinks ANY aspect of the Zapruder film has been altered into the "alterationist" pot. Even if we are talking about frame removal or provenance of the film we all get lumped together as "alterationists". You want to be painted into a corner? To be labelled in such a way? To have this label attached to you that limits people's perceptions of you? To encourage and support the plan that has been enacted to encourage a pavlovian response when the word is used? You have created a microcosm of partisan party politics within the research by labelling yourself, and allowing others to label you, in this way. If this is not about getting the general public on board at some point in the future then I don't know what this is all about. To argue with each other as to who knows more about a topic than someone else? The homeless guys running around Dealey Plaza doing improptu tours for $5 are providing more of a public service than you are Dean. I intend to start work on a grassroots campaign in the next twelve months over this side of the pond after having already been in touch with some smaller campaign groups in my local area. I will make very effort to present to university students on the more compelling (and easily proveable) aspects of the case. I will write letters to my local and national newspapers requesting a balanced approach to the reporting in (November) 2013. I will make copies of public domain DVD's and give them out in my local city centre. I will ask friends and colleagues to do the same in London, Birmingham and some other major cities. I will fund this out of my own pocket. That's my pledge Dean. What's your pledge? What will you do for your country? Regards Lee My pledge is to find out who killed JFK That has always been my pledge If you think the fact that I believe in alteration paints me into a corner with other alterationists then thats fine with me, I have much confidence in my fellow alterationists You get hung up on the fact that I study the anomolies in the Z-film, of course I do that and will keep on doing that with all the films and photos, I have been doing that since 1997, and while I have studied all aspects of the case this has been my main drive over the past 13 years What you are doing is trying to get researchers like my self and Jack White to stop claiming alteration and stop looking for alteration in the Z and other films Why would you suggest such a thing? So we are not labled by Gary Mack? Like I give two snits what Gary Mack thinks about or says about me or any other alterationists Im proud to back the other researchers who believe in alteration, its people like you who think if a person claims alteration then they are a kook If thats what you think, or thats what you think others think about alterationists then thats your problem, not mine, I will not change my views as to not be labeled a kook by the likes of Gary Mack and other LNers

Ok, I knew I had read Grodens own account of how and when he came upon the Z-film I went through all of Grodens books until I came to the Introduction in "The Killing Of A President" I scanned it for Barb and others On the page before this one Groden says that he started to study the case soon after Nov 22 1963 But he never had any Z-film or frames or had never seen the Z-film before he met Weitzman in 1969, in fact Weitzman didnt show Groden the Z-film until months after they first met Barb if you dont know the facts and history of the Z-film, how can we trust your diatribes against Fetzer, White and others?

Thanks for bringing up Pig on a Leash, Bernice! I just started wading thru these replies. Geesh, I didn't know this scenario was little known, and it, indeed, may be a mixed bag of 2 February's being mixed up (1964 and 1968) but! First to Pig on a Leash.... See page 356 of the Great Z Film Hoax. David Lifton relates that Groden dropped out of high school in the 11th grade to join the Army. [Groden turned 17 on November 22, 1962.] Lifton goes on to relate that Groden was discharged on a medical less than a year later, that he then returned to the New York area, and that he worked for a record distributor AND .... "and, at some point, went to work as an optical technician (i.e., someone who made 35mm slides from pictures)." Lifton then jumps ahead noting that he knows Groden worked for EFX for an extended period and gets into the whole Mo Weitzman deal. Weitzman was the lead optical technician at a New Jersey lab called Manhattan Effects in 1967 when LIFE sent the Z film there for a 16mm copy .... and in 1968, they wanted a 35mm copy. LATER, in 1968, Weitzman set up his own shop ... EFX, and in 1969, Groden was hired to work there. I do not know if Weitzman was with Manhattan Effects in 1964. In 1967, Life magazine hired a New Jersey film lab, Manhattan Effects, to make a 16 mm film copy of the original Zapruder film. Pleased with the results, they asked for a 35 mm internegative to be made. Mo Weitzman made several internegatives in 1968, giving the best to Life and retaining the test copies. Weitzman set up his own optical house and motion picture postproduction facility later that year. Employee and assassination buff Robert Groden, hired in 1969, used one of Weitzman's copies and an optical printer to make versions of the Zapruder film using close-ups and minimizing the camera's shakiness. http://www.dockersunion.com/phpbb/viewtopi...&view=print LIFE had slides made in Feb 1964. LIFE ordered a 16mm made in 1967, a 35 mm made in Feb 1968. Groden, according to Lifton, worked as an optical tech at a lab in the NY area after returning from less than a year in the Army ... which would have been sometime in 1963 according to his birthdate. Manhattan Effects was in New Jersey. Weitzman worked there before opening his own place, EFX, in 1968 ... and hiring Groden in 1969. Trask writes this in POTP, pg 118: Robert J. Groden, a young optics technician working for a New Jersey photo lab had come upon a copy of the Zapruder film. Though Groden was uncommunicative about the circumstances of his obtaining the film, several sources say Groden acquired it in 1968 when LIFE had sent the original out to the New Jersey lab for copying and copy slides. Groden says his copy was made directly off the original, and though he contends he did nothing wrong obtaining an unauthorized copy of this copyrighted film, he is careful not to mention who, if anyone, assisted him. Groden recalls, "When I saw it I was too afraid to do anything with it. I threw it in a bank vault." Over the next 10 years, he not only began studying it, but also enhanced it by reframing.... But LIFE sent the film to have slides made in Feb 1964 after Orth projected the original film for the WC. That's where they got the 1st generation slides we have today. And by the time Groden was hired to work at EFX by Weitzman in 1969, Weitzman no longer had the original there. He made the 35mm for LIFE in 1968. "Over the next 10 years" does not comport with the Geraldo airing in 1975. It does comport with 1964 when the slides were made for the WC. The 6th floor reports in their Z-film timeline: February 1968 Life hired a New Jersey film lab, Technical Animations, to make a 35mm film copy of the original 8mm Zapruder film. Vice President and General Manager Moses Weitzman made several copies, gave the best one to Life and kept the rejects. Perhaps Gary Mack can comment on this. Different lab named, but again, that was the 35mm copy .... and no slides as in 1964. A non-JFK assassination site, FAMOUS PICTURES: THE MAGAZINE at http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.ph...e=Zapruder_Film says in its Zfilm history: In government circles copies of the film circulated often copies of copies sometimes many generations old. When the Warren Commission studied the film the next year they had difficulties with the quality and clarity of the prints. In Feb 1964, LIFE lab assistant Herbert Orth brought the original film to a meeting of government officials and volunteered to make slides of all the frames. The original was sent out to a New Jersey photo lab where photo lab technician Robert Groden made a bootleg copy. He also was able remove the amateur shakiness of the original by re-framing it. This improved version was far superior to the copies the government held but he placed it in a bank vault out of fear he would be arrested for making a bootleg copy. Perhaps as with all things in this arena, it seems, there is some haziness to who or what went where when. Apparently the thought that Groden was the technician at the NJ lab in 1964 when life sent the film to have slides made is not as widely known ... or at least not accepted ... as I thought, or as it seems to be to some people I have spoken to/who have mentioned it to me. The first time I heard this was while in D.C. for a COPA conference, so that would have been either '94 or '95. I'm thinking it was '95 because I recall it first being mentioned to me sometime after Doug DeSalles and I had a very late night dinner ... about 1am ... with Groden, his son and someone else (can't remember who) at a diner we all laughed about later... and that was in '95. And, as I have posted, that is exactly what is noted in some accounts ... and Lifton notes Groden working in a photo lab making slides after he got home from his less-than-a-year long Army career which fits that time frame, as well. I do know that over dinner that night in the wacky diner, Robert told us he had been working on the assassination since 1964. Hope this answers everyone's questions about what I meant/where I got this. I in no way mean to malign Robert Groden or cause him any grief. Heck, as someone posted here the other day, he's pretty much considered a hero in this arena by some for copying that film ... whenever and wherever that may have happened. I am truly surprised that this scenario is completely unknown, at least by those who replied here. It really makes no difference to me, or at all, I suppose ... and only Robert know which scenario is correct. Bests, Barb :-) Maybe you missed this important part June of 1969

What in the world are you talking about? So what your saying is Groden worked at a film lab in New Jersey that made 3 copies and he made a copy for himself at the NJ lab that had nothing to do with Moe Weitzman? You are wrong Groden got the film from Weitzman who Groden worked for in New York not New Jersey What was the name of this New Jersey lab that Groden worked at and made a copy of the Z-film for himself? Your claiming that Groden had a Z-film in his safe that he made copies of in 1964 Time to show Barb she has no clue what she is talking about Groden told the ARRB that his first job that had to do with photography was in June of 1969 His first job in photography was with Moe Weitzman at EFX in New York Tell us Barb how was Groden who was 19 years old in 1964 was working at a photo lab in New Jersey when he was in the US Army? Do you want me to keep going? The funny part is that you talk to David and I like we are stupid, bottom line is that you dont know what you are talking about Some support for Dean's take on this... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...roden_0002a.htm Thanks Will Whats up Barb? Cat got your tongue?

Worst "prediction" I have ever heard in my whole life

What in the world are you talking about? So what your saying is Groden worked at a film lab in New Jersey that made 3 copies and he made a copy for himself at the NJ lab that had nothing to do with Moe Weitzman? You are wrong Groden got the film from Weitzman who Groden worked for in New York not New Jersey What was the name of this New Jersey lab that Groden worked at and made a copy of the Z-film for himself? Your claiming that Groden had a Z-film in his safe that he made copies of in 1964 Time to show Barb she has no clue what she is talking about Groden told the ARRB that his first job that had to do with photography was in June of 1969 His first job in photography was with Moe Weitzman at EFX in New York Tell us Barb how was Groden who was 19 years old in 1964 was working at a photo lab in New Jersey when he was in the US Army? Do you want me to keep going? The funny part is that you talk to David and I like we are stupid, bottom line is that you dont know what you are talking about

David you are correct Moe Weitzman ran EFX Laboratories in New York City nt New jersey as Barb claims It was at EFX that Moe went from 8mm to 35mm in one step Groden of course worked for Moe and from him got most of his early Z-film (s) I loved Liftons POAL chapter in TGZFH, the background of the researchers trying to get any type of copy of the Z-film, Marcus stealing Newcombs copy of the Z-film ( ) such a great history that Lifton was involved in, one of the reasons I look up to Lifton and the early reaserchers so much What in the world are you talking about? So what your saying is Groden worked at a film lab in New Jersey that made 3 copies and he made a copy for himself at the NJ lab that had nothing to do with Moe Weitzman? You are wrong Groden got the film from Weitzman who Groden worked for in New York not New Jersey What was the name of this New Jersey lab that Groden worked at and made a copy of the Z-film for himself? Your claiming that Groden had a Z-film in his safe that he made copies of in 1964 Time to show Barb she has no clue what she is talking about Groden told the ARRB that his first job that had to do with photography was in June of 1969 His first job in photography was with Moe Weitzman at EFX in New York Tell us Barb how was Groden who was 19 years old in 1964 was working at a photo lab in New Jersey when he was in the US Army? Do you want me to keep going?

Tink I dont know if you missed my post asking you to please scan and post some of the pictures you took that day back in 1966 (which made you an assassination research hero in my book for doing the right thing even though it was wrong in Lifes opinion) This last scan is great, could you please scan and post some more of them, the B&W and Color If you can get around to doing this I would be very very happy Thanks Dean

David you are correct Moe Weitzman ran EFX Laboratories in New York City nt New jersey as Barb claims It was at EFX that Moe went from 8mm to 35mm in one step Groden of course worked for Moe and from him got most of his early Z-film (s) I loved Liftons POAL chapter in TGZFH, the background of the researchers trying to get any type of copy of the Z-film, Marcus stealing Newcombs copy of the Z-film ( ) such a great history that Lifton was involved in, one of the reasons I look up to Lifton and the early reaserchers so much

Why do you keep trying to make the point of proving alteration to John Q. Citizen? If the lay person wants to learn about alteration they first need to learn the basics of the assassination All they then have to do is read "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" to learn about alteration You seem hell bent on asking us to prove alteration to people who have no clue about the JFK assassination Why is that so important to you?

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so. I am referring to MOVIES. Jack Mr White I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops. I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome. Lee Lee.... My apologies if I did something to offend you. I know of no "childish manner" in which I have acted. This website is populated by many provocateurs and jerks who cause much wear and tear on an 83-year old. I have no idea why you perceive that this forum is "my personal fiefdom". I find that quite amusing, since the contrary is true. I do not recall any "condescending slant" in responding to you. If you perceive that, I apologize. I have studied this baffling case for 45 years and it gets irritating when some come along disputing known facts as if they have just discovered them. And consider this...if you made a spelling error (?), what is wrong with correcting it? And about sarcasm, I do recognize that when I see it, and have duly noted it. Your humble servant, Jack Hello Jack Thanks for the reply. I think I've grown to know many of your thoughts and opinions of some "members" who post on this site and the impact they have on people genuinely attempting to answer some of the tough questions on the case. I used the term "fiefdom" because I am of the opinion that when there is a back-and-forth discussion taking place between two or more individuals on a contested topic those individuals sometimes lose all awareness that it is happening on a public platform, and because it's on a public platform I am of the strange opinion that you should try to be accommodating to new members, educate the casual observers and project a positive image of the group who will one day succeed in completely and unanimously bringing down in the minds of the public the house of cards that is the Warren Commission. Unfortunately I believe some of the "attacks" of a personal nature that I have been privy to over the last two years by reading the postings as a guest undermines the credibility of the entire research community. So you are playing into the "provocateurs" hands by behaving and condoning others behaving in this way, are you not? At the moment I don't buy Z-Film alteration (blobs and disappearing motorcycles do not convince me). But I don't KNOW that it wasn't done either. However, on a personal level - I don't think it matters one way or the other whether it is one day proven that the Z-Film (or any other film) was altered, changed, distorted, manipulated or colored in. There is enough evidence in other areas that does it for me and if the public knew the full extent of what is today known (post ARRB) about Oswald it would more than likely be enough for them too. As far as "disputing known facts" I don't recall disputing anything in my initial reply to you. I merely answered your question, there are no movies that depict what you suggest was told to you by Mary Ferrell and read in Horne's book. The condescension lay in you telling me you'd had the picture I'd posted for 40 years and thanking me for it. The spelling lesson lay in you typing "MOVIES" in capitals. I don't always agree with your research or thoughts Jack, but I 100% admire the dedication and service you have put into trying to answer the questions we would like answers to. I just wish the members of the forum see through the folly of falling for very old tricks out of very old books. Once again thanks for your reply Best wishes Lee Thank you, Lee. I appreciate your opinions, but I think you are "reading into" any of my messages things which are not there. You seem to be an intelligent but overly sensitive person. I will try to remember that. Welcoming new members is not in my job description. All who jump in here should hit the ground running and not expect any preferential treatment or coddling. There are vicious people here who WILL CUT YOU NO SLACK. Feel free to disagree with me. That is your privilege. I am not always right. But stay around long enough and you will find I am mostly right. On the Z film, there is NO DOUBT that I am right...except from obstructionists with vested interests. Thanks. (No offense intended.) Jack I think the over-sensitivity comes from "new-member" nerves. I get the passion you have for Zapruder alteration. I have brought this up - key points that could suggest it has been diddled with - with some close friends who know nothing of the case and I get the same response every time. They look at me as if I'm mad. One of the points you make (with James Fetzer) is that this could convince the public of the massive cover-up reaching into many organizations and institutions. But I believe it's too hard a sell - I can't even convince myself of it let alone anyone else. So on that note - what, in your opinion, is the big one, the one piece of evidence out of all you have collected, if you had to sell it to the American public tomorrow, that would buy the lay man into believing it is faked? I will answer your question directed at Jack from my point of view, in my opinion if I as an alterationist had to choose one piece of evidence of Z-film alteration to sell to the lay man it would no doubt be the wide limo turn taken out of the film Zappy never stopped filming, and we dont see the tell tale fading in and out that turning the camera on and off will show I ask you this Lee, do you think Zappy stopped filming and then started back up again? Or do you think the embarrasing wide turn that Greer made almost into the side street in front of the TSBD as seen by Roy Truly was taken out of the Z-film in order to cover up SS incompetence? I could go on and on but if I had to choose one thing it would be the limo turn taken out Dean

So now your Garys mouthpiece Ray? Why didnt he post that info himself? What would that small comment have done to mess with his position at the 6th Floor?

Not true, Jack. Here is the interview. At 1:43 he says MALL. Newman interview on WFAA And here is his testimony in the mock trial, where he makes perfectly clear that he thought the shots came from the back of the arcade, by the MALL. Newman and the bug Listen to what Newman says at 1:17 in the Youtube clip you posted Pat of Newman in "On Trial Lee Harvey Oswald" He says in a Texas drawl "Grassy Knoll"

I no doubt agree that they are being thrown forward when Greer hits the brakes but my question is when they start to slide forward Tink claims he changed his mind on the double head shot theory because the limo occupants start sliding forward at frame 308 I dont see them sliding forward until after the head shot 313 Tink claims they move forward before the head shot at 308, I claim they move forward after the head shot at 313 I will re-read Costellas section in TGZFH to see what he says about it

Bill I am on my second run through of Vol 4 (in case I missed anything as I am a speed reader) But I think you and I will have alot to talk about after I get your Email I think McMahon is a huge deal and I am very interested One thing that Doug Horne does well is put up simple graphs with names and places of events along with the source These are very nice as it lists lots of info in one small simple graph instead of searching all over the chapter for the names and source info I enjoyed Volume 4 very much

Jack would you agree with me that the occupants of the limo are thrown forward from the brakes being hit after the head shot and not before as Tink claims?

Show me where all the people in the limo start moving forward at frame 308 Duncan They all move forward after the head shot And the blur is for one frame, just like what happens throughout the film, the motion blur that Tink says caused the forward head snap has nothing to do with the blur, look at Jackie, she does not move at all in the blur frame, and look at JC, while the blur makes him look to move forward just a tad it is nothing compared to JFKs forward head snap Thank you for posting those Duncan, they do a good job of illustrating what Tink was talking about with motion blur, but it really just reinforces what I have been saying, I cant believe Tink changed his mind, the motion blur does not cause the forward movement of JFKs head And I have yet to see the people in the limo slide forward before the head shot, Tink says it starts at 308, from my GIFs and the one Duncan posted (I dont know what frame his starts at) you see no forward movement until after the head shot

Thanks, Dean...for the offer of help. Young people like you who were raised on computers think all this is easy because it IS to you. I did not learn (self-taught) to use a computer till I was 64; I am now 83...so I know how to do stuff, BUT DO NOT UNDERSTAND TECH ASPECTS. I have used a Mac competently for 19 years TO DO THINGS I NEED TO DO. But learning NEW stuff is tough for me. I only have time to do stuff...not to learn new things to do. An analogy: I have driven a car competently for more than 60 years, but have only a faint idea what is under the hood or what makes it work. They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks...well, keep in mind that I am a VERY OLD DOG. Thanks. Jack Jack I understand, I tried for a week to teach my grandpa how to use a computer and he got so frustrated and mad that he just quit and gave his computer away I grew up in the 1980s and did not have a computer in my house, I only used one in school, it was an Apple II with the green screen, all I did was play "Oregon Trail" and nothing else I did not get a computer until 1997, but since that time I have used one at work and at home, most everything that has to do with a computer I have learned all on my own, but it was easy for me to learn because as you say I was not yet an "old dog" and grew with the technology My grandpa is used to fixing things with tools as he is a very good mechanic, however he can not fix mistakes on a computer with his tools as he put it If you ever have a question just PM me, I would be glad to help Dean Edit: and Jack I was talking to John about the mouse wheel not to you, I just noticed you thought I was talking about you

Dean-O, you killin' me. I do remember the old school method. The wearing out of the wheel was sarcasm, of course. I'll be 33 in February, so I remember the days of non-wheel mice. Think of it like this. Most people when reading a thread, know what's going on and what has been said in the previous posts, like reading a book. So re-posting a long quote or large post just gets in the way of the new post. And there are some large posts, essay-like posts, that get repeated over and over and it just clutters up the thread. Quote someone when need be, but delete all the filler. Its not that complicated. Least not for a 33 year old John you are killing me, of course I know you were being srcastic, you could not tell I was being srcastic about the "old school" method as well? Come on, im trying to show your complaining about something that is not going to change, when members are going back and forth with each other they will hit the quote button and then just reply I try to delete text from quotes when its not needed, but when im going back in forth with say Craig, im not real worried about anyone getting mad that they have to move their mouse wheel down 2 extra strokes to read my post

Don Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply Dean Thank you for your reply I hope someone somewhere has Wimps work, or knows where to find it Because the GIFs I made show nobody moving forward and no motion blur at all Again I would love to see his work

Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card! Burton cracks me up. He is such a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way. Jack Nice personal attack, Jack. Todd! Please tell me your joking Did you miss what Evan posted? I hope not because its in your post as a quote Evan laughs at Jacks opinion that Fetzer quotes evidence (which I agree with Jacks statement) says Jack breaks him up and calls him a card Did you miss that? Its really starting to get to me that non-alteratoinists have tunnel vision when it comes to reading posts, they only see what they think are unwarrented attacks by Fetzer, White and other alterationists How could you have missed that post Todd? Like Pat said, compared to Fetzer and Thompsons past feuds the stuff going back and forth now is civil Dean, Jack is always complaining about people making 'personal attacks" on him. Evan posted "Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!". Where is the personal attack in that, as opposed to "You're a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way."? Todd Todd has the blinders on today

I quoted Ray and Jack, as long as you have the first Quote with the original posters name in it (in this case it is Ray) and the bottom quote at the end you will be fine as long as you post your text under the last quote I quoted my name only to show that you can take away all of the post but leave what text you need to reply But like I said, sometimes you need to quote everything if you are in a debate and dont want to get lost

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so. I am referring to MOVIES. Jack Mr White I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops. I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome. Lee What happened to your profile picture? Are you trying to make your self look sick by coloring your face green?