Dean Hagerman

I think its fake Look at the womans tan lines from a low cut bathing 2 piece suit I dont think those were around in the 1950s Anyone remember?

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

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. So im a sheep that cant think for myself? How is it that I believed in alteration back in 1997 before any of Fetzers books came out? TGZFH solidified my theories on alteration You seem to forget even though I have told you plenty of times that I have my own theories and agree with the work of some non-alterationists like your leader Tink Thompson for example So because I agree with the likes of those that I listed I am a sheep that belongs to a cult? You sure appear to be a sheep who can't think for yourself. If you were not a cultist, you would have tested all of these silly claims for yourself instead of just being a parrot. You can't even bring yourself to admit Twyman was wrong about 302-303 let alone deal honestly with the failings of Horne, White, Fetzer and others. Given all of that, how can say you think for yourself and are not just another cultist? Well thats your opinion Craig, but we all know what opinions are like.... That and Twyman has some real nice frames in his book, and the limo in 302-303 looks exactly the same while the background is blurred in 302 and sharp in 303 So I dont think Twyman was wrong

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. So im a sheep that cant think for myself? How is it that I believed in alteration back in 1997 before any of Fetzers books came out? TGZFH solidified my theories on alteration You seem to forget even though I have told you plenty of times that I have my own theories and agree with the work of some non-alterationists like your leader Tink Thompson for example So because I agree with the likes of those that I listed I am a sheep that belongs to a cult?

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

Wow...deano believes! lordy lordy, deano believes! Or do you have solid empirical data to back up your slavish devotion? Of course I have solid empirical data All you have to do is buy "Bloody Treason" Twyman does a masterful job of backing up his theories Sorry Craig but while I dont mind scanning pages to post to show you and Len wrong I am not going to scan 900+ pages, and even if I did it is against the law to post Start saving now Craig, you can get a good copy in the $100.00 range What, you can't put the arguments into your own words? You can't defend them by showing how you checked them for accuracy? You need someone else to do it for you? And silly me I thought deano understood the stuff he scanned proved Twyman wrong? Man was I mistaken. Deano does not even understand what empirical evidence. How did it prove Twyman wrong? Because you said so?

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

Wow...deano believes! lordy lordy, deano believes! Or do you have solid empirical data to back up your slavish devotion? Of course I have solid empirical data All you have to do is buy "Bloody Treason" Twyman does a masterful job of backing up his theories Sorry Craig but while I dont mind scanning pages to post to show you and Len wrong I am not going to scan 900+ pages, and even if I did it is against the law to post Start saving now Craig, you can get a good copy in the $100.00 range Dean...we all know that Lamson cannot read, so why would he waste his stipend on a book? Jack I know Jack Im really trying to help Craig but it looks as if im wasting my time

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?

Wow...deano believes! lordy lordy, deano believes! Or do you have solid empirical data to back up your slavish devotion? Of course I have solid empirical data All you have to do is buy "Bloody Treason" Twyman does a masterful job of backing up his theories Sorry Craig but while I dont mind scanning pages to post to show you and Len wrong I am not going to scan 900+ pages, and even if I did it is against the law to post Start saving now Craig, you can get a good copy in the $100.00 range

Thats a bold statement Of course Craig makes it without having read "Bloody Treason" besides the .00001% of the book that I just posted And its that small percentage that embodies my comments. I don't really care about the rest. Now deano, you still gonna pimp these guys as it deals with 302-303? You should care about the rest of the book Oh thats right, you dont care who killed JFK You are right. I don't care who killed JFK. Now deano, you still gonna pimp these guys as it deals with 302-303? I will always back Noel Twyman no matter what, and I back Twymans work when it involves Ryan as well

Thats a bold statement Of course Craig makes it without having read "Bloody Treason" besides the .00001% of the book that I just posted And its that small percentage that embodies my comments. I don't really care about the rest. Now deano, you still gonna pimp these guys as it deals with 302-303? You should care about the rest of the book Oh thats right, you dont care who killed JFK

Kathy Tink has said much worse about Jim on this very forum, just go back through the threads and re-read them Im proud of the fact that Jim is the "spokesmodel" as you put it for the "alterationist camp" And you want to know a fun fact? Tink Thompsons "Six Seconds In Dallas" is one of my favorite books, in fact one of Tinks main theories is one of my main theories Can you believe that?

Duncan I can not believe you just wrote that Your not going to buy ANY of Dougs volumes because of Craigs DVD and Grey background study? Duncan I am reading Volume 4 right now, and you need to buy these Im telling you as a fellow researcher/student, I know you will not only like reading Dougs work but I also think you should read them as the admin of your own forum In the next couple months myself and others will be talking about Dougs work ALOT, I think it would be great if you are going to be debating with me against Dougs findings (which you have shown already that you are against Doug) that you own your own copies of his volumes to read and use when certain subjects are being talked about Duncan I respect you alot more then you think, I was looking forward to talking in depth with you and others at both forums about Dougs work I would re-think your jumping on Craigs bandwagon

Thanks Jim! Its beyond me why so many researchers and members of this forum have not read TGZFH Even if they read it and dont agree they at very least can understand where we stand and the thoughts of those who contributed to the book I cant stress enough that all three books from Fetzer and others (Assassination Science, Murder In Dealey Plaza and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax) are a must have for any researchers library no matter what your stance on the assassination is While I reccommend all three if you can only afford one buy TGZFH

Thats a bold statement Of course Craig makes it without having read "Bloody Treason" besides the .00001% of the book that I just posted

And Doug Horne (and others, what other alterationists I would love to know) said it was altered completety that night? Did I miss that? If so where was it posted? I have always subscribed to David healys time frame of alteration The original alterationist party line was that the film was altered that night or that weekend. IIRC Costella said it was done in time to be picked up from Zappy’s safe Saturday morning. After people pointed out this was unrealistically fast Healy came up with his time frame. Horne of course theorizes that the film that McMahon and Hunter worked on that weekend was the altered version. The former, his ‘star witness’, said they got it Friday night, the latter whose version in no way supports the alterationists said it was Sunday. Horne established that the existing briefing board panels were from the images processed by the two, IIRC Hunter even recognized his initials on the back of them. So we have images from Life and the boards that at best (worst?) came from a quickie alteration done in a couple of days or more likely hours. Show me where Costella or Horne said they thought the film was further altered at a later date. As for Karpis,you do know who he taught to 'sing' and play guitar? I can't throw stones though considering some of the folks I hung out with! Karpis tought Manson to sing and play guitar And again I do not back Costella, so I dont have anything to show you As for Doug Horne let me read his books first then we can talk about the dates and time frames

Your welcome Len I hope this helps others who think alteration was impossible