Dean Hagerman

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

To my thinking Doug Horne has put just the final nail in the coffin of the official version of what happened to the film and gone 9x% of the way to telling us exactly what did. Elsewhere I [and others] posted both him speaking on Black Op Radio and summaries of his ideas. Read it for yourself, all, if you have not. The 'Rosetta Stone' and 'timepiece' of the events in Dallas is a fake - faked to coincide with the 'official version of events (as other pieces of evidence, testimony, etc. were also faked - for the same reason). I think, personally, at this time there is very little wiggle room for what happened to the film, but those who want to protect either the official fiction [and hide the real coup d'etat that happened and is STILL in control of the USA] or simply want to protect their past theories/work-product will invent new doubts, diversions, questions and subterfuge. Always was thus. As to the guilt of Mr. Z. It is total after that late afternoon, IMO. The question is if he was 'in' on some aspects of it before and during and [as Jack has speculated] shot a pan of the scene moments before the motorcade and during - which the spooks at Kodak and NPIC were able to meld into a fictional account we long were told was baseline data. We are in new territory, IMO. Zap film is dead as a Rosetta stone or a timepiece. That changes nothing much as to the actual events. Enough other data already told us he official version was bull. Now we have one more piece of detritus given to us with white gloves by the authorities to throw on the trash heap of history. That said, knowing HOW the Z film was tampered with does give more clues to what actually happened [and what in the official version, did not!]. NB - not to step on anyone's toes, D. Horne was not the first, by far, to question the Z-film, but I think he has laid it to rest once and for all...with garlic and a stake through the heart. I agree with Peter 100% Anyone who has not read Volume 4 (or for that matter all of the volumes) or is not planning on reading it is going to be left in the dust I can not say enough times that Volume 4 validates Lifton and TGZFH authors Buy Dougs books NOW if you have not done so

Yes! The the fold that is left side up, right side down in Betzner 3: Left side up, right side down: \ Here's how you describe the fold and its shadow: So we have by your own analysis of Betzner a diagonal fold that is at the bottom left of the shadow. It is readily observed that the fold in Betzner is a left-side up, right-side down fold like this: \ Craig, there are four (4) ways you can put a left-end up diagonal fold ( \) in clothing fabric. That's a fold that goes like this: \ That's the fold you noticed in Betzner. 1) Pulling/stretching the fabric UP, in which case the \ will be on the right. 2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN, in which case the \ will be on the left. 3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT. 4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT. No one pulled on JFK's jacket. The fabric was not stretched in the limo. Just the opposite. His jacket eased as he casually sat and waved. So we can eliminate 1) and 2) in the case of JFK. As photo expert extrodinaire Craig Lamson has observed in the Betzner photo, emphasis added: That diagonal was created when JFK changed his posture circa Z173, turned his head to the right and started to wave his right hand. This posture shift pushed the fraction-of-an-inch horizontal fold we see in Croft into the "bottom, left" diagonal fold we see in Betzner. Thank you for your contribution, Craig. So Cliff, here is where you stand, which is exactly where you were months ago. You need to provide some experimental, empirical evidence shows us all ANY other form of fold other than the one I've shown that can create the shadow pattern as seen in Betzner. That's what rational people call proof. Simple and easy. Just show us how it can happen. You simply can't produce that shadow pattern given the angle of incidence of the light source. And that's the bottom line now Cliff. Can't wait to see your experimental, empirical evidence. You can use a caaera, can't you? Craig do you still have the drum scan on a CD? Would you be able to email it to me or is the file to big? I want to take a close look at the gap Any way you could provide me the image would be very much appreciated Thanks, Dean

Hi Jim, I am very curious too. One has to wonder how ... and why ... you are still promoting Dudman, as proof of, and as has having personally seen, a through-and-through hole in the windshield when the other witness you proffer above, Dr. Robert Livingston, said quite the opposite in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? And Livingston was relating what Dudman personally told him. Livingston, of course, never saw the windshield at all. But, according to what he wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, he did know Dudman and spoke to him about it. “Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield." This quote and more was included in the article, ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?, posted here on the Ed Forum as well as on other forums last July. You ignored it then. And apparently still ... and, instead, choose to continue to promote a claim that is at odds with the witness you cite from the very pages you cite from your own book! You mention Dudman's article in the New Republic as well. In that, Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.” What does that SAY? He certainly *thought* he saw a "hole."But Dudman himself notes that he was not close enough to tell, and was prevented from, "testing" it to see if it actually was a through-and-through hole. You have been casting aspersion on the character of Josiah Thompson in a steady stream, saying things like, "This is not the first time I have raised questions about it, but the fact that you continue to bob and weave, duck and hide, is very telling," as recently as yesterday. Yet you have ignored these quotes for months, in many discussions, totally evading discussing the points raised ... and still promote your claim regarding Dudman. This doesn't smack of honest brokering or the pursuit of truth to me. Many of your own words (follow in quotes) to Josiah just yesterday seem apt here. How about the chance that YOU will "mislead generations of students into the false belief that" Dudman absolutely saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Is this "an illusion you have sought to sustain, at all costs!"? "Today you continue with this ridiculous charade, not even confronting the reports" and documentation that your premise about such a hole in the windshield is, at best, unproven. And, of course, NO hole through the windshield IN NO WAY equals no conspiracy. Do you cling to it so tenaciosly, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because you are unable to see that? It is not hard for anyone to see that casting aspersions on Josiah's character and his intent is a major focus of yours. Your posts are full of just that. Such modus operandi, all the while ignoring anything that counters anything you believe, is not a plus for those who really want the truth about the conspiracy that killed our president. It is decidedly a hindrance. The assassination research arena is no place for games of tienes mas macho. I want to thank you, though, for the way you go about your game. It's very transparent. Barb :-) Once again, to understand Dudman and a response to your entire article please go to http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451. Jim: Almost the entire interview is a rebuttal to the article "Eternal return." I will be glad to respond to the authors of the article after they have listened to it. Even here, this woman named Barb distorts the evidence. I do not know if it is done intentionally or is just sloppy. Robert Livingstone wrote to David Lifton on May 2, 1992: " Also relevant, I learned from a former classmate of mine from Stanford who was then a reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch, Richard Dudman, that he was one of the White House press group that accompnied the President to Dallas. Not getting much information from the Parkland Hospital, Dick went out to inspect the Lincoln limousine in which the President and Connolly and their wives had been riding. He thought he saw, for certain that there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield. He described the spaling -splintering of glass at the margins as though the missile had entered from the front of the vehicle. When he reached over to pass his pencil or pen through the hole to test its patency, an FBI or Secret Service man roughly drew him away and shooed him off, instructing him that he wasn't allowed to come so close to the vehicle. If there were a through-and-through windshield penetration, in that location, according to Dick, it had to come from the front." The article by this Barb, a Jerry Logan, and Josiah Thompson, was one of the sloppiest,most irresponsible, and dishonest articles I have ever read. I spoke with Dudman. It was obvious he was pressured by the government by tactics that appear similar to what happened to Taylor.. Listen to my interview. Dudman's fear destroyed his friendship with Livingstone. Let's say I witnessed a murder. I describe it in great detail and the perpetrator confesses. Later. after much pressure, I recant my testimony and the perpetrator now says he did not commit the crime. According to the logic of the authors of the article, they would set the perpetrator free, and continue to look elsewhere for another perpetrator. The real world does not work that way and the legal system certainly does not for reasons at least one of the authors know very well. When the authors sought the expertise to verify a match to two photographs they published (with no way to authenticate the first picture) they convieniently failed to share that analysis by Martin Heinrichs with the members of this forum that the pictures DID NOT match. They omitted witnesses. They mischaracterized witnesses. They impugned the character od DOCTOR EVALEA GLANGES and suggested there was something "suspect" about her and they were going to investigate. Seven months later we do not know the results of that "investigation." They dismiss Nick Prencipe by making sloppy conclusions and having no understanding of the personalities involved or the geography of Washington D.C. In my interview I allow the deceased Nick Prencipe to respond himself to these erroneous assumptions. In fact, I am quite certain that the authors of this article never spoke to even one of the witnesses they seek to dismiss. If there is not a fact, it appears to be no problem to fabricate one. For those who claim their expertise in such, there appears to be no understanding of evidence or witnesses. In Doug Horne's book he quotes Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio, to say upon viewing frame 317 of the Zapruder Film, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe its such a bad fake." I would have a similar reponse to the article "Eternal Return." I am going to have to take exception Jim. If anyone wants to how how bad the article is they need to START by listening to my interview a few weeks ago. This is not an exercise for me. I am willing to engage in intelligent discussion but not a he-thinks me-thinks. It is a pleasure to be on this forum. My best, Doug Weldon Very nice Doug! Welcome to the forum, I look forward to reading more of your posts and talking with you about them I enjoyed your section in MIDP very much, good job on that Dean

Oh man! Come on Cliff why cant I join? I wanted so bad to be a member of W.A.G. You talk too much and say nothing. No chance. Cliff nobody ever knows what you are talking about I think you should go back and read my serious posts Sure, sure. You can't fool me, Dean. I know your game, pal. I invented it. You're trying to become a Super Member of the Ed Forum as fast as possible. Why? To impress chicks. Man up and admit it! Dang! Cliff has figured me out, I better slow down and post less

I have never thought that that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm. Can anyone tell me what I am missing? Your missing everything Ray Just like in the post about Fetzers work not amounting to a bucket of spit Im willing to bet you have never read any of Fetzers books, from the looks of your last post it seems you have never read Liftons book either Have you read them?

Oh man! Come on Cliff why cant I join? I wanted so bad to be a member of W.A.G. You talk too much and say nothing. No chance. Cliff nobody ever knows what you are talking about I think you should go back and read my serious posts

Oh man! Come on Cliff why cant I join? I wanted so bad to be a member of W.A.G.

So in your opinion Todd which is it, an entrance wound or exit wound?

"High Treason" Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone page 195 John Powell and several other prisoners saw two men who were adjusting a telescopic sight on a rifle One of the men appeared to be Latin I did not quote the book but just posted a summary of what is on page 195 Do you have "High Treason"? If not I could scan page 195 and post it for you tonight when I get off work if you would like Dean

Tink You should not have changed your mind Don Thomas is wrong You were right

Well said David, I agree 100% And anyone who cant see the spiral nebula in Altgens is so caught up in the LNer fantasy land that their mind refuses to see it Just look at "Pictures Of The Pain"

THe dark forces behind the assassination didn't plan for everything? In my opinion, Zapruder did not take the "Zapruder film". An "official film" of the assassination was part of the plotters' scenario. The "official photographer" was on the pedestal. Zapruder was just a "front man" to take credit for it. The reason for an OFFICIAL FILM is that it could be used to counteract any testimony or photos to the contrary. There is ample evidence that Zapruder was not on the pedestal, and that other films were confiscated and altered to conform with the "official film." Jack Tink This is my answer not Jacks (even though I use his study) The person who took the offical film was the other camera man that we see in Betzner He was tall enough to film over the pyracantha bush I believe that TOCM took the offical film that Rich Dellarosa viewed and that Zappy or the camera in Zappys position took a sweeping shot right before the assassination to get the proper background and bystanders (one of the reasons some of the bystanders seem to have little movement and not be looking at JFK ) that was used together with the film taken by TOCM to create the fake Z-film that is what we watch today The answer to this analysis, and Dean's belief in that analysis can be found here. What stunning research Duncan, keep up the good work

Good News! Here is Doug's bio, in the meantime.... http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKweldonD.htm Now we can hear more about another bullet right through the windshield and how that piece of vital evidence was faked....what wasn't?!?! (fellow serfs in our captive Nation) Im very happy that Doug will join the forum I look forward to hearing more about his oustanding work on the bullet hole in the windshield in MIDP

Kathy Zappy and TOCM are pretty close to each other and there cameras are pointing in the same direction I believe (again my opinion, IF its a camera and IF TOCM took the "other" film) like I said both of the films were put together to create the fake Z-film I think they were close enough to each other that when the films were put together it would be to hard to tell And one thing that Rich said is that the "other film" was taken from a position real close to the Z-film he could tell it was from a different position But remember that Rich saw the uncut version of the other film not the one that I believe was made from two different films, Zappys camera position (It might not have been Zappy as Jack says) supplying the background and the other film supplying the limo and the people inside the limo Then the people inside the limo, the head shot and wounds and all the other things were altered to fit the offical version I hope this helps Kathy, I know you dont believe in alteration but now is the time to study it in detail with Dougs books backing up TGZFH Dean

THe dark forces behind the assassination didn't plan for everything? In my opinion, Zapruder did not take the "Zapruder film". An "official film" of the assassination was part of the plotters' scenario. The "official photographer" was on the pedestal. Zapruder was just a "front man" to take credit for it. The reason for an OFFICIAL FILM is that it could be used to counteract any testimony or photos to the contrary. There is ample evidence that Zapruder was not on the pedestal, and that other films were confiscated and altered to conform with the "official film." Jack Tink This is my answer not Jacks (even though I use his study) The person who took the offical film was the other camera man that we see in Betzner He was tall enough to film over the pyracantha bush I believe that TOCM took the offical film that Rich Dellarosa viewed and that Zappy or the camera in Zappys position took a sweeping shot right before the assassination to get the proper background and bystanders (one of the reasons some of the bystanders seem to have little movement and not be looking at JFK ) that was used together with the film taken by TOCM to create the fake Z-film that is what we watch today

I agree with Bernice I also agree with what Bill says, I have been reading Dougs 5 volumes and reading all posts and threads about Doug and his work and I must say i am very excited and also very proud of Doug for validating not only Lifton and TGZFH gang but all of us who have believed in alteration This is a very exciting time indeed Dean

Except that the late Mr. Greer was born in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, so it might be more accurate to refer to him as a native Britisher. I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!" To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable... KK

Cliff the things you say keep getting more and more ludicrous each day

Hi Dean: The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84. I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that. Gary Murr Gary Thank you for that explanation, as stated before my gramps passed down around 150 or so books to me, many rare ones as well, its good to know why he never had a copy of Newcomb and Adams book If you would be abel to copy it for me I would be forever in your debt If you can get permission that would be great Thanks again, and if you can do that for me send me a PM and we will talk Dean

I want Fred Newcomb's book so bad, thats one gem that my grandpa did not by and pass down to me

That is the first time Len has made me laugh Although we now have a lead into what was in GinAndTonicMans glass

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program. I have never read your review I liked it, good job If you liked that, you might also appreciate my analysis of Dale Myers' animation, here: Animania Again great work Pat, I enjoyed reading that and also enjoyed you making Dale Myers look like an idiot I just put your website into my favorites and will read through it soon Dean

I have some questions for Doug on Vol 4 Just wanted to say great job Doug, your books are very easy to read and I am enjoying them very much

I do Have you read TGZFH and more to the point have you read Rich Dellarosa's description of the "other" film? I explained this in detail in the thread I started on this very forum Go check it out, it might not be important to you in proving a conspiracy but it is very important to me Dean