Dean Hagerman

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

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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Trolling? Coming from Tinks head xxxxx that is pretty funny Ok then we now know you are just plain nuts. I finally figured you out. You reminded me of someone but I just could not put my finger on it. This thread finally did it for me. You can "see" a head in the lights and shadows of tree branches, but you can't see shoots sticking up all over from a bush. Simply amazing! It can only mean one thing, you are straydog02, or his long lost brother! Or maybe just a looney toon like he is. Either works. One thing is for certain. You simply don't have the skill set to deal with the photographic issues with any intellectual honesty. Loon away deano, just don't forget to believe.... Craig I am not straydog, I have no idea who that is Every JFK forum I belong to my username is my real name (And that is only here, JFKresearch.com and Duncans forum although I have only posted a couple times a while ago) I would not lie about that You have my word, I am not here to play games, I care about the assassination and I want the truth Dean

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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No Are you sure you're looking at Murray 2-4? Again I love how you think im stupid and have no clue about the photos taken on 11/22/63 I see in Murray what I see in all the other pictures I have been checking for the last two days

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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Trolling? Coming from Tinks head xxxxx that is pretty funny

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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No

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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange

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

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

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion... "the branches are just way to long and out of control" Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds. Oh Craig I know your still upset over the fact that it only took me one thread instead of three to shut your challange down Dont worry the new challange with Todd should be of interest to you as it has to do with the photographic evidence in the case You can watch from the sidelines and cheer on the flip floping LNer while he takes a beating the likes of only Benny "Kid" Parett know about You have not posted a challenge thread yet deano just buniies in the clouds. I'm still waiting for you to do one that meets the critera set down in the orignal challenge post. You ever gonna do that? I'm not expecting much from yet another jacko white groupie. Its funny that you label me a Jack White groupie I will back Jack up on the things I agree with I like Jack and I like his work However I have many other researchers that I agree with just as much and even more so then Jack You could label me with Lifton, Twyman, Weisberg, Galanor, Marrs, Groden, Cutler, Trask even your good friend Tink Thompson I agree with lots of the mentioned researchers I also disagree with lots of the research and theories of the mentioned researchers

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion... "the branches are just way to long and out of control" Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds. Oh Craig I know your still upset over the fact that it only took me one thread instead of three to shut your challange down Dont worry the new challange with Todd should be of interest to you as it has to do with the photographic evidence in the case You can watch from the sidelines and cheer on the flip floping LNer while he takes a beating the likes of only Benny "Kid" Parett know about

Dean, For my “affiliation” with Ken Rahn’s Non-Con group, see my reply above to Bill Kelly. For my being a “real researcher”, I’ll ask that you to define exactly what a ‘real researcher” is. As for my “grasp on the photographic evidence”, I’ll put my “grasp on the photographic evidence” up against yours any day of the week. As for your claim that I’m a McAdams groupie, nothing could be farther from the truth. I began researching this case long, long before McAdams showed up. As for me having “ties” to McAdams, I’ve met him once and had a scant few email exchanges with him, both several years ago. And last but not least, the only reason I’m “trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush” is because I believe you are wrong. Yours, The Real Todd Vaughan Ok I will take your word on not being involved with McAdams A real researcher is someone who does not flip flop from CTer to LNer And I gladly except your challange on the photographic evidence How would you like to move forward on this challange? I hope you have a better game plan then your new found friend Craigster did for a challange With all due respect im going to put the photographic beat down on you Lets get it on

I think Robin brings up a good point about Zappys camera being on zoom But even so look at these two images Even with Zappy being closer to the bush then Stoughton the branches are just way to long and out of control Hey Craig do you have any trophies or yard sticks sitting around to do another amazing study?

Nice bump Bill Thanks for showing me the real Todd Vaughan All along I thought he was a real researcher and had a grasp on the photographic evidence Now I see he is just a McAdams groupie At least I now know why he is trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush Its not because he thinks im wrong, its because he is a LNer with McAdams ties

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

Todd Like I said those branches are hardly untrimmed Look at how they stick up just a tad bit above the main part of the bush In Zapruder the branches are sticking up more then a foot I know Zappy was closer to the bush then Stoughton, but not that much closer to cause a huge difference like we see in Zappy Thanks for trying again, I have no problem saying im wrong if I see another picture that shows the amount and large length of untrimmed branches as Zappy shows Dean

Jack I agree 100% Here is a reply I just sent to Gary Mack, with some more of my thoughts on this issue Dean, Before you go patting yourself and everyone else on the back for this latest "discovery," you might want to find out exactly when the FBI/Secret Service test pictures were made. That might have an effect on the size and condition of the bush. Gary Mack Gary I could care less about the FBI/Secret service test pictures I am talking about the way the Pyracantha bush looks in Zapruder, like Jack says it looks untrimmed and has branches and leaves all out of wack Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder? IMO, the bottom half of the Z-film was filmed before the assassination, then the top half was a mixture of the film taken by Zapruder and the other cameraman as seen in Betzner The real film of the assassination (as viewed by rich Dellarosa, whom I belive by the way, why would he lie about something as important as another film?) was used with the top half of the film taken by Zapruder to create the version we see today They had to take out the wide limo turn onto Elm, the limo stop, the brain matter going back, DCM stepping out into the road and signaling Greer to stop the limo This Pyracantha bush post by Jack makes me feel very strong about this theory I would love to hear your thoughts Dean "Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder?" Dean, I suggest you look at some of the photos with better resolution, such as Altgens 8, the Color Rickerby slide, Stoughton, and Murray. You'll find plenty of "out of control" branches sticking up from the top of the bush that could have most certainly appeared in Zapruder's film. Todd Todd I have already checked every picture in my archive (that includes all the ones you listed) None of the ones you listed show the out of control branches as shown in Zapruder Altgens 8 is a picture that I find hard to swallow Ike Altgens said himself that he did not take that picture And while I like Richard Trask alot and own all of his books, I think he went a little to far in POTP trying to discredit Altgens and claim he was an old man who was loosing his mind and he did in fact take the picture we see as Altgens 8 Dean, ALL of the photos I listed show branches sticking up from the top of the bush, specifically from the suth end of the top of the bush, just like we see in Zapruder. Todd Todd Not to the extant of that of the Z-film Im not saying that in Rickerby and Stoughton you cant see a little bit of unruly branches barley sticking up from the pyracantha bush, but overall it still looks very well trimmed In Zapruder the bush looks very untrimmed and out of control (kind of like the bushes in my front yard ) No need to keep going back and forth, thanks for your opinion Todd I have heard great things about your work on the photographic evidence in the assassination I look forward to seeing some of your work and any theories you have Dean Dean, To quantify things, there seem to be only about 6 or 7 or so branches sticking up from the top of the bush - the rest of what we see below them seem to actually be the top branches of the fuller body of the bush. This matches what we see in Rickerby, Stoughton and Murray, photos whose resolution is sufficient enough to make such a judgment. This Murray photo, Murray 2-4, shows the branches at the south end of the bush, and they are far from being very well trimmed. Todd Todd Just look at the branches sticking straight up in Zapruder You dont see that major untrimming in Rickerby, Stoughton or Murray Todd I have all of these pictures and have looked at all of them in detail You can post all the Murray's, Stoughton's and Rickerby's that you want Its not going to change my mind Unless you find a picture that shows the pyracantha bush as it was on 11/22/63 at 12:30 to 12:35 or so that I have not studied in the last day then I stand correct on this Dean

Jack I agree 100% Here is a reply I just sent to Gary Mack, with some more of my thoughts on this issue Dean, Before you go patting yourself and everyone else on the back for this latest "discovery," you might want to find out exactly when the FBI/Secret Service test pictures were made. That might have an effect on the size and condition of the bush. Gary Mack Gary I could care less about the FBI/Secret service test pictures I am talking about the way the Pyracantha bush looks in Zapruder, like Jack says it looks untrimmed and has branches and leaves all out of wack Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder? IMO, the bottom half of the Z-film was filmed before the assassination, then the top half was a mixture of the film taken by Zapruder and the other cameraman as seen in Betzner The real film of the assassination (as viewed by rich Dellarosa, whom I belive by the way, why would he lie about something as important as another film?) was used with the top half of the film taken by Zapruder to create the version we see today They had to take out the wide limo turn onto Elm, the limo stop, the brain matter going back, DCM stepping out into the road and signaling Greer to stop the limo This Pyracantha bush post by Jack makes me feel very strong about this theory I would love to hear your thoughts Dean "Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder?" Dean, I suggest you look at some of the photos with better resolution, such as Altgens 8, the Color Rickerby slide, Stoughton, and Murray. You'll find plenty of "out of control" branches sticking up from the top of the bush that could have most certainly appeared in Zapruder's film. Todd Todd I have already checked every picture in my archive (that includes all the ones you listed) None of the ones you listed show the out of control branches as shown in Zapruder Altgens 8 is a picture that I find hard to swallow Ike Altgens said himself that he did not take that picture And while I like Richard Trask alot and own all of his books, I think he went a little to far in POTP trying to discredit Altgens and claim he was an old man who was loosing his mind and he did in fact take the picture we see as Altgens 8 Dean, ALL of the photos I listed show branches sticking up from the top of the bush, specifically from the suth end of the top of the bush, just like we see in Zapruder. Todd Todd Not to the extant of that of the Z-film Im not saying that in Rickerby and Stoughton you cant see a little bit of unruly branches barley sticking up from the pyracantha bush, but overall it still looks very well trimmed In Zapruder the bush looks very untrimmed and out of control (kind of like the bushes in my front yard ) No need to keep going back and forth, thanks for your opinion Todd I have heard great things about your work on the photographic evidence in the assassination I look forward to seeing some of your work and any theories you have Dean

Thanks Jack I thought you may have been involved. Dean. Your best Bronson image was a scan i did, it was taken from the small Bronson photo which appears on the back cover of Richard Trask's " Pictures of the pain " Robin. Robin sorry I didnt give you credit I got it from JKFresearch.com and when I went back and looked it was posted by you Thanks for posting that image, I just looked on the back page of my copy of POTP and it is very clear Thanks again Robin Dean

Jack I agree 100% Here is a reply I just sent to Gary Mack, with some more of my thoughts on this issue Dean, Before you go patting yourself and everyone else on the back for this latest "discovery," you might want to find out exactly when the FBI/Secret Service test pictures were made. That might have an effect on the size and condition of the bush. Gary Mack Gary I could care less about the FBI/Secret service test pictures I am talking about the way the Pyracantha bush looks in Zapruder, like Jack says it looks untrimmed and has branches and leaves all out of wack Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder? IMO, the bottom half of the Z-film was filmed before the assassination, then the top half was a mixture of the film taken by Zapruder and the other cameraman as seen in Betzner The real film of the assassination (as viewed by rich Dellarosa, whom I belive by the way, why would he lie about something as important as another film?) was used with the top half of the film taken by Zapruder to create the version we see today They had to take out the wide limo turn onto Elm, the limo stop, the brain matter going back, DCM stepping out into the road and signaling Greer to stop the limo This Pyracantha bush post by Jack makes me feel very strong about this theory I would love to hear your thoughts Dean "Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder?" Dean, I suggest you look at some of the photos with better resolution, such as Altgens 8, the Color Rickerby slide, Stoughton, and Murray. You'll find plenty of "out of control" branches sticking up from the top of the bush that could have most certainly appeared in Zapruder's film. Todd Todd I have already checked every picture in my archive (that includes all the ones you listed) None of the ones you listed show the out of control branches as shown in Zapruder Altgens 8 is a picture that I find hard to swallow Ike Altgens said himself that he did not take that picture And while I like Richard Trask alot and own all of his books, I think he went a little to far in POTP trying to discredit Altgens and claim he was an old man who was loosing his mind and he did in fact take the picture we see as Altgens 8

That's a new one on me. What evidence is there of DCM "stepping out into the road"? That is what the DCM does in the other film You can see him in the street in Bronson

Len Did you miss this post? I didnt reply to Pauls points because I dont believe TUM had any type of weapon or poison dart

Here is a clear version, it is cropped on the right

Very Nice Robin Here is my best Bronson

Louis Witt was the person you are talking about (I dont know how you can bring him up without knowing his name) And his explanation of his actions were laughable, he didnt say one thing that was on par with what TUM was seen doing in film and pictures

Here is my other post so as not to take away from the other thread In Zapruder the Pyracantha bush has branches and leaves going all over the place Bronson really shows the bush neatly trimmed, Moorman also shows no unruly limbs going all crazy No way Emmit Hudson would let the Pyracantha bush look the way it does in Zapruder on the day that the president would be driving through the plaza that he was in charge of keeping neat and trimmed Just another observation that makes the theory of the Zappy film being fake If the first part of the film was taken a couple days before Nov. 22 1963 (before Hudson had a chance to trim the pyracantha bush as shown in all other pictures) as I believe it was so that the people who made the alterations had a bottom half of the film to work with while putting in the fake assassination on the top half of the film. Why else cant we see Newmans or the Blond twins? Because this part of the film was taken before Nov 22 1963! Jack awesome work! This makes my thoughts on how the Zapruder film was altered that much stronger