Dean Hagerman

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

I forgot to add Robert Cutlers "Seventy Six Seconds in Dealey Plaza" also goes into great detail about TUM/Dart theory, its the sequel to "The Umbrella Man"

David I think Richard Sprauge and Robert Cutler came up with the idea from Fletcher Prouty Im not sure if anything was published before Cutlers "TUM" in 1975 I dont remember were I heard this, but I do recall hearing that the poision dart disinegrated after entry into the body I dont subscribe to the Umbrella Man/dart theory either But I do think its an interesting theory and I did as much reading on the subject as I could years ago, and just re-read "The Umbrella Man" and "Seventy Six Seconds In Dealey Plaza" again a couple weeks ago and got a little boost about the dart theory But I still dont think it happened that way Dean

Good call Jack 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

David Have you ever read "The Umbrella Man" by Robert Cutler? I recommend this book to everyone, but as far as the flechette dart and TUM go this book will tell you everything you want to know The only problem is that this book is very rare and very expensive Let me find some scans to post I could find only 1 used copy of The Umbrella Man by Robert Cutler. Amazon alone has it. It's priced at $96. It was published in 1975. I looked on eBay, Barnes and Nobles, half.com, Booksamillion, Borders books. I tried The Last Hurrah Bookshop; they must be out of business -- anyone know what happened? Only amazon.com has it. Kathy C Yes Kathy I know what happened It has been OOP since 1975, it is very rare, it is a very important book, and researchers are willing to pay over $100.00 for a copy of it I own alot of books on the assassination that are worth alot of money Any of Penn Jones original books are going to cost you an arm and a leg Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman has always been expensive The hardcover version of "The Killing of a President" by Robert Groden always goes for over $60.00 on Ebay I think $96.00 is a great deal because im sure it will be a long time before one comes up on Ebay or Amazon again and the next time it does it could be priced alot higher Here is a picture of two of my Cutler books

Jack, I would love to discuss Bronson, I have studied it in detail for a long time I think a new thread about Bronson's pictures and film (and the blond twins) would be great, I would have alot to say and add

Thanks, Dean...now that you mention it...I think that someone did say that when I posted it comparison before, and I forgot! I did not spot the blond hair on Lolita. If the man in black was not in the way, the moved lamppost would show. Jack No problem Jack A long time ago someone tried to show me a still frame from the film that Stone shot from Zapruders location (the part that shows the actor playing JFK lurch forward in reaction to the back shot) and claimed it was a picture taken from someone standing close to Zapruder I poured over the movie and found the exact point in the movie he took the image from and called him on it Dean

I have seen some still images from your video but I dont remember were I saw them Do you have a link to your video or still images from it? Thanks again Chris Dean

Jack pop in your JFK DVD and go to 2 hours 58 minutes and 44 seconds Its when Kevin Costner is saying "Patrolman Joe Smith" And it shows him running across the street Someone took this image from the film JFK and posted it as a still photo and didnt say it was from the film JFK It was a sceen filmed by Oliver Stone in the old film stock fashion

Jack that mystery image is from the movie "JFK" Just look at Jean Hills blond hair (like the actress in the movie JFK had)

Again nice work Chris Im sorry to ask but are you the one who took a film from Zappys position with a Bell and Howell camera and 8mm film? I would love to see more of your work from this position (and anything from the retaining wall in TOCMs position) Thanks Chris Dean

I have no prejudice against you Dean, I just think you are wrong. You have the Camera Man in the wrong location. Here he is. Duncan I told you I have a good sense of humor What you posted was not funny I was hoping to get replies from Craig and Duncan that I could debate Instead when I do what was asked of me from Craig all he can say is "I don't play the silly I see things in trees games" And Duncan posts a silly 20 foot tall Badge Man with a camera on his nose I think that says alot

Very nice! Thank you Chris

Strike one for deano....this is "bunnies in the clouds". Please try again next time, or do you need the rules restated? Your trained photographic eye can not see a man holding a camera to his face? If you cant see that I dont know what else to tell you

Here is Jack's work on the TOCM in Betzner for those who have not read TGZFH

Cutlers drawing of the flechette firing umbrella

David Have you ever read "The Umbrella Man" by Robert Cutler? I recommend this book to everyone, but as far as the flechette dart and TUM go this book will tell you everything you want to know The only problem is that this book is very rare and very expensive Let me find some scans to post

And here is the other part of my study that proves its possible for TOCM to be in the position shown in Betzner with out needing a jet pack I did not show close ups because I want the whole picture to be shown for easy viewing and comparing In this Bond picture you can see the retaining wall that TOCM stood on as well as the Pyracantha tree he was filming over the top of I drew a line of a woman standing inside of the pergola, further back then TOCMs position on the retaining wall behind the Pyracantha tree As you can clearly see, the two lines are the same height, and again the woman is not only further back but is also most likley shorter then TOCM (as most men are taller then woman) So again my question to Duncan is why does TOCM need a jet pack when clearly he could have shot the other film (as seen by Rich Dellarose, Milicent Cranor and others) standing on the retaining wall and filming over the pyracantha tree

Ok so this is for Craig and Duncan In TGZFH one of Jacks studies was on "The Other Camera Man" in the Betzner picture I found out that Duncan made this discovery (Good work Duncan) now Duncan claims he made a mistake because TOCM would have to be wearing a jet pack to be at the height that he is Well what Duncan has forgot is that TOCM is standing on an extension of the same wall that Zappy is on If you look real close you will see that I checked out Zappys height while standing on the retaining wall Then I drew a line next to TOCM at a point that you can see the retaining wall coming out of the side of the Pyracantha tree As you can clearly see the line is shorter then Zappys, as it should be because TOCM is standing back behind Zappy After carful study by myself, I found that TOCM could have been standing on the retaining wall with no help from a jet pack His height is on par with that of Zapruder and he is just as clear as Zappy and Sitzy So Craig for you this is my first study of one of Jacks studies in TGZFH And for Duncan, I would like to know why you reversed yourself on this great discovery? I await comments and detailed replies from both of you And Duncan, thanks for all the work you have done, I truly hope you can set aside your unwarrented prejudice against me and my theories and have a nice calm discussion on this very important topic Thanks guys Dean

Of coures there was a UFO in Dealey Plaza Dean, YOU posted it the last time we exchanged in a thread, ie, Your Unidentified Flyng Jet Pack Cameraman in Betzner Good one Duncan, that was funny While I believe in my Camera Man in Betzner, I also have a good sense of humor

It is being discussed here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14895 This new DISINFORMATION is a DIRECT response to the new book on Wilson's work....and I have word more will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Jack White, and others, long ago proved the photos fakes....and the constant finding over time of new versions [as well as how and where the 'first' and 'only' originals were found] strengthens that. More versions 'out there'. Can't say more. Only the blind or cognitively impaired believe those photos were taken by Marina, and not composite fakes. Peter, I tried to send this to you as a personnal msg, but yr box is full, so I am posting it here.... For the other posters here, what I am trying to say is that is possible to duplicate, and maybe enhance Wilson's work: I have done it and can send what I found to anyone interested..... Peter, tks for yr reply. I only found it today because my PC crashed just afer I sent you this msg. I lost my hard disk but no prblm since I have a back up file (I learned to do this after losing all files after contacting Jack white a few years ago...) I have contacted you because I precisely want to share this methodology: as explained, I am a 54 year old man, and not very computer friendly: I bought my first PC in 98', and only have a basic, need-to-know approach of computers. I have also no knowledge or expertise in optics or photography. The methodology is arch simple, and can be used by anyone above the age of 8. No hard math or sohisticated computer needed. As I explained, I first designed the process as a thought experiment on how to enhance data processing in market or social studies. Basically, I was looking for a way to retrieve what we call "weak signals", ie information present within the studied data, but so weak as to make them invisible or seemingly unimportant. Of course, a photograph is also only a finite set of information (just as a market study or a behavorial research), so I reasoned that, theorically, the method could be applied to photographs and film with valid results. That's just what I did, and in the beginning it was only for me a way to ease off after a hard day, or to tackle the assassination from a new angle, since my interest in the case is mainly historical and sociological (I believed at the time that the logistics of the hit were just very secondary to the overall understanding of the case). You cannot imagine what I went thru when I got the firt meaningful results, circa 2000: I first looked for reasonable explanations (but could find none...), I tried to convince myself that I could not possibly have suceeded where reknown experts using state of the arts technology had failed.: I took my first discovery (the DalTex shooter) and re started from scratch (the original Altgens) and got exactly the same results, only better.... Now I have studied most of the assassination pictures and each of my discovery, even when apparently "incredible" (like for instance the uniformed shooter in the Sniper's Nest) withstand scrutinity and analysis. I am of course OK to send you any material you might need to evaluate my work: my objective when I initially tried to alert serious researchers to what I had found was to get them to duplicate my results. It turns out that either I am not a good "seller" or that the JFK reaserch community is like any scientific community, much unwilling to accept brutal paradigm shifts....Probably a mix of both... If that's OK, give me an e-mail adress where I can sent u processed images. I can of course send you a CD or DVD: since the process is iterative, a simple diaporama will show you how the image slowly appears, step after step. This is how the process works: 1) I theorized that what you can extract as information from any support (including pictures) is only limited by your capability to extract it (that is basically Wilson's claim: with superior technology, he was able to "see" things unvisible to others, or so he claimed) 2) from this, I theorized that ANY "reading" (interpretation) of the data (with the exception of special effects readings) was legit and valid, and would contain valuable information that might be invisible in the original "reading" of the data (for instance, the original Altgens) 3) I then theorized that if it was possible to read / view all the different, pertinent "readings" of the original data AT THE SAME TIME, you should theorically obtain a richer, more complete reading of the information being studied. 4) the main argument against this method was that each "reading" (or duplicate version) of the photograph was likely to contain "noise", ie artefacts unrelated to objective data. But I reasoned that statistically the odds of a meaningless artefact (ie, a black pixel on a white surface) showing twice at the exact same place in two different "readings" of the original picture was abysmal, and could in fact also be countered by regularly re-injecting the original picture into the loop. So what I came up with, basically, is a process akin to an almost infinite refining method, where you create a loop which is "fed" with an infinite nbr of variations of the original version of the original picture, that can all be seen simultaneously. Imagine, for instance, a club sandwich made of sevral hundreds (or thousands, in some cases) duplicate versions of a picture, laid out on transparencies, that you can examine AS ONE SINGLE IMAGE. Each of these duplicate is a valid reading of the data in its own right, even though it may only be partial. The accumulation of so much valid information should enable the researcher to extract more "truth" from the original document. In simple words: 1) take the best picture you have 2) create duplicates using the normal, basic setting of yr photo software (I work with ArcSoft, and use Kneson for enlargements), not the special effects that might distort the original data 3) use these duplicates as transparencies to be placed over the original picture, thus creating a new duplicate each time, duplicate that can also be put into the loop, and so on ad infinitum..... The end result is an extraordinary refining of the data studied, which goes way beyond what should be normally expected of a classic photo enhancement: see for instance the Hughes frame showing the DPD shooter in the Sniper's Nest, compared to the original Hughes frame I worked with. Or note, for instance, that colors seem to appear even in B&W pictures (I will send you a picture of the Fence shooter accomplice) Although I hate to say this, it is possible that what I have found may pertain to some unknown or up to now neglected property of the photographic medium, akin to holography (as you know, holograms use a totally different way to store information than classic photographs: if you break a hologram in 2 pieces, what you get is 2 smaller holograms, not a single hologram broken in two...) I of course tried to find out whether my methodology was something totally new or not: I found out that something similar (though not identical) is used by NASA contractors to enhance space probes images, though they work with negatives only ( I regularly work with negative also, being a valid "reading" in my book...). From what I read, NASA scientists say this method is used to "see" through the ground and extract information invisible to the naked eye. Sounds a lot like Wilson's claim to me, don't you think? Hope I have not been too long, but I think this is important. If you think it would be necessary for us to meet, it can be arranged. If you'd like to examine my material, I can send you some of my results, either by mail, or a complete study on DVD. As I stated, my objective is having serious rearchers evaluate my results, and most importantly duplicate them for themselves. You asked specifically about the Moorman picture: I got my results using the process described above. I worked with 2 versions of the Moorman: the 4 Day in November version, which is where I found the shhoter and his accomplice (and also a striking image of BDM behind the retaining wall) and the Relman Morin version (from a rather obscure book) a version which I used to work on the rear headwound, with spectacular results. this post is quite long, so I'll let it at that, and I wil send you some more pictures in another one Tks again for yr reply Frantz Please post some of the pictures of your work on the forum for all of us to see Thanks Dean

So Duncan You wont talk to me because I am an alterationist But yet you believe in UFOs and think one was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?

I agree Ron, I enjoyed Hemmings chapter in "Bloddy Treason" Does Hemming still post on this forum?