Dean Hagerman

Todd:

My belief, for many years, was that the 544 Camp address appeared only on the Lamont "Crime Against Cuba" pamphlets. I was startled when Groden published a color image of one of Oswald's FPCC leaflets with the 544 address, and I wondered if it was a fake, or some artifact from the Stone film. Then Gus Russo printed one of Oswald's leaflets with the 544 address. My understanding is that it was real, that it was acquired from Oswald by NOPD officer Francis Martello when Oswald was arrested in New Orleans but kept by him for posterity, and that it ended up in the posession of Martello's widow. I understand there are also more of them. All this from a respected researcher.

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

Dean,

Notice that Lamson does not dispute David's studies of the medical evidence, which demonstrate that the blow-out was at the

back of the head. It follows that the Zapruder film, which shows the blow-out to the right front, cannot be correct. It follows

from the medical evidence that the depiction of the assassination in the Zapruder film is a work of fiction. It's that obvious.

More than forty eyewitnesses to the blow out to the back of the head were dismissed on the basis that the X-rays didn't show

it. We now know that they didn't show it because they had been altered. And we know that the film showed a "blob" blowing

out to the right front because the back defect had been painted black and the bulging brains to the front had been painted in.

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding. He can't discuss HOAX intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only

option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. 2010 is going to be a very bad year for anti-alterationists!

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That Lamson is going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing. Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have

been working to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. Doug has thereby done us all a very good turn!

Jim

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?

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

Dean,

Notice that Lamson does not dispute David's studies of the medical evidence, which demonstrate that the blow-out was at the

back of the head. It follows that the Zapruder film, which shows the blow-out to the right front, cannot be correct. It follows

from the medical evidence that the depiction of the assassination in the Zapruder film is a work of fiction. It's that obvious.

More than forty eyewitnesses to the blow out to the back of the head were dismissed on the basis that the X-rays didn't show

it. We now know that they didn't show it because they had been altered. And we know that the film showed a "blob" blowing

out to the right front because the back defect had been painted black and the bulging brains to the front had been painted in.

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding. He can't discuss HOAX intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only

option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. 2010 is going to be a very bad year for anti-alterationists!

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That Lamson is going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing. Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have

been working to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. Doug has thereby done us all a very good turn!

Jim

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?

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?

Dean,

Notice that Lamson does not dispute David's studies of the medical evidence, which demonstrate that the blow-out was at the

back of the head. It follows that the Zapruder film, which shows the blow-out to the right front, cannot be correct. It follows

from the medical evidence that the depiction of the assassination in the Zapruder film is a work of fiction. It's that obvious.

More than forty eyewitnesses to the blow out to the back of the head were dismissed on the basis that the X-rays didn't show

it. We now know that they didn't show it because they had been altered. And we know that the film showed a "blob" blowing

out to the right front because the back defect had been painted black and the bulging brains to the front had been painted in.

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding. He can't discuss HOAX intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only

option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. 2010 is going to be a very bad year for anti-alterationists!

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That Lamson is going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing. Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have

been working to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. Doug has thereby done us all a very good turn!

Jim

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?

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

I will always back Noel Twyman no matter what, and I back Twymans work when it involves Ryan as well

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?

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?

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

I will always back Noel Twyman no matter what, and I back Twymans work when it involves Ryan as well

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?

I will always back Noel Twyman no matter what, and I back Twymans work when it involves Ryan as well

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

Twyman and Ryan can be totally dismissed

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

Twyman and Ryan can be totally dismissed

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

This is one of the most terrible things I have seen written on this forum.

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?

Thanks Craig,

You've just saved me 85 bucks.

Cheers

Duncan

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

Ron,

Not only did William Greer pull the limo to the left and to a halt to make sure that JFK would be taken out, but Motorcycle Officer Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot and Mary Moorman and Jean Hill had stepped into the street to attract his attention, all of which have been removed from the film. You might want to review, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", which is at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ji..._of_jfk_fil.htm as well as "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-...-090324-48.html You are not taking into account the extent of the fabrication. Check out the tutorial by John P. Costella at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ to broaden and deepen your understanding. I also recommend THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I trust you appreciate that you are swimming in water that is infested with sharks! You can count on Noel Twyman and Dean Hagerman. Good luck!

Jim

Reading Twyman, I don't understand how the limo could be moving in frame 302 and not moving in 303, even if there are frames deleted in between, to explain the background blur in 302 and absence thereof in 303. Between the two frames the limo has only progressed a couple of feet past Moorman, who is blurred in 302 and not blurred in 303. Moorman didn't notice this stop? Did she think the limo stopped so she could take her picture, or what? (Maybe she was distracted by that stepping into or out of the street business! No, wait, that can't be it, she looks stationary to me in both frames. What was it the Ferrie character said about a mystery wrapped inside an enigma?)

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

Twyman and Ryan can be totally dismissed

Thats a bold statement

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

Except that Horne and others claim the fake Z-film was ready that night or a few days later and you seem to have failed to notice this bit,"Ryan insisted to Zavada and Trask that such changes, while technically possible, in his opinion, would have taken months to accomplish and they would still likely have been detectable. "

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

Thanks Dean!

Also unexplained are how Zappy or anyone else could have had the reflexes to intentionally stop panning in reaction to the limo suddenly stopping in a short fraction of a second even pro camera operators at sports events have difficulty when play suddenly changes speed or the direction. The limo is blurred in 303 so the most likely explanation is that Z simply slowed his pan a bit.

Also note that even according to Ryan an altered film would be a 3rd generation copy. Zavada determined it was an in camera original.

The same objection that alterationist make regarding Zavada applies to Ryan as well his area of expertise was the technical characteristics of film itself rather than content.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7119...1/ai_n32258468/

Your welcome Len

I hope this helps others who think alteration was impossible

Ok Len here you go

I just took the cover off my scanner and scanned the pages while holding the book like I would a newborn baby

I posted this under the fair use act for research purposes ONLY

I will take these scans down if Mr Twyman does not approve

These pages are scanned from my copy of "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman 1997

My favorite book on the assassination by the way