Dean Hagerman

The opposite is true.

Fetzer QUOTES EVIDENCE.

Thompson invents AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Jack

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

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

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

Come on Jerry, you know that using the lowest quality images is part of Jack's MO.

...

relax Len, simply refute, deny or obfuscate will ya? There's only 5 volumes, the lone nut contingent could be busy for the next 3-5 years.... no sense getting personal.

p.s. Bill Miller made a career out of using lousey imagery... ever see those gif animations.....

No need to go through every claim he makes, as with the other Alterationists enough errors have been discovered already that his claims can not be taken at face value and need independent confirmation.

Oh really?

So because I discovered that Tinks reversal of his double head shot theory was dead wrong means that now I should throw out all the rest of anything Tink has ever done in his life?

Josiah, I thought you already were ignoring him all this time? ha

Truth be known, all the attacks on you are getting really old.

I thought this was The Education Forum, where we get educated, not The Attack Forum.

Also, navigating down all those 10,000 words quotes are wearing out the wheel on my mouse.

I cant believe how one sided members can be

How can you act like Thompson has never attacked Fetzer?

Go back and read ALL the threads between Thompson and Fetzer

Barb,

I thought you might want to know that someone has been posting

the most dishonest and ridiculous drivel and signing your name to it.

Jim

Hi John,

Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone

started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her

bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to

lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote

last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in

the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the

authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit

.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a

bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining

the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a

whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything

someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....

Barb :-)

and

Tink has handlked himself well

thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.

Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with

Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our

articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on

and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character

assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been

willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."

Barb :-)

McAdams replied:

I think it is time for some of this at this forum to

>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,

>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.

>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,

>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,

>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.

>>

>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.

>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.

>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the

>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure

>> >he would much appreciate it.

>>

>> >Who is with me?

Wow the Paul Nolan (Oh I mean John FakeAdams, dang those pesky fake names that destroy any and all credability you might have once had) groupies are gonna log on and get Tinks back in his time of need

LMFAO

Im sure Tink does not need any help from the FakeAdams crew

"So there ya have it. Does this prove the Z-film a "hoax" or "altered" with regard to the limousine stopping or not based upon 59 witnesses' statements "all" saying it stopped? I think not; what thinks ye?"

I thinks that Duke is full of it, if you gets my drift.

Jack

So do I

He takes 13 of the witnesses and puts them in a group of "Said the motorcade stopped or slowed" even when they at some point siad the limo stopped

All Duke is trying to do is scatter the truth around and make it seem like the 59 witnesses were confused

Its funny how anyone that is against alteration Kathy takes their research as holy gospel (Mack, Zavada, Duke Lane)

I dont think she cares to ever read TGZFH, I wish you would Kathy, I wish you would....

Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376

NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

b..

And I just received another present in the mail. A CD audio of Homer McMahon's recorded interview with ARRB (Horne, Gunn, et al).

Can anybody tell me if there is a transcript of this available?

Thanks,

BILL NOT IN THE ARRB FILES..THOUGH I FOUND SO MANY OTHERS NOT HIS...PERHAPS NOW THAT YOU HAVE IT YOU COULD PICK --sorry caps--away at it..till someday it is completed..and then you could post such....best b..

BK

I don't believe the ARRB didn't make a transcript of this interview on the record.

I'd make one but there doesn't seem to be much interest.

BK

Well, I'm almost done transcribing this recording of the ARRB interview with Homer McMahon, which seems pretty interesting even though nobody is interested.

I'm not going to post it right away either here or on my blog because there's some things in there that I want to run down first - some new names and places that I want to check out before any idiots get there before me.

I will post it later, and will send copies via email to anybody who asks for it, provided they keep it to themselves for a little while.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Bill I am very interested

I would love a copy sent to my Email if you could

I will keep it to myself and not post it, I promise

Dean

Hi Dean,

Send me an email at Bkjfk3@yahoo.com and I'll get it to you as soon as I'm finished. I'm 80% there, but its tedious, but worthwhile since he's such an interesting character.

BK

Email sent

Thanks Bill

Rickerby

Jack I have pretty much every image you can think of on my computer, what Parkland photos did you want posted?

Here is Stoughton

Yet another great addition from Rich to his Youtube page

I as well viewed all of Dougs presentation and was super impressed

Good job and great research Doug

If any member has not went to Richs Youtube page and viewed all of the videos he has posted you should do so right away

Dean

Dean...please make some comments about important things you learned

by watching Doug's presentation. I want to keep bumping it to page one

until I can get Bernice or someone to post some images for me. Others

should watch also, and comment...especially Pamela, who is very critical

of Doug.

Jack

No problem Jack

Most of Dougs presentation matched his chapter in MIDP, however I did gather more insight on Vaughn Ferguson and his strange actions, I consider ferguson to be a part of the conspiracy for sure

Dougs presentation nailed that home, the conflicting dates on the re-upolstry and cleaning, the in and out logs, and on and on

One thing that is very clear to me about the reason that Pamela is critical of Doug is that Doug is a threat to her self proclaimed title of "Limo Expert"

In my mind the "Limo Expert" is Doug Weldon, I think that Pamela much like Vince Palamaras self proclaimed title of "Sercret Service Expert" would be crushed if her title was ever taken from her by another researcher

Dean

Fascinating David! Is there any chance that Bob Richter might still have the internegative you mentioned that was made from the camera original? Aside from spitting out copies from your 2004 scan of the 1990 interpositive you obtained from Richter, do you have any other way of turning out copies?

I sure would like to work with you in finding, once and for all, the very best copy in existence of the Zapruder film. It's clear now that copies from the Archives are fourth or fifth generation. I, of course, have my 35 mm slides made in 1966 from LIFE's 4" by 5" transparencies. I don't have a clue where LIFE's 4" by 5" transparencies are? Do you?

Tink

Let me weigh in here with my own opinion about the best source of imagery to view the Zapruder frames: the answer is the 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film made by Moses Weitzman, circa 1968.

Two factors are critical:

1. Weitzman did the work in 1967-68 (I do not know the exact year)--but this means that any degradation of the Zapruder original that has occured, over time, is not on his 35 mm copies.

2. Weitzman used an Oxberry Optical printer with a wetgate, so scratches, etc. were eliminated. (As I understand it, the NARA original has become scratched and dirty).

I assume that the Sixth Floor Museum has at least one of the Weitzman 35 mm copies--if not more than one.

Robert Groden has some half dozen of the others. In fact, he has all of the ones that Weitzman had retained--what he called "technician copies."

In 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter was loaned one of the 35 mm copies--and that is the copy that I worked with at a New York City film lab. This is described in "Pig on a Leash" under the sub-head "At the New York Optical Lab." In brief, I spent several days working with the 35 mm item that was provided by Richter.

Please note: it was a 35 mm internegative, made DIRECTLY FROM Zapruder's (supposed) original 8mm film.

So what was in my hands, and what I was working with, represented just "one pass" through a lense.

What I produced:

1. a number of 35 mm copies, made directly from Weitzman's 35 mm Internegative

2. Using the lense, I enlarged the view, and focused in on the occupants of the car, and specifically the head wounds, creating passes that are cropped frame by frame enlargements.

The film in "my" camera was positive film.

In addition: I had the Weitzman 35 mm internegative sent out to another lap for a 35 mm timed contact interpositive.

(From that interpositive, I could then make a negative, and from the negative, I could make prints).

The key results of my work were transferred to 1" video.

All these materials were (and still are) of the highest quality.

Because they were made from the Weitzman Internegative, they had been masked on the far left, and so do not have any image between the sprocket holes.

One of those timed contact interpsotives is what I donated to the National Archives when I testified on 9/17/96. It is part of my Deed of Gift, and-I believe--is still under seal. But its there, at NARA, and represents the work I did in New York City in July, 1990.

Personal Observation: In my opinion, the materials I produced in 1990 are of higher quality than anything produced, in 1997, from the refrigerated Zapruder original, because the original had deteriorated with time; whereas I was working off a very fine 35 mm internegative produced by Moses Weitzman himself back in 1967 or 1968.

Personal Observation and Opinion: Based on what I saw, and I studied this for days, it seemed pretty obvious that the back of the head had been "blacked out", continuously, after the fatal shot. That is visible in all the frames after 313, but is most obvious in frames 321, and 323, because those happen to be particularly clear frames. Similarly, the best frames for viewing the "painted on" large head wound are frames 335 and 337.

Another note: Back in 1998, in connection with my appearance at JFK Lancer, I prepared--for demonstration purposes--a "color reversal" copy of the head sequence, step printed, and made specifically to show the blacked out area. I did this in "color reversal" so that, when projected, the blacked out area would be a "whited out" area--and I then had this transferred to video, and presented it in a talk I gave at Lancer.

In summary, the very obviously blacked out "back of the head" appears in numerous frames after the fatal shot. The best source to view it, in my opinion, is on the 35 mm Weitzman materials (made decades ago); I had that privilege--first, in 1970, at the Time Life office in Beverly Hills (see Pig on a Leash) and then again in June, 1990, in New York.

Of course, one can go (and should go) to the Sixth Floor Museum and examine transparencies made in 1997, but --given the passage of time--I would think the sharpest images come from materials created by Weitzman back in 1967/68.

One other fact: I had one of my 1990 IP's scanned--I don't know whether it was at 4k or 6k--back around 2004, and I can retrieve that from storage and take a look.

The fact is: we should all be grateful to Moses Weitzman for the work he did back in 1967/68, when he utilized Zapruder's 8mm film in an Oxberry Optical Printer and went from 8mm to 35mm in one fell swoop. Although the blacked out back of the head is particularly clear in the Weitzman 35 mm films, I believe that the "blacked out" back of the head is probably visible on all versions. I am most familiar with how it appears on the Weitzman materials. And let me assure everyone: it wasn't put there by Weitzman--it was there on the so-called "original Zapruder film" which he so nicely enlarged.

DSL

1/10/2010 7:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Tink

Would you be kind enough to scan some of those 35mm slides (You are talking about the ones you took with your own camera when no one was looking correct?)

If you could post them here that would be great, or if you could Email them to me that would work also, either way I would love to see them

I would like to see the frames 312-316, but it really does not matter I just want to see how they turned out

And I would also like to see them as I know you took them when you were not supposed to, and I very much admire that you took the risk to do that

Thank you

Dean

Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376

NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

b..

And I just received another present in the mail. A CD audio of Homer McMahon's recorded interview with ARRB (Horne, Gunn, et al).

Can anybody tell me if there is a transcript of this available?

Thanks,

BILL NOT IN THE ARRB FILES..THOUGH I FOUND SO MANY OTHERS NOT HIS...PERHAPS NOW THAT YOU HAVE IT YOU COULD PICK --sorry caps--away at it..till someday it is completed..and then you could post such....best b..

BK

I don't believe the ARRB didn't make a transcript of this interview on the record.

I'd make one but there doesn't seem to be much interest.

BK

Well, I'm almost done transcribing this recording of the ARRB interview with Homer McMahon, which seems pretty interesting even though nobody is interested.

I'm not going to post it right away either here or on my blog because there's some things in there that I want to run down first - some new names and places that I want to check out before any idiots get there before me.

I will post it later, and will send copies via email to anybody who asks for it, provided they keep it to themselves for a little while.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Bill I am very interested

I would love a copy sent to my Email if you could

I will keep it to myself and not post it, I promise

Dean

Let me weigh in here with my own opinion about the best source of imagery to view the Zapruder frames: the answer is the 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film made by Moses Weitzman, circa 1968.

Two factors are critical:

1. Weitzman did the work in 1967-68 (I do not know the exact year)--but this means that any degradation of the Zapruder original that has occured, over time, is not on his 35 mm copies.

2. Weitzman used an Oxberry Optical printer with a wetgate, so scratches, etc. were eliminated. (As I understand it, the NARA original has become scratched and dirty).

I assume that the Sixth Floor Museum has at least one of the Weitzman 35 mm copies--if not more than one.

Robert Groden has some half dozen of the others. In fact, he has all of the ones that Weitzman had retained--what he called "technician copies."

In 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter was loaned one of the 35 mm copies--and that is the copy that I worked with at a New York City film lab. This is described in "Pig on a Leash" under the sub-head "At the New York Optical Lab." In brief, I spent several days working with the 35 mm item that was provided by Richter.

Please note: it was a 35 mm internegative, made DIRECTLY FROM Zapruder's (supposed) original 8mm film.

So what was in my hands, and what I was working with, represented just "one pass" through a lense.

What I produced:

1. a number of 35 mm copies, made directly from Weitzman's 35 mm Internegative

2. Using the lense, I enlarged the view, and focused in on the occupants of the car, and specifically the head wounds, creating passes that are cropped frame by frame enlargements.

The film in "my" camera was positive film.

In addition: I had the Weitzman 35 mm internegative sent out to another lap for a 35 mm timed contact interpositive.

(From that interpositive, I could then make a negative, and from the negative, I could make prints).

The key results of my work were transferred to 1" video.

All these materials were (and still are) of the highest quality.

Because they were made from the Weitzman Internegative, they had been masked on the far left, and so do not have any image between the sprocket holes.

One of those timed contact interpsotives is what I donated to the National Archives when I testified on 9/17/96. It is part of my Deed of Gift, and-I believe--is still under seal. But its there, at NARA, and represents the work I did in New York City in July, 1990.

Personal Observation: In my opinion, the materials I produced in 1990 are of higher quality than anything produced, in 1997, from the refrigerated Zapruder original, because the original had deteriorated with time; whereas I was working off a very fine 35 mm internegative produced by Moses Weitzman himself back in 1967 or 1968.

Personal Observation and Opinion: Based on what I saw, and I studied this for days, it seemed pretty obvious that the back of the head had been "blacked out", continuously, after the fatal shot. That is visible in all the frames after 313, but is most obvious in frames 321, and 323, because those happen to be particularly clear frames. Similarly, the best frames for viewing the "painted on" large head wound are frames 335 and 337.

Another note: Back in 1998, in connection with my appearance at JFK Lancer, I prepared--for demonstration purposes--a "color reversal" copy of the head sequence, step printed, and made specifically to show the blacked out area. I did this in "color reversal" so that, when projected, the blacked out area would be a "whited out" area--and I then had this transferred to video, and presented it in a talk I gave at Lancer.

In summary, the very obviously blacked out "back of the head" appears in numerous frames after the fatal shot. The best source to view it, in my opinion, is on the 35 mm Weitzman materials (made decades ago); I had that privilege--first, in 1970, at the Time Life office in Beverly Hills (see Pig on a Leash) and then again in June, 1990, in New York.

Of course, one can go (and should go) to the Sixth Floor Museum and examine transparencies made in 1997, but --given the passage of time--I would think the sharpest images come from materials created by Weitzman back in 1967/68.

One other fact: I had one of my 1990 IP's scanned--I don't know whether it was at 4k or 6k--back around 2004, and I can retrieve that from storage and take a look.

The fact is: we should all be grateful to Moses Weitzman for the work he did back in 1967/68, when he utilized Zapruder's 8mm film in an Oxberry Optical Printer and went from 8mm to 35mm in one fell swoop. Although the blacked out back of the head is particularly clear in the Weitzman 35 mm films, I believe that the "blacked out" back of the head is probably visible on all versions. I am most familiar with how it appears on the Weitzman materials. And let me assure everyone: it wasn't put there by Weitzman--it was there on the so-called "original Zapruder film" which he so nicely enlarged.

DSL

1/10/2010 7:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

David

Is the Weitzman 35mm copy the one that is shown in the NOVA progam "Who Shot President Kennedy?" (Im sure it is the program you were refering to as you have a nice part in the program and it seems to be the one described by you in POAL in TGZFH)

Here is the link to the video

"Who Shot President Kennedy?" 1988

Tink also has a part in the program

This was the first program that I watched on the JFK case, I enjoyed it back in 1988 and still enjoy it to this day

The Z-film in this program looks good and sharp

Is this the Weitzman 35mm Z-film that is seen in the NOVA Program?

Thanks David

Dean

Dean, Mack is a notorious obscructionist who has overplayed his hand. You are sincerely--and ably!--seeking the truth. You do not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Mack, except by way of contrast, as I have done here! He has disgraced himself and The Sixth Floor Museum, which is widely regarded as a bastion of disinformation about the assassination of JFK, which it is! Jim

As the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE SIXTH FLOOR, he has been instructed to not express opinions

lest his opinions be seen as "official".

Jack

Yes, but he has no problem expressing his opinions and making fun of me and my thoughts on the assassination in PMs

Very true Jim, thank you for the kind words

I did not feel this way about Gary before and even enjoyed his PMs and talking back and forth with him

Until he started sending me PMs about the FBI film that Shaneyfelt took with Zapruders camera

Jack posted a picture of the limo over in the far right lane looking as if it was correcting the wide turn, to me and of course you and Jack that is very important because we know the wide turn as witnessed by Roy Truly was taken out of the Z-film

Well Gary started to say I need to learn the basics, he also said I need to read the Warren Report (after I have told him I have)

Well the last thing he said to me was "This is why you have so many questions - you're not dedicated to learning ABOUT the assassination, just in reinforcing your preconceived opinions. I can tell that by what you post."

He acts like im asking him questions on a daily basis, I have maybe asked him 3 questions in my whole life

But for him to say im not dedicated to the assassination was a slap in my face that I though was a BS thing for him to say to me

Because I am an alterationist and back all 3 books from you Jim and the others who wrote chapters Gary has chosen to insult me because of my stance

If I was a LNer and supported the WC im sure Gary would treat me like I was the king of the world

The funny part about all of this is that I never PMed him, he has always PMed me!

And anyone who is a member on any forum that Gary is a part of knows what I am talking about

I will no longer reply to any PM I recieve from him, even if it is to say he is sorry, which im positive will never happen so im not going to hold my breath

Dean

Yet another great addition from Rich to his Youtube page

I as well viewed all of Dougs presentation and was super impressed

Good job and great research Doug

If any member has not went to Richs Youtube page and viewed all of the videos he has posted you should do so right away

Dean

As the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE SIXTH FLOOR, he has been instructed to not express opinions

lest his opinions be seen as "official".

Jack

Yes, but he has no problem expressing his opinions and making fun of me and my thoughts on the assassination in PMs

One cannot help but appreciate the practice of starting a new thread with a catchy title in order

to respond to an existing one. It certainly makes things much easier to follow.

The added attention to the poster is just a bonus.

Michael

You crack me up man

I think Dean just appears disappointed in Thompson's change of heart. He hasn't debunked anything.

That depends on how you define debunked

I guess you missed the GIFs I posted showing no motion blur or nobody inside the limo sliding forward starting at frame 308 as Tink has said

What more do I have to do to "debunk" Tinks crazy reasons for changing his mind?

Duncan

I had no idea that you are the offical spokesman for Gary Mack

Congrats!

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Thats great

How many times will a thread be closed or ignored after I make a post or minutes before I make one?

I guess I will repost this in the thread I started

Dean,

You don't have to like what TT's answers are; do your own research and make up your own mind.

And I think that TT has answered Prof. Fetzer's questions, over and over.

He's not a student of Fetzer's who has to answer his questions like he's going to get graded on it. He wrote his own book, a book that stands up pretty well today, even though he's learned a lot since then and has changed his mind on a few issues.

One thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the Z-film authenticty, and it doesn't matter what the opinions are of the Hollywood special effects people, if they don't come up with evidence, proof of tampering - other than the anamolies in the film, why should he change his mind.

Proof that the Z-film was at the "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak's Rochester HQ would certainly put a dent in the chain of possession however, and that's yet to be determined.

Now that every thread on the first page is devoted to Fetzer and Thompson and the Z-film, I think I'll have to start a few of my own on some other subjects of interest - like who killed JFK.

BK

Bill

I have done my own research and I have made up my own mind

One of the important parts of my theory revolves around Tinks double head shot theory

Now I have believed Tink since I first read SSID back in 1988

I have had this theory (double head shot) as a part of not only my begining research into the assassination, but still to this day it is even a bigger part of my overall view of the assassination

Now to have Tink just discard his double hit theory to two things that I can not see with my own research is very troubling to me

What else in his book that I believed in is he going to discard in the future?

Its not a matter of him just answering my question as you seem to think Bill, there is much more to it then that

For someone as myself who looked up to Tink as a young kid back in the 80s, whom my grandpa told me was right up there with Harold Weisberg as one of the best researchers its a little hard for me to accecpt the fact that he is turning his back on his own work

I dont think Tink understands where I am coming from no matter how many times I post or tell him how important his theory is to my views on the assassination, it almost looks like he doesnt care

That changes my views on him as a researcher

I hope that clears it up a little for you Bill

Dean

Of course like the rest of us (other than John) Jack doesn't spend a penny to participate here yet he arrogantly demands to be given more space and proclaims that "It is the forum's loss, not mine" if he can no longer post his rubbish here. Storage space = bandwidth = money, perhaps he'd be willing to make a contribution.

The other option of course is to use free 3rd party hosting sites. In addition to not using up the forum's bandwidth (thus not costing John anything) it allows unlimited uploading of images which unlike forum attachments are visible to visitors and member's who aren't logged in.This has been explained to Jack, along with the extremely simple process, repeatedly. But Jack would rather play the victim/primadonna.

Stop whining Jack and use Photo Bucket, Image Shack or any of various other free hosting sites. If any one (including Jack) wants the process explained to them I'll do so.

I always use a 3rd party hosting site

Even Myspace works!

Just upload the image, click on it to get the image to its bigger size, right click and select properties, then highlight the address, copy it, then use the picture icon and paste the address

I have never and will never use the forum to upload an image

Jack can have all of my image space

Dean

Thanks, Dean...but I have no time to get involved in "third party" sites. It is all I can do

to do all the things I do...including managing a history site with 60+ members, and corresponding

with them in 20 to 30 emails a day, plus producing 3 or 4 pages daily. My members include

teachers, authors, historians, photographers and lots of history buffs.

Take a look, and you will see what takes MOST of my time.

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm

I am interested in all kinds of history, not just JFK.

Jack

Very nice Jack

I am very proud of my home city of Redding CA like you are of Ft Worth, I own many books and videos on Reddings history and 2 books of vintage pictures of my city, so the website that you run I can appreciate very much

Like I said if its possible you can have all of my image uploading space if John can do that

Dean

Re-post because Tink is ignoring the new thread

I am very troubled by the fact that Tink changed his mind on the double hit theory

The explanation he gave for changing his mind (motion blur) to me is crazy

I have watched it over and over and over and see no motion blur

I also made a GIF from Costellas combined edit and I do not see ANYONE in the limo start to slide forward at frame 308 as Tink says

Just watch Jackie from 308 until 313, she does not move forward

I have no idea why Tink would change his well researched and well founded theory on these two things (motion blur and the limo slowing down causing those inside to slide forward starting at frame 308) that do not appear on the Z-film

I created the thread like Tink asked and he did in fact answer my question, but I can not swallow the explanation Tink gave for changing his mind

You were right the first time Tink, I have already explained why your double hit theory is important to my research, I still dont know why its no longer important to yours

Dean

I'll tell you what I'll do, Bill. I'll just ignore this whole thread. All it is anyway is just the same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson

How many threads are there going to be on the Zapruder film, Fetzer and Thompson?

Can't you stick to just three or four?

Why start a new one every day?

Jack White already started one on this very topic.

They now take up the entire board.

(I agree the post should not have been closed)

Bill Kelly

Thats great

How many times will a thread be closed or ignored after I make a post or minutes before I make one?

I guess I will repost this in the thread I started

I am very troubled by the fact that Tink changed his mind on the double hit theory

The explanation he gave for changing his mind (motion blur) to me is crazy

I have watched it over and over and over and see no motion blur

I also made a GIF from Costellas combined edit and I do not see ANYONE in the limo start to slide forward at frame 308 as Tink says

Just watch Jackie from 308 until 313, she does not move forward

I have no idea why Tink would change his well researched and well founded theory on these two things (motion blur and the limo slowing down causing those inside to slide forward starting at frame 308) that do not appear on the Z-film

I created the thread like Tink asked and he did in fact answer my question, but I can not swallow the explanation Tink gave for changing his mind

You were right the first time Tink, I have already explained why your double hit theory is important to my research, I still dont know why its no longer important to yours

Dean

Of course like the rest of us (other than John) Jack doesn't spend a penny to participate here yet he arrogantly demands to be given more space and proclaims that "It is the forum's loss, not mine" if he can no longer post his rubbish here. Storage space = bandwidth = money, perhaps he'd be willing to make a contribution.

The other option of course is to use free 3rd party hosting sites. In addition to not using up the forum's bandwidth (thus not costing John anything) it allows unlimited uploading of images which unlike forum attachments are visible to visitors and member's who aren't logged in.This has been explained to Jack, along with the extremely simple process, repeatedly. But Jack would rather play the victim/primadonna.

Stop whining Jack and use Photo Bucket, Image Shack or any of various other free hosting sites. If any one (including Jack) wants the process explained to them I'll do so.

I always use a 3rd party hosting site

Even Myspace works!

Just upload the image, click on it to get the image to its bigger size, right click and select properties, then highlight the address, copy it, then use the picture icon and paste the address

I have never and will never use the forum to upload an image

Jack can have all of my image space

Dean