Dean Hagerman

This thread has been hijacked about 40 times, haha.

Back to the topic.

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

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

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

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

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

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

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

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

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

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

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

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

Well if you had read the other thread you would see that I checked Jack's work on the Betzner photo

Just HOW did you"check" Jacks work? Based on WHAT expertise?

So no I dont just "believe" I check everything that Jack has done that revolves around my specific areas of research

Wait a second you said "Jack is right in my opinion most of the time". So, unless you have checked ALL of his work (based on what expertise we still don't know) you must simply BELIEVE Jack is rightt "most of the time". Sheesh Dean, the truth will set you free. Try it sometime.

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

Which is it Dean. You told us Jack has it TOTALLY wrong in respect to Apollo. He blew it 100 percent. Yet using the same tools, skills and rational, he gets it right "most of the time" with JFK(well that a little untruth on your part because you have also told us you have only "checked" Jacks work "that revolves around my specific areas of research") Truth be told you really don't have the first clue about what Jack has right or wrong.

Why do you want me to talk bad about Jack? That seems to be your #1 goal

Talk bad about Jack? I just want to to tell the TRUTH about Jacks work. That seems mighty hard for you. In fact it's starting to look like you lack the skills and training to even understand the work in question. To that point, I'll ask the question again that you have dodged. What is your expertise in the film/video/photo areas? Inquiring minds really want to know.

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

"Don't really use or rely"? Now how does that work Don? Either you use his work or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

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

Again this is black and white Dean. Either he is correct or he is not. There is NO middle ground. And again I'm left wondering if you are just going on BELIEF or if you actually did the work to CHECK FOR YOURSELF. This is photo 101 stuff Dean and if you can't say for certain one way or the other its starting to look quite clear you are yet another deer in the headlights wannabe who can't buy a clue.

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)

Is that "dont really" or "don't"...you keep contradicting yourself. Not a very confidence inspiring trait Dean.

I have also read his sections of TGZFH, I have nothing to say good or bad about his work

It's not a question of 'good' or 'bad" but right or wrong. He must be one of those Dean, which one is it?

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

I'm very calm Dean, in fact I'm having one heck of a good time watching you spin like a top. Sorry Dean but if you think its an insult to show the errors and falsehoods in someones work, well,you have a really beg problem, or else you live in a fantasy.

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?

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

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 agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?

Moorman5

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

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

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 agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?

Moorman5

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 agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?

Moorman5

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

One last question, when you found these images you believed in what you discovered back then, what made you change your mind?

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

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

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

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

"Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply

I have some books for you to read

Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor

When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman

After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them

Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH

Just wondering, if TGZFH is so good, then how did Dr. John get it soooo wrong?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

And if Jack White does such a good job at 'photo analysis' how did he miss the above error and how did he make this whopper?

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

Lets rephrase Deans post:

"Dean does not give a tinkers damn about the actual truth as proven by unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead he simply BELIEVES."

Thats a hell of a way to go about life but it seems to par for the course for the JFKResearch gang.

What do I know about the photographic evidence?

The links are above. Refute them if you can or not, it's your choice.

BTW, I guess I live in a different world than the fantasy one you live in. Attacking and proving work wrong is nothing close to "smearing". You need a clue.

Jack White has made a mess of his name by posting the nonsense he has posted on subject of photography for many years, wioht his shoddy work on JFK, Apollo and 9/11. His own words have shown him to ignorant of even the very basics of photography. No one needs to "smear" him. He did it to himself. However there seems to be a new fool born every second like eager to follow along, in blissful ignornace and just "believe".

In their world, those who point out the falllacy of his position is engaging in a "smear". Fantasy suits you.

Well thanks for spelling out my post for me

You seem to think im some new fool who just started following Jack White, well I followed Gary Mack back in the late 80s as well as Jack White

I have nothing bad to say about about Gary Mack, and most of his views are way different then Jack's

I have nothing bad to say about Robert Groden either, I like Groden's work and his views are different then Jack's

And like I said I like Tinks work as well, as a matter of fact the theory I have about the number of shots and the position of the shooters matches his theory in SSID almost perfectly

Yet you seem to think I only follow Jack and JFKresearch.com guys and gals

That is true that JFKresearch.com is where I belong in terms of what I believe and posting among researcher who believe in the same things that I do.

But I have my own theory and follow the work of many researchers who dont agree with Jack White

I do agree with Jack White and the TGZFH guys, but thats not my only basis for research as you clearly pointed that is what you thought of me out in your last post

So let me ask you a question, you think Jack's work on the backyard photos is wrong? Do you think the pictures are genuine?

Geez Dean I read your bio, how silly can you be? Oh wait. Pretty silly, you "believe" Jack White and his wacky pals.

There are questions on the table, posed to you, yet you prefer to dodge them and move elsewhere. I wonder why. Again its a pretty standard tactic for a cornered rat. Not that I'm calling you a cornered rat mind you, but I'm just sayin...

In any case you don't need to look far for my views of the backyard photos.

Now, back to these, can you refute them or are Costella and White incorrect? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

What questions besides the ones you just posted did I dodge?