Dean Hagerman

Hey that photo is a composite of the first shift Craig, the second shift Craig and th3 third shift Craig. These guys in the photo department at Langley are top notch and do really good work. [/sacrasm] I have heard Langley does good work

I am a member of two JFK forums and a Breweriana collecting and drinking forum (of which I am a moderator) and almost every thread veers off onto another world of posting that has nothing to do with the original thread title Its just the way it is on pretty much all forums I have ever seen (and happens for sure on the 3 I am a part of)

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you. Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos. Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be? YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES! Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject? So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct? And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them Craigy are you ok? Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask There must be a basis for agreement. Unless you have validated Jacks work on the background photos you have no factual basis, which leaves you with... BELIEF, either in Jack or your very warped worldview! You choose. deano Believes...lordy, lordy...deano BELIEVES. Perhaps you might want to learn a few life lessons yourself deano, like learning to be consistant. You have a MAJOR problem in that respect. You are simply a little boy with your fingers caught in the cookie jar, trying in vain to worm your way out of trouble. It's not working. Enjoy it while you can. your fantasy world is about to crumble. Hows that new thread coming? Can't wait to rip you to pieces. Look for the first post tonight sometime, im making scans and getting things ready Soory I cant post right away Craig but I have this little problem called a family, you know a wife and three kids, and while today is one of my days off I still have to mow the lawn and clean the bathrooms. I know Craig its horrible a wife that makes me work, can you "believe" that? I dont think your married or have any children You dont need to tell me how many kids or how long you have been married I dont care about the details, but just tell me if im right or wrong It will help me understand you better, you see if your a single guy living the good life (at home all day waiting for Jack and other alterationists to post) or if your married and have kids (stuck at home working around the house all day while not at work) Be patient Craig, I will make sure the post is directed at you I'm not a single guy and have not been since 1972 Same wonderful woman I might add). I wash the dishes, cook, taking care of a sick wife at the moment, walk the dogs, care for my mom who is doing chemo for colon cancer and run a business. And I get to bust alterationists chops...life is very good indeed. Im glad to hear that Craig, my opinion of you just went up a notch (not thats its huge to begin with but hey you gota start somewhere) So I guess my next question is why do you look younger then me in your avatar but yet say you were married in 1972 Have you just countinued to look like your 16 years old your whole life? If so then congrats on that as well, you must not drink, smoke or eat meat

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you. Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos. Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be? YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES! Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject? So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct? And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them Craigy are you ok? Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask There must be a basis for agreement. Unless you have validated Jacks work on the background photos you have no factual basis, which leaves you with... BELIEF, either in Jack or your very warped worldview! You choose. deano Believes...lordy, lordy...deano BELIEVES. Perhaps you might want to learn a few life lessons yourself deano, like learning to be consistant. You have a MAJOR problem in that respect. You are simply a little boy with your fingers caught in the cookie jar, trying in vain to worm your way out of trouble. It's not working. Enjoy it while you can. your fantasy world is about to crumble. Hows that new thread coming? Can't wait to rip you to pieces. Look for the first post tonight sometime, im making scans and getting things ready Soory I cant post right away Craig but I have this little problem called a family, you know a wife and three kids, and while today is one of my days off I still have to mow the lawn and clean the bathrooms. I know Craig its horrible a wife that makes me work, can you "believe" that? I dont think your married or have any children You dont need to tell me how many kids or how long you have been married I dont care about the details, but just tell me if im right or wrong It will help me understand you better, you see if your a single guy living the good life (at home all day waiting for Jack and other alterationists to post) or if your married and have kids (stuck at home working around the house all day while not at work) Be patient Craig, I will make sure the post is directed at you

As is yours deano. Cookiejars come to mind when I think of you. To win, first you need to be right. That\\\'s going to be a major problem for you. Prove away, Perhaps you can do a better job than you did with the backyard photos. Oh wait...you AGREE with Whites conclusions on the backyard photos how? Since you have told us you have not reseached or verifed his work, but you agree with...how can that be? YOU BELIEVE! Lordy Lordy deano BELIEVES! Im not allowed to agree with someone on a subject? So in your warped world the only way you can agree with someone is if you research the hell out of it until you yourself find out that that person was correct? And if you dont do any research on it that person is either wrong or your not allowed to agree with them Craigy are you ok? Remember if you ever need help with anything not just on the JFK case but with life skills or anything just ask

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe". Oh my little Craigy I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember White is Right Sadly your limited understanding of photography betrays you. But lets play along shall we. Give us the three BEST proofs, proofs you say your research backs up Whites. And hereis the saying that is actually the truth deano...commit it to memory... Jack is a Hack. I can do that But I gave you a challenge that you did not take Why are you allowed to throw around things for me to do just to prove it to you (no one else is asking) when you are asked to compete with me in a simple assassination quiz and blow me off by saying you dont care about the assassination So are these the things you want me to post? 1. Why I agree with Jack on three of his pieces of work 2. What I did to check it myself 3. What conclusions did I come up 4. What I used or how I went about checking it? Is that a good enough list of things you want posted? If not tell me what would make you happy and go away I conceded the "assassination knowlege" quiz to you. You have me beat, fair and square. What more do you want? I'm asking the three best proofs for the backyard photos being fake, as produced by Jack White ...how did you say it....your research backs up, and lets see what you have. Just give us the three proofs you feel are White's best for the backyard photos and how your "research" was done to validate his claims. If, as you think, your work is not meaningless then you simply will wipe the floor with me. Clear enough? Oh and using your rules, your thoughts only, don't go running for help. BTW, I'm not going away.... I didnt mean go away from this website, I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face, I know you will always be here ready to try and take down anybody who dosent have 25 years of "expert" photography work Now I know your going to go crazy and say a whole bunch of stuff about how dumb I am because I know nothing about photography but let me explain My main focus has always been on the photgraphic record of the actual assassination The backyard photos (while important im not saying they are not) are not my main area of study I dont even own the book "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong, and I know I should own it but I dont focus on LHO, I have not put enough time and study into LHO or pictures of him (besides the man in the doorway, who I believe is Billy Lovelady anyways) So I have view Jack's video on the backyard photos and read his posts and work on them but have never studied them myself. I am in no way sie stepping your challange, i just need you to pick a photo subject that Jack has done on the actual assassination pictures Any of his studies that are in his part of TGZFH (The photographic evidence from A-Z) you can choose and I will show you what I have done to prove jack's work to myself. Please just be civil about this and understand that for me to try and reply to your challange in an area that I have not fully researched would not only make me look stupid but if I tried to come up with reasons why I thought he was 100% correct I would be selling both of us short. Thanks in advance for understanding, I await your picks so I can get started on proving that I dont just see something Jack has worked on and just "believe" Dean I'm simply blown away. Here we are, in a thread about the backyard photos. You reply to one of my posts...about the backyard photos...where I suggest someone simply BELIEVES instead of knows. Your reply: "I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack" Note that I was not even talking to you yet you say... "I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face" Lets recap. You state you are done with me in another thread and within a few posts you are telling me something unasked. Then you reply AGAIN! You post to me in this tread unasked and make your I just don't believe " statement...again unasked. The you ask me to go away ...all the while you are continuing to make comments to me. Good grief deano, you are massive mess. Now back the the backyard stuff. You tell me in a backyard thread you don't just believe in Jack your research backs it up...in a backyard photo thread. Asked to give the three best proofs of Jacks for the backyard photos you now claim, well I don't really know because I've not studied them....after making your claim...in a backyard photo thread. Color me simply amazed but not suprised. Now you want me to "pick some claims" Well I have...the backyard photos. But I'll cut you some slack. Start a new thread. Give us the three best White proofs, YOU HAVE RESEARCHED, that PROVE alteration. Note that these proof must rest on Photographic Principles, no "I think I see a bunny in the clouds" opinion bullcrap. Tell us HOW you research the work and HOW you verified it. Wow Your reply is exactly what I thought it would be I told you I had watched his video, I have seen his work on the Backyard photos and I do agree with his conclusions with the backyard photos However I have not researched them myself so I cant back them up with my "own" research I admit this yet you say im a mess and im the one harrassing and making unasked comments towards you How can I argue with someone like you? Its a no win stituation, when I prove you wrong you will start going crazy about the Apollo moon landings and on and on So I will prove my point and I hope you can at least see that im not some mindless hack who is blindly following TGZFH researchers

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe". Oh my little Craigy I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember White is Right Sadly your limited understanding of photography betrays you. But lets play along shall we. Give us the three BEST proofs, proofs you say your research backs up Whites. And hereis the saying that is actually the truth deano...commit it to memory... Jack is a Hack. I can do that But I gave you a challenge that you did not take Why are you allowed to throw around things for me to do just to prove it to you (no one else is asking) when you are asked to compete with me in a simple assassination quiz and blow me off by saying you dont care about the assassination So are these the things you want me to post? 1. Why I agree with Jack on three of his pieces of work 2. What I did to check it myself 3. What conclusions did I come up 4. What I used or how I went about checking it? Is that a good enough list of things you want posted? If not tell me what would make you happy and go away I conceded the "assassination knowlege" quiz to you. You have me beat, fair and square. What more do you want? I'm asking the three best proofs for the backyard photos being fake, as produced by Jack White ...how did you say it....your research backs up, and lets see what you have. Just give us the three proofs you feel are White's best for the backyard photos and how your "research" was done to validate his claims. If, as you think, your work is not meaningless then you simply will wipe the floor with me. Clear enough? Oh and using your rules, your thoughts only, don't go running for help. BTW, I'm not going away.... I didnt mean go away from this website, I meant go away like a fly buzzing around my face, I know you will always be here ready to try and take down anybody who dosent have 25 years of "expert" photography work Now I know your going to go crazy and say a whole bunch of stuff about how dumb I am because I know nothing about photography but let me explain My main focus has always been on the photgraphic record of the actual assassination The backyard photos (while important im not saying they are not) are not my main area of study I dont even own the book "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong, and I know I should own it but I dont focus on LHO, I have not put enough time and study into LHO or pictures of him (besides the man in the doorway, who I believe is Billy Lovelady anyways) So I have view Jack's video on the backyard photos and read his posts and work on them but have never studied them myself. I am in no way sie stepping your challange, i just need you to pick a photo subject that Jack has done on the actual assassination pictures Any of his studies that are in his part of TGZFH (The photographic evidence from A-Z) you can choose and I will show you what I have done to prove jack's work to myself. Please just be civil about this and understand that for me to try and reply to your challange in an area that I have not fully researched would not only make me look stupid but if I tried to come up with reasons why I thought he was 100% correct I would be selling both of us short. Thanks in advance for understanding, I await your picks so I can get started on proving that I dont just see something Jack has worked on and just "believe" Dean

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe". Oh my little Craigy I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember White is Right Sadly your limited understanding of photography betrays you. But lets play along shall we. Give us the three BEST proofs, proofs you say your research backs up Whites. And hereis the saying that is actually the truth deano...commit it to memory... Jack is a Hack. I can do that But I gave you a challenge that you did not take Why are you allowed to throw around things for me to do just to prove it to you (no one else is asking) when you are asked to compete with me in a simple assassination quiz and blow me off by saying you dont care about the assassination So are these the things you want me to post? 1. Why I agree with Jack on three of his pieces of work 2. What I did to check it myself 3. What conclusions did I come up 4. What I used or how I went about checking it? Is that a good enough list of things you want posted? If not tell me what would make you happy and go away

Have you ever considered that this unknown "researcher" who appears to be a leader in the field of digital forensics, just might be correct, or will you, like old deano, just choose to "believe" a hack like Jack White because it suits your worldview? Oh wait..how silly of me, you just "believe". Oh my little Craigy I dont just "believe" Jack White, I agree with Jack, my research agrees with Jack I will leave you with a saying that you should be able to remember White is Right

I think what Jonathan was refering to was at the begining of the the book it was talking about Tom using a VHS copy of a JFK program and an image from a book Well all that was because it was Toms FIRST time trying his sytem on anything besides Steel! So of course when he was curious he used whatever images he had at that moment in time And having never researched the assassination the only images Tom had to use were off a VHS and a book for the first run through his sytem Well Jonathan said he was not finished with the book yet, Im sure he is still on the first pages

Dean I was done with you on post one. I knew everyting I needed to know about you from your bio where you proclaim "I am an alterationist". Clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity to uderstand the bankruptcy of that position. Continue your brainwashing...you are the perfect subject. LMFAO.... considering you have a difficult time grasping serious concepts, I find your post ludicrous, as usual... Carry on, Craigster! Good call Dave, nice to see you on this forum, I look forward to your reading your posts and talking with you Not just about the assassination but how lame Tink's gang is at trying to discredit alterationists How many times has Craig posted those same links to his website? At least 20 times in this thread alone Hey Craig just put those links in your sig so you dont have to keep putting those links in your posts Just trying to help you out deano sez upthread "you can reply if you would like but im done with this thread" Is it possible for you to tell the truth deano? Why did I ask that question ... you "believe" in alteration...nuff said. But thanks for the tip, but I prefer to post them. Every time I do more people learn the truth. I know I said I was done, but you look like you need alot of help I like to help people, so I thought I would give you some free advice

Dean I was done with you on post one. I knew everyting I needed to know about you from your bio where you proclaim "I am an alterationist". Clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity to uderstand the bankruptcy of that position. Continue your brainwashing...you are the perfect subject. LMFAO.... considering you have a difficult time grasping serious concepts, I find your post ludicrous, as usual... Carry on, Craigster! Good call Dave, nice to see you on this forum, I look forward to your reading your posts and talking with you Not just about the assassination but how lame Tink's gang is at trying to discredit alterationists How many times has Craig posted those same links to his website? At least 20 times in this thread alone Hey Craig just put those links in your sig so you dont have to keep putting those links in your posts Just trying to help you out

Thanks Mark and Daniel Craig we have come to a perfect agrement You say I dont know anything about photography and "since you know nothing about photography your "analysis" of the photographic record is worthless." So you have no use for me in your photographic life And then you say you dont care about the assassination or who killed JFK, so you are worthless to me as a member of this forum I have no use for you in my JFK research life It was nice talking to you, you can reply if you would like but im done with this thread Dean

Im not going to play this game with you You have no idea what I have done with this case yet you say I have no clue and dont know anything about the assassination in your eyes I will set you straight on one point I DO NOT use Costellas work, sorry I said "I dont really" the first time thats my fault You keep putting words in my mouth in regards to Jacks Apollo work, I will not slander Jack's name for anyone, including you I have researched the photographic evidence for 20 years, in my way, not your way, im am not a pro photographer, I do not work in the photo industry According to you if you dont have your type of background you can not judge any of the photo evidence Do you know how crazy that is? Im hate tooting my own horn (looks like you cant get enough of doing that to yourself) but I will bet $100.00 I know twice as much about the assassination then you do Lets take a test, I ask you 20 questions about the assassination then you ask me 20 questions abbout the assassination, if you are honest then you wont look up the questions online real quick What do say Craig? Want to prove how stupid I am and how I know nothing about the assassination?

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly. You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography. Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG? Did I get that correct? No you did not get it correct I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked. I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor) Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to No I have it perfectly correct. You believe that Jacks work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography. You believe that Apollo happened as billed. Thus Jack White, who's photo research you admire and accept as solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography, got it COMPLETELY wrong when he applied those same atrributes to the Apollo photography. You can't have it both ways Dean. If Jack White has the skills you ascribe to him he can't blow it as completely as you claim when it comes to Apollo. He used the same skill set. If he blew it so completely when it comes to the Apollo photopgraphy how did he get JFK right? Craig you are trying to get me to say that Jack was wrong on the Apollo moon landing Jack has been wrong before in the JFK case, I have seen it first hand, so yes Jack has been wrong in the past But I have NEVER looked at any of Jack's or anyone elses work on the Apollo case so how can I tell you if its wrong or right? Your saying that because jack has a different outlook on the Apollo moon landing then I do that he is wrong about everything Jack is right in my opinion most of the time I will not slander someone I respect and like to please you If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its a duck. Sorry but you have already told us JACK is wrong on Apollo. if you can't even be honest with yourself , how can we expect to to be honest about anything else? Oh yea I forget...you don't really know, you just "believe". If White can so totally screw up his analysis of ALL of the Apollo photos...as you agree "I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened"...based on the same skills and claims of what is possible and impossible when to comes to photography...how can you "believe" a word of what he says when it comes to the JFK photography? And how can he be so wrong on Apollo when you state "Jack is right in my opinion most of the time". If you are correct then he must be right "most of the time" when it comes to Apollo, yet you claim he is totally wrong. My are you a mess! Have you done the tests yourself to test his work? Exactly what technical and photographic skills do you have to support your claims? Do you have any related skills at all? BTW, You seem to have plenty of time to post, can you refute my work detailed in the links I gave you yet? Well if you had read the other thread you would see that I checked Jack's work on the Betzner photo So no I dont just "believe" I check everything that Jack has done that revolves around my specific areas of research I told you Jack is not always right but you want me to say that Jack has been wrong on everything he has ever done Why do you want me to talk bad about Jack? That seems to be your #1 goal So lets move on to your work on proving Costella was wrong The bottom line is that I dont really use or rely on Costella work for any of my research, I have never talked to Costella and he has never talked to me Costella is a newer researcher on the case in terms of the researchers who I agree with and look up to So what I read in your links makes sense to me and Costella could be wrong But again I dont use his research for anything I do, I have watched his combined edit of the Z-film but have never used it (I use Groden's unspliced copy) I have also read his sections of TGZFH, I have nothing to say good or bad about his work If you would calm down just a little bit and stop trying to bait me into insulting researchers I like then I will have no problems at all replying to your questions Dean

I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? Dean, No time to alter-- Moorman 5 was shown at 3:19PM 11/22/63 on NBC's WBAP. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers...php/t14092.html You can check this-- (go to @2:19--shows up around 2:20 on the video) http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/kennedys/...31122a.ram.html Kathy Kathy Thank you, but I knew about the time and saw that news reel years ago That does nothing to prove there was not enough time to alter Thanks anyways Dean

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly. You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography. Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG? Did I get that correct? No you did not get it correct I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked. I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor) Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to No I have it perfectly correct. You believe that Jacks work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography. You believe that Apollo happened as billed. Thus Jack White, who's photo research you admire and accept as solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography, got it COMPLETELY wrong when he applied those same atrributes to the Apollo photography. You can't have it both ways Dean. If Jack White has the skills you ascribe to him he can't blow it as completely as you claim when it comes to Apollo. He used the same skill set. If he blew it so completely when it comes to the Apollo photopgraphy how did he get JFK right? Craig you are trying to get me to say that Jack was wrong on the Apollo moon landing Jack has been wrong before in the JFK case, I have seen it first hand, so yes Jack has been wrong in the past But I have NEVER looked at any of Jack's or anyone elses work on the Apollo case so how can I tell you if its wrong or right? Your saying that because jack has a different outlook on the Apollo moon landing then I do that he is wrong about everything Jack is right in my opinion most of the time I will not slander someone I respect and like to please you

I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? I'm sorry Dean, I can't have a serious conversation with anyone who believe in alteration, no offence intended, but that stuff is only supported by people who have absolutely zero evidence to back up their alteration claims. All the best Duncan Thats to bad, I was looking forward to talking to you about different films and pictures as I can tell you have a vast knowledge of the photographic evidence in the case One of the reasons I branched out and joined this forum was to hear other researchers thoughts on my theories Thanks for your replies, I hope you can look past your past dealings with alterationists and give me a chance to explain my theories Take care Dean

I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree?

I forgot to add, in the Bond picture take the person standing inside the pergola who is standing farther back then the retaining wall, messure her height and then move that height messure over to the retaining wall, you can see that the person stands well over the Pyracantha tree

I think this Bond image will show what im talking about (im sure you looked into this yet you still say its impossible) You can see the retaining wall extending out towards the steps You also see the Pyracantha tree that TSCM was standing over on the retaining wall A quick look at Bond and you can see that it would not be hard to film above the Pyracantha tree when standing on the retaining wall This is the first thing I checked out when seeing this image for the first time, I checked my Cutler plats to make sure the retaining wall went far enough towards the steps, then checked other pictures and found that Bond showed the best view to prove it was possible. Duncan im sure you checked this out, but it puzzles me that after looking at this Bond picture you still think that TSCM needs a Rocketpack to hover 20 feet above the ground. I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this And thank you for being very civil and nice, its so much easier to discuss theories with no name calling and smack talking Dean

Being logical, and listening to constructive criticism and advice on various issues of photo analysis over many years changed my mind Dean, just like i'm being logical now when i'm telling you that Jack's floating cameraman is at least 20ft above any solid ground, and is outwith the realms of possibility in the real world. The retaining wall keeps going back towards TSCMs position, he is standing on the retaining wall just like Zappy was Let me find a good picture of the wall that extends towards the steps

Oh well if this guy says its not faked then that must be the final word

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly. You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography. Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG? Did I get that correct? No you did not get it correct I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked. I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor) Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real. As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat