Dean Hagerman

Tink This is very important, maybe not to you but it is to me I have asked you in this thread about it and I understand that you are busy dealing with Full Flush Left but at the same time the double hit theory that YOU came up with has something to do with Z-film alteration Again I have believed in your theory since I read it, it made perfect sense and the way you presented it in your book was outstanding I have read the story about why you no longer support your double hit theory, but I cant see how you were so sure in SSID but then go back on it from one researcher telling you it was the from the limo slowing down and the passangers being thrown forward Why didnt the rest of JFKs body get thrown forward with the rest of the limo? Just his head moved forward I dont want to go into my thoughts on Z-film alteration right now because I dont want you to dismiss me as this is important to ME! Rich Dellarosa has seen the double hit unlike myself and you have Tink This fits in perfectly with the Z-film being altered, I hope that you taking back your double hit theory didnt have anything to do with you not wanting to be involved or labeled as an alterationist Tink I believe that you were correct back in 1967 and you are still correct today Can you at least give me some more info on why you dont believe in your theory anymore? Again I would love to discuss this with you, if you want i can start a new thread Thanks Tink Dean

Here you go Dean. Click on the image to see it larger. It's accurate, and the same dark area beyond the edges in the intersprocket area is visible. I think the white colour may have been confusing both you and Todd. Duncan you are still wrong Look at the top sprocket hole, your still not over left far enough And even the bottom sprocket hole I can still see white fuzz on to the left of the green line I dont know why you made the line blink, it should be solid I will do my own when I get home, im willing to bet that small amount of black will not show to the left of the line, thus proving Liftons full flush left theory on THESE frames taken by Zavada I know you are honest Duncan so im not saying you are doing this on purpose, but you are not putting the line where it belongs We will compare lines when I get home and do one myself Dean

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean. I dont think so You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes Duncan you are wrong Dean, Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time. The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image. I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill. Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that? Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point? I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes Dean Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked? Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line Anyone agree with me? Dean, I agree that Duncan's line is to the right of the sprocket hole's left-most edge. Todd Thank you Todd Dean

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean. I dont think so You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes Duncan you are wrong Dean, Have you been to an Optician recently? if not, now's the time. The line is on the edges of the sprocket hole edges, and I doubt any of the other photo analysts will disagree. I'll give you a clue as to why you think it goes through the sprocket hole...over use of plus contrast to the white sprocket hole areas, added by whoever created the image. I would also suggest not misquoting me. I did NOT say that David's images look the same as the Z-film image with Clint Hill. Sorry that I "misquoted" you, what are you trying to prove or say then? That David is wrong? Am I correct in saying that? Why dont you use a different color line to prove your point? I can do that but im at work all day, if you want to prove me wrong use a bright green line and we can see if it lines up with the sprocket holes and takes away the tiny amount of black that goes beyond the sprocket holes Dean Also I can see the uneven fuzz of the sprocket hole on the bottom left instead of the sharp white line that you used, so do you still think I should get my eyes checked? Because we should not see the fuzzy line of the sprocket hole if the line is lined up correctly as you say, we should see a sharp line Anyone agree with me?

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible. Would you be so kind to draw a similar line on the frames with Clint Hill? Then we could compare the red truck penetration versus the Clint Hill penetration. Does a solid color lend itself to this odd "edge fog" phenomena more than a ... lets say ... human face, or light horizontal line? Cheerio, Peter Fokes Thank you Peter I would love to see that Duncan

It looks pretty accurate to me Dean. I dont think so You need to move the line over to the left of the bottom sprocket hole, your line goes through the white area of the sprocket hole not the edge of it, and if you do that it will take away that small amount of black nothing that you are claiming proves Lifton wrong How can you say that small amount of nothing you point to in any way looks the same as the Z-film with Clint Hill and all other images clearly shown beyond the left of the sprocket holes Duncan you are wrong

I think you are wrong David. If you draw a simple straight line at the furthermost points of the sprocket holes of the succesive frames of your experimental frames, it can clearly be seen that there is in fact penetration in to the area beyond the edge of these points. This penetration shows best in the top frame. It is very minimal in your red car example, but nevertheless it's there. This means that it is not mechanically impossible. I think you are wrong Duncan Not only does your first line prove nothing but the second image you posted shows nothing even close to the image in the Z-film that extend far beyond the sprocket holes (compared to Zavadas image) and your line in the second image is not drawn to the left edge of the sprocket holes, not only that you see nothing in the area that all of your arrows point too. In the fake Z-film you can make out the images no problem

These images show what I have always thought that David was talking about (i.e Full Flush Left) That the image extends beyond the sprocket holes past were the image should have stopped already, all the way to the left Thanks for those images David, they really cement your position on Full Flush Left Dean

Another great question Very nice post Don Dean

Now that is the type of answer to a question I was looking for from Tink Thanks for that great post David, you just put Tinks accusation in the trash bin Dean

Phil Melanson's article, Hidden Exposure: Cover Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film, appeared in the inaugural issue of Jerry Rose's remarkable journal, The Third Decade http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=520770 That issue was published November of 1984 However Jim I dont know if that article was ever published before this 3rd Decade issue was released

Thanks for the reply Tink I posted before I saw it, here was my next post The question I have is why you changed you view on the double head shot I will quote you on the bottom of page 111 of your book "A coincidence certainly, but a coincidence whose reality is confirmed by the overwhelming weight of evidence" I cant see how you can be so sure of the double head shot (of which I believe in and have believed in since reading your book back in 1988) Why now do you say you were wrong because of the limo passangers lurching forward? Do you really think that the passangers including JFK could be thrown around like that unless the limo came to a complete and sudden stop? Why do you buy into the theory that the already slow moving limo just slowed down a little more and threw everyone forward (including JFKs head ONLY not the rest of his body) Your theory has long played into my own thoughts on the assassination and I was very put back when you changed your views on it Dean

I would love to hear the answer to this question, since I guess my question and comments to Tink are invisible

John Is it possible to merge mine and Craigs debate over Twymans "Bloody Treason" in the Doug Horne thread? On the Brewania forum that I am a Mod at I am able to merge posts from an old thread and start a new thread with those posts Just asking, no problem if you cant I will start a new thread with my next post to Craig Thanks John Dean

Bill Why do you keep making statements like this? How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up? Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late I don't think so Dean. You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book. As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works." My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense. I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress. None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then. If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden. There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates. I guess I'll have to start my own thead. Get it? BK Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton! And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread? How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it? I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying Hi, I know you can't keep a thread on track, but you can at least try. I looked for a thread on Noel Twyman's book, which is very important book btw, but I couldn't find one so you can either start one or continue using the Doug Horne thread and we'll discuss Doug Horne and his work somewhere else. I'm pretty easy, either ways okay. Well, from where I'm sitting, the original word "Hawkeye Works" uttered in regards to the Zapruder film was by Homer McMahon in talking to the ARRB, including Horne, some of which was recorded on audio tape and another version on Horne's notes. Lifton gets wind of the "Hawkeye Works" angle and mentions it in his rather elongated Conference talk (Lancer or Z-film in Minn.?) - "Pig on a Leash," which was also filmed by David Healey and posted in segments on Youtube, and then published by Fetzer in his anthology TGZFH. Now the ARRB records, POALeash and TGZFH have all been out for over a decade now, and nobody's done a thing with researching this further until now, we have more details in Doug Horne's Vol. IV, Chapter 14, and thanks to B and compliments of David Lifton we have the complete POALeash and thanks to David H. the Youtube version. So from where I'm taking all this in, I don't think Prof. Fetzer needs to be consulted any further, after thanking him for the courage of publishing Lifton's POAL and the rest, despite criticism from all quarters. You can't take a book to a Congressional Hearing and try to introduce it as evidence, but you can call a retired CIA official and have them answer questions under oath. Therefore, we can successfully get beyond Prof. Fetzer and Dr. Lifton, even though both are qualififed to be what they call Special Expert Witnesses, and go directly to McMahon and the others who worked at the NPIC, all of whom should be required to testify fully, which they didn't do for the ARRB. Gee Dean, you should get college credit for this stuff, BK I understand, thank you Bill It just seems like you are always selling Fetzer and other alterationists short, when now that you are starting to see that we are right you should embrace Fetzer and his work. Thats just my opinion, keep the fight going forward Bill, dont think for a second that I dont admire or care about what you are doing for the case, because I do Dean

Bill Why do you keep making statements like this? How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up? Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late I don't think so Dean. You and others have taken the Doug Horne thread and made it your little debate about Noel Twyman's book. As for discussing the Z-film or "Hawkeye Works" without mentioning Fetzer or Lifton will be necessary to get beyone any arguments and determine some facts about both the film, its chain of possession and whether it ever was at "Hawkeye Works." My purpose isn't to win an internet forum debate, but to determine if there is any evidence of destruction of records, tampering with evidence, theft of evidence, and attempting to locate missing records that I think are still out there and weren't destroyed, like Babuska lady's film, the Secret Service records, the missing briefing boards, etc. I'm also looking for new witnesses, and damn, if they don't show up, as we now have Homer McMahon and his assistant and Dino B., all CIA officers, who, unlike Fetzer, Lifton and other alternationist, their testimony is a little bit harder to discard as foolish nonsense. I'm looking for evidence of destruction and tamerping with records and new witnesses that can be called to testify under oath before Congress. None of these things have anything to do with Fetzer, other than the fact that he published Lifton's article "Pig On A Leash" over a decade ago and mentined the "Hawkeye Works" angle, that nobody has done anything on since then. If and when Congress decides to hold oversight hearings of the JFK Act, and actually look into what the ARRB discovered, and try to determine who destroyed what records and why, then the focus must be on the destroyed, missing and still wrongfully withheld records, and NOT on Professor Fetzer or what David Lifton's opinion is of Bob Groden. There is a method to my madness, but I have to stay on track, even if you enjoy jumping around and learning Prof. Fetzer's principles on how to win internet debates. I guess I'll have to start my own thead. Get it? BK Ok Bill that clears it up a little for me But you know how forums work, there is no way that you can control a thread and keep it on just the title topic What I dont get is that you are saying "Hawkeye Works" has nothing to do with Fetzer, yet in the same sentence you admit that it has do with fetzer because it was in his book I dont know about you Bill but to me Fetzer has a ton to do with Hawkeye works, he PUBLISHED it though Lifton! And I dont want to jump tp conclusions so I will ask you one last thing Your saying you dont want Fetzer and Lifton involed in any talks about Hawkeye works because they will argue with others about it? And you wont get the facts about Hawkeye works if Lifton and Fetzer are involved in the thread? How does that work Bill? Your talking about the guy who wrote it and the guy who published it, if it was not for them you would never know about Hawkeye works, now you dont want those two to be a part of any talks about it because they might start arguing about it? I hope that im wrong and am just misunderstanding what you are saying

Bill Why do you keep making statements like this? How in the world would it be better to talk about Fetzer and Lifton without Fetzer and Lifton to be able to back themselfs up? Just like you you say Fetzer gives us a bad name and Fetzer should not say anything about Doug Horne backing up Z-film alteration Please tell me why you keep saying these things? Its driving me crazy, along with your rants on not wanting members to debate if a thread gets a little off topic I belong to othet forums that dont have anything to do with JFK in fact I am a mod at one of them and no thread ever stays on topic, thats the beuty of a forum, you start a thread and one thing or another is debated about then something else is brought up and before you know it your talking about anothet issue that has to do with the topic I like that, but I guess it would be better if we did all of our replies in emails and PMs, and then according to you not let certain members debate a thread that has their names in the topic Bill your opinions are a little off base as of late

Tink First of all my grandfathers favorite book on the assassination is "Six Seconds In Dallas" he read his copy of your book one time back when it came out, when he handed it down to me back in 1988 I read it, at that time my grandpa also had the paperback version with highlights and notes that he passed down to me as well (along with 150+ other assassination books) so I could keep the hardcover in mint condition and read the paperback as much as I wanted. So I want to thank you for writing a great book that not only my grandpa loves but I love as well, we spent 100s of hours going over the assassination and your book was a major topic for us including the two head shot theory (that you now claim was wrong, I still think you are right about that and would love to talk to you about why you changed your mind) I hold you book as one of the centerpieces of my collection (along wih my signed copy of "Forgive My Grief vol1" by Penn Jones and my signed copy of "Post Mortem" by Harold Weisberg who signed them for my grandpa) It would be an honor if you would one day sign my hardcover copy of SSID Now that thats out of the way, I am reading Doug Hornes vol 4 right now, and I must say that not only does Doug validate David Liftons theory in "Best Evidence" but also does the same for Fetzers "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" both of those books I agree with 100% and back them up I have believed in alteration since reading "Bloody Treason" back in 1997 and countinued to believe and study all three of Fetzers books ending with the amazing TGZFH I must say that your post has a bit of fear behind it, with the history of you and fetzer I must say that Dougs books are going to convince alot of researchers that the Z-film was altered Before you put me down like your crew member Craig remember this, I have nothing but respect for you and your work Tink, and like I said I still agree with most of SSID and use a major theory in your book as part of my overall view on the assassination However with regards to Fetzer and alteration I belive that you are wrong Again Tink thanks for putting out a great book and being one of the first researchers on the assassination, I hope we can talk in depth about the two head shot theory and why you dont back that up anymore as well as your thoughts on alteration Dean

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point. Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways. DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim. Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano. Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you? Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303 The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all) Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda You are the one twisting words deano, which is not suprising, but strange given you claim to have read this book over and over. Twyman says: "I showed him frames 302 and 303 and I pointed out the blur int he stationary background figures as opposed to the sharp focus of the limousine in 302, and how the blur of the background figures suddenly disappeared in 303 while the limousine remains in sharp focus." Note he claims SHARP FOCUS for the limo in both 302 and 303. Not 'kind of in focus", or "just a little out of focus" or even just "in focus". He was very specfic. He used the term "sharp focus". Once again you come up on the short end of the stick. As for the sharpness of 302 and 303, why don't you measure the length of the blur on the roll bar highlights along with the length of the blur in 306 and then tell us if your testing shows that 302 and 303 are in SHARP Focus. Then see if the blur is larger in 302 than in 303 by subtracting the blur meausrement form 303 from the blur measurement from 303. If you are correct when you state; "The limo stays the same in 302-303" then your answer will be zero, If the number is ANYTHING but zero you are wrong once again. BTW, please show us the images you used as well as your results of the measurements. Craig you know when Twyman says sharp focus he is talking about the focus compared to the background in frames 302-303 I have already tried to explain this to you but you refuse to back down when you know what Twyman/myself are trying to say I will post some frames and give you MY rundown on what I see Is that ok with you?

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point. Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways. DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim. Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano. Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you? Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303 The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all) Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda

Thanks Dean. From my past experiences with FPCC this flyer seems genuine. Harry I trust your judgement Harry

Harry, Stephen and Michael, here you go

Stephen, do you happen to know which book of Groden's it was where that color image was published? In The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald, (Penguin Books 1995, p 66) Groden writes "In June he was on the streets of New Orleans passing out the leaflets. Hand-stamped on the first batch was the address 544 Camp Street. All later handouts bore either his Magazine Street address or post office box number 30016." Stephen, if Groden's above claim is correct, how did Martello get one in August? On page 68 Groden repeats the claim and reproduces the stamped Camp Street address, but there is no picture of the leaflet. In the above mentioned book, Groden does reproduce Commission Exhibit 3120 (The Crime Against Cuba) and it does show the Camp Street address. It doesn't seem to appear here: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol26_0405b.htm Of course when he testified before the Warren Commission, Martello told Wesley Liebeler: "I turned the original paper over to the United States Secret Service along with the pamphlets, all of the pamphlets." My favorite Martello quote was this: "Well, as far as being capable of an act, I guess everbody is capable of an act, but as far as dreaming or thinking that Oswald would do what it is alleged that he has done, I would bet my head on a chopping block that he wouldn't do it." http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol10_0035a.htm Finally, Gus Russo does print an alleged photo (attributed to the National Archives) of the handbill with the name L. H. Oswald above the 544 Camp Street address, but his account of the entire episode does not seem complete or even credible. First he explains that Oswald "didn't claim Banister's address as his own." Then on the next page, Russo posits that Oswald used the Camp Street address in order to embarrass Banister. Russo writes that shortly before his death in 1964, Banister offered that explanation to his brother Ross. Russo also concludes: "After much contention, it has become clear that Banister had nothing to do with Oswald or any Kennedy assassination attempts." I'm going from memory. I recall it from one of Groden's two picture books. I thought it was in Search, but maybe it was in his Killing of JFK book. I'm not so sure I'd trust Groden's summary of dates. As for the Martello thing, send me a personal message on this board. Stephen and Michael The green colored "Hands Off Cuba" FPCC pahmplet was printed in "The Killing of a President" on page 141 However, to me it looks like its not real If you would like I could post a scan of that page so you guys could see for yourselfs Dean Hi Dean H. Dean here, please do post scan of "Hands Off Cuba" Harry No problem Harry Let me scan it up

Think what you want deano, but as you have shown you can't define fact from speculation. I've ask more than once for you to show us the fact in that dreadful tome, fact you have checked for yourself and found to be true, and is not more bunnies in the clouds, but you can't. Why is that deano? I can define speculation from fact Fact: The Zapruder film is altered Speculation: Using a DVD cover in place of a scarf and thinking its the same thing Perfect post Jim, I agree 100% I am glad that Doug is backing the alteration position with his extensive background with the ARRB, Vol 4 is amazing How can Craig and Len simply refuse to buy or even accept Dougs work? Craig I suggest you read TGZFH again, I think you must have missed pages 1-496 2010 will be a great year, im proud to back up and have the same views as Jim Fetzer, Jack White, David Healy, Doug Horne, David Lifton, Rich DellaRosa, Bernice Moore, David Mantik, Noel Twyman and others Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful. Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview? Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it. TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult. Jim that sums up Craig very well I think Craig is at a point where he knows he and his crew will be put down for the count and Z-film alteration will be accepted by all researchers Either he will admit his errors and join our fight for the truth, or he will quit posting forever

No opinions deano.... Twyman and deano say the limo is sharp in 302-303...really? Twyman and deano say the background is sharp in 303...really? Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason" But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day