Dean Hagerman

Frantz, Can you be more specific? Usually, I have difficulty seeing things in these types of photos, but without anything circled, or anymore information other that the "2" in the middle one, they look like (from left to right): 1. a large intestine Christmas Wreath 2. a Picasso 3. an enlargement of one of those moles the doctor tells you to look out for. So for the benefit of folks like me, can you circle the pertinent parts? Thanks! Kathy ...my name is Christian Frantz, and I joined the forum in 2004. I have not been here in a while, and was not aware of the new requirements. I will update my info. I understand that my refusal to manually retouch the pictures requires more attention from the viewer. I am posting below the same pix of the shooters, with a rough white outline of the "interesting parts", which may help I have also explained that the results obtained are quite different from usual photo enhancements. Why, I can't explain, but I believe experts of the field probably could. I know that the Rorscharch thing can be fun... That's why I also posted previously a picture of the rear head wound from the Morin version of Moorman, to show the kind of enhancement that can be obtained, in the context of a well known picture for all researchers. Compare it, if you will, to the best version you have, and tell me what you think... Well now I see a face in Huges, although I cant see how the facial features would be that clear As far as the other two I still cant see anything First you have your outlines going through objects, second you also have your outlines traced around blank space when there is nothing to trace Sorry Frantz im not sold on your work Please keep posting what you have done and try posting the full pictures first then post the close up so we have a better idea of where we are looking, and for me if its a spot that I or other researchers have already spotted something Thanks 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?

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Thank you Jack Dean, Would you like a copy of Sprague’s May 1970 list – I think you’d find it most helpful and interesting. I've got a copy made all ready to go - all I need is your mailing address. Todd Todd That would be very kind of you, Thank you PM sent

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Thank you Jack

Todd Murray 2-4 does not appear in "Forgive My Grief" on page 185 Murray 2-4 does however appear in "Forgive My Grief IV" on page 185 You know how Penn Jones had the pioneering number system for his books "Forgive My Grief" was his first book "Forgive My Grief II" was his second "Forgive My Grief III" was his third "Forgive My Grief IV" was his forth Much like Richard Sprauges number system Penn Jones system was way ahead of his time I cant belive you didnt know that! You must know nothing about the evidence if you dont even know what "Forgive My Grief" Murray 2-4 was in I know, you must have thought no way in hell Dean has all of the FMG volumes, he wont be abel to check You also must have thought that I dont own POTP I am shocked that you didnt know what FMG Murray 2-4 was in So I guess if im Moe are you Curly or Larry?

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Ok Todd Try to make me look stupid without telling the whole story Jerry said "What is it about this POP photo" So when Jerry said this I grabbed my copy of POTP and saw a picture on page 499 that had the pyracantha bush I assumed it was the full picture of the blow up that Jerry posted, I did not study the peple in the picture to see if it was the same as the one he posted, I looked at the pyracantha bush in the picture As you can clearly see the picture is very small just like I said So did Jerry lie about this picture being in POTP to trick me? I dont think so But according to you I didnt look at any Murray pictures Now turn to page 496 I used this picture as well (With my Sherlock Holmes Mag Glass) to check the Pyracantha bush And now you say I dont know the photographic evidence because I dont use Richard Sprauges number system? If I said look at Bond 4-9 for unruly branches what do you think I would be talking about? I want to know why you didnt post the fact that Jerry said the photo that he posted was in POP? I can now see why nobody likes you, for no reason you try to smear my name because you dont agree with my theory Instead of engaging in a friendly game of who knows more about the photographic evidence you want to make me look stupid without posting all the facts All that people need to do is go back and read the thread

I did make a comparison I made an error when I typed that I didnt However, im positive you knew exactly what I was talking about when I replied to that post

Lets review shall we? Deano says upthread: Great work Jack Again my theory that Emmit Hudson would have had the Plaza in tip top shape for JFKs visit is confirmed Why in the world would Hudson trim the pyracantha bush AFTER the assassination instead of before? The bush WAS trimmed before JFKs visit as shown in all the pictures except Zapruder The branches of the pyracantha bush have been altered in Zapruder You are viewing the FBI photo taken months afterthe assassination and saying "look, this is the state of the bush on the day of the assassination...trimmed" You then go on to state the bush as see in in Zapruder has been altered. It is impossible for you to make this (false) statement without comparing the photos of the bush on the day of the assassination and the photo of the bush taken months later. Every time you run your mouth the hole gets deeper deano. You ready to quit yet and admit your defeat like a man? BTW, the day Healy brings anything of substance to the table I'll listen, until then he is just unfiltered noise. Holy cow Craigster Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through my post? Jack posted a picture with a Zaptuder frame on one side and the SS picture on the other I was refering to the fact that the bush should be nice and trimmed for the presidents visit, instead it is not trimmed, yet in the SS picture it is trimmed Someone even said, maybe the SS trimmed the bush to get a better view Craig I think you need a nap And by the way have you ever read David Healys chapter in TGZFH? I hope you have, but it sounds like you have not That pile-o-dirt is sure getting bigger deano. Pretty soon you are going to need a backhoe instead of a shovel. Lets review again shall we? deano sez: "I was not comparing them.." The deano sez: "Jack posted a picture with a Zaptuder frame on one side and the SS picture on the other" (wondering how deano looks at two pictures side by side and does not compare them) Continuing deano sez: "I was refering to the fact that the bush should be nice and trimmed for the presidents visit, instead it is not trimmed, yet in the SS picture it is trimmed" Wow! deano compares the zapruder frame and FBI ( or SS whatever) frame and makes statement that they don't match. Impossible to do without COMPARING the two images. But deano sez: "I was not comparing them.." Sheesh, and he thinks I need a nap. You need to start telling the truth deano. Falsehoods always have a way of catching up to you. TGZFH..yep got a proof copy from Tink before it was published. That was a waste of good paper. You think Healy had something meaningful to say? My you are an easy mark. You ever wonder if Healy had the proper approvals to use those copyrighted images (they were not his)? Ask him and he shuts up, which is not a bad thing mind you.... Debating with you is like debating with my 5 year old, only worse Why dont you tell your new best friend Todd how much you care about JFK and the assassination

Craig it looks like your new best friend has some old friends who dont think very kindly of him

Dean, your words support my theory that it is far better to discuss matters civil to convince anybody instead of harsh critic. Jerry did it in a modest way (like some others too) and now you consider to update your thoughts. Thats the way it should be. There is really nothing wrong with the Pyracantha branches and their lenght. Altgens 8, which Robin has posted speaks for itself i think. And Zapruder was simply the closest to this bush and used a zoom lense as some here mentioned as well. Therefore we see much more detail. If you ask me, Richard B. Trask got it right. Who else than Altgens it should have be? The only one close to him with a camera was Bothun. Altgens used a zoom lense and Bothun not and thats the reason why Bothun's FOV (you propably know his famous photo with the alleged James Files walking away in the background) is much wider/covered more enviroment. Both men were south of Elm street as they had taken their photographs. (Altgens has already passed Elm in Bothun's photo which was taken seconds later). best to you Martin Martin I agree 100% with the first part of your post that I put in bold Thank you Dean

Lets review shall we? Deano says upthread: Great work Jack Again my theory that Emmit Hudson would have had the Plaza in tip top shape for JFKs visit is confirmed Why in the world would Hudson trim the pyracantha bush AFTER the assassination instead of before? The bush WAS trimmed before JFKs visit as shown in all the pictures except Zapruder The branches of the pyracantha bush have been altered in Zapruder You are viewing the FBI photo taken months afterthe assassination and saying "look, this is the state of the bush on the day of the assassination...trimmed" You then go on to state the bush as see in in Zapruder has been altered. It is impossible for you to make this (false) statement without comparing the photos of the bush on the day of the assassination and the photo of the bush taken months later. Every time you run your mouth the hole gets deeper deano. You ready to quit yet and admit your defeat like a man? BTW, the day Healy brings anything of substance to the table I'll listen, until then he is just unfiltered noise. Holy cow Craigster Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through my post? Jack posted a picture with a Zaptuder frame on one side and the SS picture on the other I was refering to the fact that the bush should be nice and trimmed for the presidents visit, instead it is not trimmed, yet in the SS picture it is trimmed Someone even said, maybe the SS trimmed the bush to get a better view Craig I think you need a nap And by the way have you ever read David Healys chapter in TGZFH? I hope you have, but it sounds like you have not

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination! You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging! You must have misread what I posted I was not comparing them, I said that all it proves is that why would it be neatly trimmed months and months later for no reason but left untrimmed by Emmit Hudson on the day the president was to drive through the plaza that Hudson took care of You need to slow down when you read Craigester And listen to David Healy, go easy

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? Dean, Everybody gets to decide what's reasonable for themselves so you're entitled to your position. However, most people don't think shrubs grow all that much in 5 days in late December. So if your objective is to convince other people as well as yourself, them you need to offer some explanation for the transformation of the pyracantha from trimmed and neat on the 22nd to what matches Zapruder on the 27th. Right now we can believe one of two things. 1) The bush underwent a spurt of growth in 5 days that just happens to match Zapruder on the 22nd, or 2) the firethorn appears trimmed from a distance but a closer look like Altgens, Murray, or the reconstruction shows that it's ragged just like in Zapruder. We see exactly this in the reconstruction, where the bush looks trimmed at a distance but not up close. As I wrote, you're entitled to believe 1, but I think must people would lean toward 2 unless you can explain the reconstruction photos. Best regards, Jerry Jerry Thank you for your nice level headed reply You are the only one so far who has casted any doubt on my pyracantha theory And being civil about it makes melook deeper into what you post Jerry Thank you, anything else you find please post it in this thread, I look forward to your thoughts Dean

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? LOL, yes it is. Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed. How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days? So your allowed to guess on how fast a pyracantha bush grows But im not allowed to guess that Emmit Hudson, whos job it was to keep the Plaza nice and trimmed would not have the Plaza as neat as can be on the day the President would visit his city? How does that work Todd? Why can you guess and I cant?

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe?

Watch out, Duncan now claims what I posted "was disinformation" Come on Duncan, why dont you prove me right and tell us all what Muchmore said also...... What you are posting IS disinformation. Altgens did NOT say that he didn't take the photograph, or as Jack now claims 2 photographs. If either of you can provide proof of this i'll eat my words and apologise, but I won't hold my breath waiting. As for the rest of this thread, i'm not really interested as it's completely bonkers based on poor photo analysis of the branches, and an assumption that the Zapruder film was altered, with no proof of such after 46 years. I'm surprised it's getting so much attention. I only butted in to point out your error. In the meantime i'll exit this thread until proof of Altgens saying that he did not take the photographs is provided. You and Jack obviously have this proof or you wouldn't be announcing such a claim...Right? Duncan Duncan im sure you own "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask? I hope you do

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work

Watch out, Duncan now claims what I posted "was disinformation" Come on Duncan, why dont you prove me right and tell us all what Muchmore said also......

And I never said the branches were sticking out one foot I said a foot or more

Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Perhaps you missed my answer, go back and read through the posts You did however miss my question to you Why would you try sending me out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures? Dean, No, you absolutely did not answer my question. What I want to know is HOW did you QUANTIFY your 1 foot measurement? In other words, how did you measure the branches in Zapruder to determine that they were sticking up 1 foot (12 inches)? Craig Lamson has asked you the same thing and you haven’t responded to him either. As for your question regarding my supposed “sending (you) out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures”, no, I did not miss that, and I’ll be dealing with that later on today. Be patient, Dean, "photographic beat downs" as you like to call them sometimes take time. Todd How many times do I have to answer the same question? If you cant find my answer then I have serious doubts about your eyesight And I think you know that 3 of the first 4 Murrary pictures were overexposed, so having me look at Murray 2-4 (3 of his first 4 pictures) sounds pretty odd I await your photographic beatdown

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. Duncan Huge difference

Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Perhaps you missed my answer, go back and read through the posts You did however miss my question to you Why would you try sending me out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures?

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Jerry Nice blow up That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small I still think the bush in Zapruder is way more unruly Dean

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Probably the best view of the Pyracantha bush available, to my eyes it looks " Untrimmed" It would be an interesting exercise to " cut out " Zapruder and stand him back up on the pedestal. Maybe it would give us a better idea of his true height, and line of site through the leaves. Robin So who do you think took "Altgens"8 ? James Altgens himself said he didnt take that picture

The truth eh? Or YOUR own preordained truth? Big difference. Craig You may think im dishonest because I am an alterationist (A silly reason) I would not lie about being someone that I am not I promise I am Dean Hagerman and nobody else And trust me, if you prove me wrong on anything I will admit that I was wrong You have yet to do that