Dean Hagerman

Rosemary Willis. She was questioned. Jack No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend. Here: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html That's not Rosemary, is it? Thanks, BK The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified Have you ever heard of the running woman? Have you ever heard of Toni Foster? I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses? No, I have not studied the people in the Z-film, but I'd like to know who this person is. If you go to that link above and look that that picture frame there is a little girl on the grass in the background about twenty feet behind and to the right of Jean Hill. I went back every frame she is in and she is not running, but just standing there. Who is she? Thanks, BK Bill First of all Jean Hill is not in the frame you gave the link to, Mary Moorman is in the frame and to the right and in the background is like I said TONI FOSTER, I hope you are not getting Jean Hill (in bright red dress) confused with Mary Moorman (black dress taking picture) She is not a child, she is an adult She is not standing still, she was running/jogging across the infield from Houston just like Altgens did She has been identifed She has told her story It is Toni Foster I am almost speachless as to you mixing up Hill and Moorman and never having heard of Toni Foster, go back and watch the Z-film, the Nix film, the Bronson film and picture Check out Jack Whites study of "Toni Foster The Giant Running Woman" in TGZFH Okay, And yes Dean, I know all about Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. But you would be astonished at everything I don't know. But I do know about the Willis girl running along side the motorcade and stopping. And I didn't realize this women was running towards the camera, therefore it appears she is standing still when looked at in still frames as I have been doing. It is Toni Foster then. Thanks, That's what I wanted to know. And thanks for the link B. BK Sorry if I sounded harsh I just thought a solid researcher like yourself would have the Z-film and the bystanders down pat The first time I told you it was Toni Foster you came back at me like I was wrong so I got a little put off Again no hard feelings, sorry if I sounded harsh Dean

I thought Kathy was talking about Donald Norton for sure! I thought she meant the guy on the right and made a mistake! Now to find out she thinks James Files is LHO Who cares who James Files is? The guy is full of it

Rosemary Willis. She was questioned. Jack No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend. Here: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html That's not Rosemary, is it? Thanks, BK The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified Have you ever heard of the running woman? Have you ever heard of Toni Foster? I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses? No, I have not studied the people in the Z-film, but I'd like to know who this person is. If you go to that link above and look that that picture frame there is a little girl on the grass in the background about twenty feet behind and to the right of Jean Hill. I went back every frame she is in and she is not running, but just standing there. Who is she? Thanks, BK Bill First of all Jean Hill is not in the frame you gave the link to, Mary Moorman is in the frame and to the right and in the background is like I said TONI FOSTER, I hope you are not getting Jean Hill (in bright red dress) confused with Mary Moorman (black dress taking picture) She is not a child, she is an adult She is not standing still, she was running/jogging across the infield from Houston just like Altgens did She has been identifed She has told her story It is Toni Foster I am almost speachless as to you mixing up Hill and Moorman and never having heard of Toni Foster, go back and watch the Z-film, the Nix film, the Bronson film and picture Check out Jack Whites study of "Toni Foster The Giant Running Woman" in TGZFH

Rosemary Willis. She was questioned. Jack No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend. Here: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html That's not Rosemary, is it? Thanks, BK The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified Have you ever heard of the running woman? Have you ever heard of Toni Foster? I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses?

I agree, I think that should be the main goal, getting this film and making a transfer Along with Nix and Muchmore's test films that they shot at the same time

Only in your fantasy world Craig The rest of us hold Lifton in a much higher regard then you and your motley crew of anti-alterationists

Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility. Give me a break Ray Im sure Tink can handle it, just as Tink can dish it out I think you miss the things that Tink says about Fetzer, its funny how when your against alteration you have tunnel vision

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired. I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails. Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed. Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered. I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID? By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive. The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was. There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen. Pamela So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s? What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy Sorry but thats real hard to believe I did. I don't know what copy it was. It certainly wasn't the original, but it was quite good. I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time. Ok I dont see how that was possible

The man on the right is Donald Norton What opinion is there to have on him? And im positive you know that the person in that picture is Norton, why would you have it on your computer if you dont know who it is Email John Armstrong and ask him about Norton

I think you meant lead me to the promise land I still follow your theory in SSID, no matter if you changed your mind or not Dean

There was demonstrable fraud in Mexico City. In the past you have hinted that your next book would deal with that. Are you still planning to publish Final Charade? Years ago, when I read that you were working on a new book about President Kennedy's murder, I began anticipating it keenly. I seem to remember that you were going to focus on Lee Oswald. When I heard about David working on a new book about LHO I was very excited If anyone could keep my attention on LHO and his life it would be David Lifton, as I have always said Best Evidence is not only my second favorite book because of what Lifton proves, but also because it is a very enjoyable read I remember reading Pig On A Leash when I bought TGZFH first before anything else That got me even more pumped up for Liftons new book Like Michael I ask te same question, will you publish it? I will buy a copy as soon as it is avalible

Oh thats great Pat! In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity. Nothing that Pat says is valid? Can you tell me why that is Peter? While I don't agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid It is not a matter of "some things." It is this; "Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility." I find these comments from someone who “believes in conspiracy” indescribable. Anyone who denies Secret Service involvement and the frontal shot may just as well root for the other team. I see Peter, I was sure that Pat believed in a front head shot, I did not read that quote of his closly enough So Pat you dont believe in a frontal head shot but are open to it? Why are you just open to it? Have you ever believed in a front head shot? If so when did you start to doubt it? Dean

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired. I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails. Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed. Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered. I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID? By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive. The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was. There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen. Pamela So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s? What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy Sorry but thats real hard to believe

Oh thats great Pat! In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity. Nothing that Pat says is valid? Can you tell me why that is Peter? While I dont agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

Perfect reply Prof Fetzer I love Mantik's section on the medical evidence in "Murder In Dealey Plaza" its one of my favorite parts As of late I have been reading alot of MIDP, and while I still hold TGZFH as your best volume Jim, MIDP is creeping up my top 10 book list very quickly I find myself reading Doug Hornes Vol 4 and going back to MIDP (I already know all 3 volumes from cover to cover) and putting it all together This is a very exciting time, I have been doing the same thing with David Liftons "Best Evidence" I can already see other researchers jumping aboard the alteration wagon, its only a matter of time before that wagon leaves the researchers who for whatever reason fail to see the truth behind Fetzer's and Lifton's work in the dust Im proud to have been aboard from day one (Bloody Treason and Assassination Science 1997 and 1998, when I became a believer in alteration)

Are you kidding me? The body alteration view belongs 100% to David Lifton and David Lifton alone, so you think Humes would have ever brought it up? Or someone might have found Sibert and O'neils report of surgery to the head, but we all know that someone was David Lifton I have believed in Liftons theory from the second I finished his book over 20 years ago Lifton is correct and is now being backed up by Doug Horne's master work Cliff the things that you say just leave me shaking my head

Not only does Tink in SSID support his double head hit theory but also according to Cutler so did most of assassination researchers/students

Here you go Bill The image is not very good, but im not about to hold the book open and push it down on the scanner to get a good scane, as I have said before my hardcover copy of SSID is in mint condition and I want to keep it that way Dean

Bill I can do this for you Dean

Pat That video was removed by Youtube, do you have it dowloaded? Also I tried your "slap the head" method (dont worry im 30 years old, even though I feel like im 80 ) and to my suprise my head did just what you said it would do However a slap to the back of your own head can not simulate the speed of a bullet, and while the bullet is much smaller then your hand I believe the force would have kept driving JFKs head forward, BUT he was then hit with a bullet fired from the front (Badgeman position) that drove him to the left rear. Dean PS I have viewed your videos on your website (I first viewed them a while ago I dont remember when, but just re-watched them yesterday) and enjoyed them alot. Good job on those!

Again great reply Jim, your replies to Tink are pretty much on par with what I am thinking Dean

Perfect statement Prof Fetzer, you took the words right out of my mouth Dean

Tink this is the reply that I was hoping to hear from you Thank you for letting us know you still believe in your work back in the 1960s This might not mean anything to you coming from me but that makes me feel alot better about you and your work I still dont agree with you going back on the double head hit, but thats ok, I still believe you were right about it and I will still use it in my overall theory Thanks Tink Dean

By all means it is a good idea to compare the SS film with the extant Z film Note that each shows the FIRST FRAME locating the limo when it appears in the film. The SS film positions the limo MAKING A WIDE TURN. this is absent in the extant film. Jack Good point Jack! The SS were using a frame that had been removed to take away Greers wide turn And also good point made by Duncan I would love to watch and compare, and see if the SS film goes full flush left

I see nobody in the limo sliding forward In fact Jackie is perfectly still, look at the door handle in front of her, she never moves closer to it before the head shot JFK does not move either, its harder to tell but the rst of the people in the limo dont seem to move until after the head shot Again I have to say I think they were all ducking for cover so to say after the massive headshot to JFK I really would like to see the GIF created by Wimp, maybe his have some close ups of messurments that can prove me wrong Until that time I will stick with the double head hit