Dean Hagerman

Of course the wind makes a difference. Try simulating the wind by taping some taller branch to pull them forward to the level of lower branches, then stand back at a good distance and take photographs from different angles and you'll the understand why the wind is an important factor. Edited : Better still Dean Watch this video and observe how taller branches fall below branches at a lower level, giving the false camera impression ( if you pause the video at specific points to show an individual frame ) that the tall branches are not as tall as the lower branches. Duncan I will try anything on my untrimmed bush (now that my wife sees me paying attention to it she wants it trimmed, I told her that I was not Emmit Hudson and laughed, she looked at me like I was crazy and walked off) I will do anything anyone wants me to do Any suggestions? Craig, Bill, Duncan, Todd?

Remember that you will also need to recreate the wind conditions that were in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22nd 1963 at 12.30. Sorry Duncan Unless Gary Mack and the "Inside the Target Car" staff want to come out to my house and help me, then you either have to wait until Redding has those exact winds, or you can set aside the wind because IMO it makes no difference

A quick preview So far my theory looks good

Dean, before you waste a lot of time arguing something that experts have checked with far superior images than that we get to see much of the time - think 'angle of perception'. In post 21, Todd was kind enough to point out many branches standing up on that pyracantha bush. So next if I understand you correctly ... your concern is that they are not standing up as far from the main cluster of foliage as seen in Zapruder's film and if that is the case, then lets go back to what I previously told you about the angle at which they are seen. Todd's illustration shows the bush being seen from slightly below - Zapruder's view is from slightly above. Maybe thinking in a way that explains why a boat seems to sink over the horizon when sailing on the water may help. How hard can it be to test this on any untrimmed bush that one may see several times over in everyday life as they travel to and from home? One more thing you seem to have implied in earlier post of yours pertaining to the branches and that was that they seemed to be standing straight up in Zapruder's images while not so straight in others. The best way to understand this is to lean a pole against a wall and walk around it in a 180 degree arch. At some point the leaning pole will appear to be standing straight and its just the angle at which it is being seen that causes this. Good luck! Bill Miller Bill I have an untrimmed bush in my front yard that will work for this I dont have time to snap a bunch of pictures right now as I have to go to work but I will take one picture to show what and how untrimmed the bush is When I get home I will take pics from above, below, the side, every which way I can Dean

Thanks for the tease Peter For those of us (Me!) who have to wait until X-mas when my wife will order all 5 volumes off Amazon

I never saw that photo before and I remember something vaguely about his studying for the priesthood. I think he was gay. I think thats the reason he could not become a priest or the reason he was disfellowshipped (I dont know the Catholic term for when you are kicked out)

I have known about this for years, and have seen that picture of Ferrie as a Priest 100s of times I just assumed all researchers and students of the assassination knew about Ferrie trying to become a priest

Dean ... I stopped reading this thread soon after I read your response in post #3 where you were agreeing 100% with Jack who if I recall correctly ... he was looking at a Zframe so dark that he didn't notice that the branch he was referring to was coming from the tree above and not the pyracantha bush. I have seen these arguments before and if a forum search was conducted here or at Lancer you would probably find the views that I used so many years ago that show the bush to be the same as the other pics taken on 11/22/63. My findings were that poor resolution photos from different angles would clump the foliage together which masked the single protruding branches when seen from another angle. This would cause the bush to look smooth around the edges. This sort of thing can be tested with any bush of similarity by merely walking around it and taking test shots from different angles. Why do you think people are so picky when looking for a X-mas tree for the holidays. Everyone wants a nice uniform tree, but usually must settle for one that has gaps and flaws in it. We turn it a certain way and it looks to have a nice shape, but when seen from another angle that nice uniform shape is gone and the tree branches don't look so even. I hope you can find the study I posted so long ago and you'll see that what I say is true. Until then, enjoy the feeling of thinking you have seen proof of alteration. It simply isn't worth the time to explain it all over again ... thats the job of the archived post. Happy you have enjoyed my past postings. I always tried to be exact and descriptive in what I was talking about concerning the assassination images and the first step to my doing this was to not use darkened images. If you are truly familiar with my work, then you'll know to take a closer look at what I have said in your search for the truth. Bill Miller Bill I have no problem admitting that I am wrong However the only picture I have seen that has put doubt in my mind is Murray 2-4 (Thanks Todd and Jerry) I do see your point about the resolution of pictures such as Bronson and Bond But my main point is that even in Murray 2-4 it does not show the drastic lenght of the untrimed branches as shown in Zapruder, and I am taking into consideration that Zappy was closer and had the zoom on, but even then the branches seem way to long And when I agreed with Jack I was not talking about the object that was above the branches (from the overhanging tree) I was talking about the actual Pyracantha branches Im going to search this forum for posts made by you on this subject Do you have to be a member of Lancer to view posts on the forum? And again im glad your back, im positive that we will have some debates, but I also look forward to your views and research Thanks Bill Dean

Bill Just for your info I have been on the "alteration band wagon" since 1997 when I read Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason for the first time Dean

No kidding, Todd ... I guess some things never change with some of these people. They sit back and take the poorest images possible and make nutty claims without so much as cross-referencing other images that are of better resolution and viewed from different angles before jumping onto the alteration band wagon. I mean my God ... Bronson's photo is of such poor resolution that you cannot make out who's who inside the limo and these guys are talking branch formations on shrubs and foot placements when one cannot tell where something starts and another begins. And to think I was wondering if the level of discussion may have improved after all this time away from here. Is there by chance a thread somewhere on the conspiracy to use the poorest images possible so to make stupid unfounded claims ... if not there should be! Bill Miller Bill Nice to meet you I have enjoyed your posts and research for years I hope you read this whole thread, because I have cross referenced every picture (that I own or have acsess to) taken on 11/22/63 and many pictures after 11/22/63 Murrary 2-4 ( for Todd) is the best picture to discredit my theory, but it shows the bush as having some minor untrimmed branches, not at all close to the Empire State Building type branches sticking up in Zapruder. I look forward to some nice civil calm debates with you Bill, and just to plant a seed I am an alterationist, but from what posts I have read of yours we agree on most theories. Hope to hear from you soon Dean

Great stuff as always Bernice Thank you Oh and this may be my favorite quote “Pictures don’t lie, unless they are made to “.. Harold Weisberg….. Page 1,,”Whitewash 2 “

And Jacks right I should have put the If before the date, Toms point was that the time and date dont match the Warren Commisions date of the photos, which makes the case that the Back Yard photos are fake. My fault

I posted this under the Fair use act for research purposes only Craig if you want to see more of Toms work I can scan it and send it to you in a PM or Email Dean

Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" So tell us Dean, what was his exact method of computing the suns positon? Why dont you own the book? This book is all about the photographic evidence, its right up your alley Craigster So are you.... A. To cheap to buy it B. Dont care enough about the assassination to buy it C. Afraid Wilson might be right D. All of the above My answer is.... D. All of the above No the book is NOT all about the photographic evidence, its about one guys mostly undocumented and non reviewed "interpretation". I never waste my money on assassination books. Period. If I can find it at the library, I MIGHT read it. If not, nope. If Wilson is correct the word will get around, and if he's not correct that will get around too. But he's not looking very good now is he. He missed the BY light by about 7 hours, quite the expert that Tom Wilson.... Well I dont think this book will ever make it to your Library, so give me a minute and I will scan page 115 for you Craig

Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am" So tell us Dean, what was his exact method of computing the suns positon? Why dont you own the book? This book is all about the photographic evidence, its right up your alley Craigster So are you.... A. To cheap to buy it B. Dont care enough about the assassination to buy it C. Afraid Wilson might be right D. All of the above My answer is.... D. All of the above

Do you own Harold Weisbergs book "Post Mortem" 1975 ? If not be ready to fork over some cash and buy it Then turn to page 609 and you can see the picture that Harold himself took of the curb in the Archives Then turn to page 453 and read all about the curb and Harolds thoughts on it I would scan the pages and post them, however my copy of Post Mortem is in great condition and there is no way in hell I am going to bend the pages back to get scans Trust me just buy the book, its one of the best books about the assassination and Harolds best work IMO, its worth every penny Dean P.S. Dont buy the Mary Ferrell reprint, to get the full Weisberg effect you need to buy an original self typeset self published copy of Post Mortem

Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin The definitive sun angle was computed by Engineer Tom Wilson. See DEEPER DARKER TRUTH, page 115. Jack I just read page 115 in "A Deeper Darker Truth" Another important finding is that Tom nailed down the exact date and the exact time of day down to the minute of the backyard photos From page 115 of ADDT "The photograph was taken on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in Dallas, the exact time of day was 9:12am"

Duncan What does Gary Macks opinion have to do with you admitting that your wrong? Dean, It has nothing to do with me admitting that I was wrong, because i'm not wrong. Duncan and I have agreed to disagree I do not believe Duncan is wrong However due to my alteration stance I look at these statements very closely as they hold alot of weight in reference to my theories I look at what Altgens said about his pictures the same way I look at what Muchmore said about filming on Elm St or what Nix said about frames missing from his film after he got it back from the Government. I do not believe I am wrong either

Duncan What does Gary Macks opinion have to do with you admitting that your wrong?

Duncan Its not "sure or not sure" Its "sure or reasonably sure" Reasonably and Not are not the same word I await your apology Thank you ahead of time for correcting your mistake (notice I say mistake and not disinformation, you see I dont throw that term around lightly because I would not want to discredit someone because they made a mistake in what they wrote, or they wrote what they remember or whet they believe) Dean Hell will freeze ove first Dean. Sure or reasonably sure = an element of doubt = not sure in anyone's language. Duncan Not sure what language your talking about (I assume english) Have you ever heard the term Reasonable Doubt used in court cases? I think its getting cold in hell, or at least getting close to 32 degrees Let me know when it gets to that temp so I know when to expect your apology Dean

Craig I just read the thread that you and Cliff went at it in about the Croft and Betzner fold I have a question for you How did you come up with 3+ Inches of fabric fold? Im just curious because you jumped all over me for coming up with the untrimmed Pyracantha branches being a foot or more in length What did you do to come up with 3+ inches? Simple. The fold covers the jacket collar. The jacket collar is 1.25 inches. The fabric in a fold is double the fold height, with a sharp crease. That equals a 2.5 inch piece of fabric. The fold in JFK's jacket did NOT have a sharp crease but rather a rounded crease. My tests with fabric folds showed, on average, the rounded crease added 1/2 inch of fabric. 2.5 inches plus .5 inch equals 3 inches. That is the minimum fabric in the fold, since we can't see how much ABOVE the top of the jacket collar the fold extends. Any extension adds to the amount of fabric in the fold, thus the 3 "PLUS" inches of fabric. Wow, very nice Good job on researching that Dean

Dean your wrote: "So who do you think took "Altgens"8 ? James Altgens himself said he didnt take that picture" To which Duncan replied: "Dean, you are wrong. Altgens did NOT say that he didn't take the photograph, he said that he couldn't remember taking the photograph." And you just proved him right, so why does he owe you an apology? Did you forget to read the passage I quoted in POTP? Go read it yourself, page 318 and 319 He never said he didnt remember taking the photograph Read this "In discussions with him, it is evident that he is sure or reasonably sure that he took FIVE of the photos" How does he is sure or reasonably sure turn into the he didnt remember that Duncan somehow came up with? Also Duncan said that it was a misquote, how is it a misquote when it is Altgens good friend Trask (A LNer) who wrote this passage?

Duncan Its not "sure or not sure" Its "sure or reasonably sure" Reasonably and Not are not the same word I await your apology Thank you ahead of time for correcting your mistake (notice I say mistake and not disinformation, you see I dont throw that term around lightly because I would not want to discredit someone because they made a mistake in what they wrote, or they wrote what they remember or whet they believe) Dean

Here is what Duncan said to Jack and I I posted this quote so everyone would know what im talking about

Thank you ladies And Bernice I agree 100% How can anyone prove Altgens took Altgens8? And in reading POTP today I came across the part I was looking for for Jack and Duncan On page 318 and 319 "In later years Altgens became unsure about the number of photos he took that day of the assassination, and has been reluctant to ackowledge authorship of all seven since he is very adamant about not wanting to take credit for someone elses work. In discussions with him, it is evident that he is sure or reasonably sure that he took FIVE of the photos" Duncan I think you owe Jack and I an apology