Todd W. Vaughan

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

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

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

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Thank you Jack Dean, I never said Sprague’s method was “universal” – I said it was the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. And that’s true - it’s used in Cutler's 76 Seconds in Dealey Plaza and on his plats, in all of Trask’s books, and in John Wood’s book which actually catalogs the photographs and films in the case. Even the NARA II recognizes Sprague's method (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/sprague-papers.html). And the fact is that Jack DOES use Sprague’s method. Where do you think the Willis 5 designator came from? It came from Sprague! It was Sprague who tracked down the photographs in this case, including ALL of the Willis slides, and cataloged them. Yes, Willis 5 is on his list, along with Willis’s 17 other photographs. Sprague’s not being aware of the Bronson, or any other photos that were discovered after he stopped his research (Bronson, Croft, Skaggs, etc.) has no bearing on his previous work. Todd

Martin, Your link above is to an article Dale and I collaborated on refuting the wacky theory of LN'er Max Holland. You'll also find several other articles that I wrote on Dales website. I'd be more than willing to discuss anything that I wrote or collaborated on. As far as Dale's SBT work, I don't speak for Dale and you'd have to contact him. Todd

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? LOL, yes it is. Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed. How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days? well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO! Ah, Turtle! Do you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion or are you the same ole' Dave I've come to know? my pearls are simply not recognized by those that haven't a clue regarding the art of film compositing and said techniques... You keep coming back, ya hear Toddster.... and don't let the Criagster intimidate ya, he's been trying to snow the entire crowd regarding his film-photo expertise here. One of these day's I'll be bowled over by a row of chairs photo (or heaven forbid a washing machine and dryer) Kinda reminds me of flatulence-on-parade, don't add to his show.... now you have a nice Christmas, I'm back to making a buck these days..... While I’m sure your very skilled in your craft, those who don’t believe that the Zapruder film was altered don’t really need to recognize your pearls, do they? I’ve followed Craig’s “film-photo expertise” in both the JFK and the NASA Apollo issues since the day he entered the fray. His work has always impressed me and has looked pretty much rock solid to me. You have a nice Christmas too, Dave. See you around.

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Jack, I never said Sprague’s method was “universal” – I said it was the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. And that’s true - it’s used in Cutler's 76 Seconds in Dealey Plaza and on his plats, in all of Trask’s books, and in John Wood’s book which actually catalogs the photographs and films in the case. Even the NARA II recognizes Sprague's method (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/sprague-papers.html). And the fact is that you DO use Sprague’s method. Where do you think the Willis 5 designator came from? It came from Sprague! It was Sprague who tracked down the photographs in this case, including ALL of the Willis slides, and cataloged them. Yes, Willis 5 is on his list, along with Willis’s 17 other photographs. Sprague’s not being aware of the Bronson, or any other photos that were discovered after he stopped his research (Bronson, Croft, Skaggs, etc.) has no bearing on his previous work. Todd

Todd Murray 2-4 does not appear in "Forgive My Grief" on page 185 Murray 2-4 does however appear in "Forgive My Grief IV" on page 185 You know how Penn Jones had the pioneering number system for his books "Forgive My Grief" was his first book "Forgive My Grief II" was his second "Forgive My Grief III" was his third "Forgive My Grief IV" was his forth Much like Richard Sprauges number system Penn Jones system was way ahead of his time I cant belive you didnt know that! You must know nothing about the evidence if you dont even know what "Forgive My Grief" Murray 2-4 was in I know, you must have thought no way in hell Dean has all of the FMG volumes, he wont be abel to check You also must have thought that I dont own POTP I am shocked that you didnt know what FMG Murray 2-4 was in So I guess if im Moe are you Curly or Larry? Dean, My mistake – I forgot to add “IV” after “Forgive My Grief. I must have had some pyracantha branches in front of my field of view obscuring my PC screen when I was typing up that post. Damn that evil conspiracy! Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I’ve gone back and corrected it. You sure are good at keeping track of all 4 of the Forgive My Grief volumes. At least now you know what photo Murray 2-4 is. As for what books you have or don’t have, I don’t have a clue and I don’t really care. Lastly, I never called you Moe (or even Curly, or Larry), despite your implication to the contrary – go back and read my post carefully and try to actually comprehend what I said. Todd

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Ok Todd Try to make me look stupid without telling the whole story Jerry said "What is it about this POP photo" So when Jerry said this I grabbed my copy of POTP and saw a picture on page 499 that had the pyracantha bush I assumed it was the full picture of the blow up that Jerry posted, I did not study the peple in the picture to see if it was the same as the one he posted, I looked at the pyracantha bush in the picture As you can clearly see the picture is very small just like I said So did Jerry lie about this picture being in POTP to trick me? I dont think so But according to you I didnt look at any Murray pictures Now turn to page 496 I used this picture as well (With my Sherlock Holmes Mag Glass) to check the Pyracantha bush And now you say I dont know the photographic evidence because I dont use Richard Sprauges number system? If I said look at Bond 4-9 for unruly branches what do you think I would be talking about? I want to know why you didnt post the fact that Jerry said the photo that he posted was in POP? I can now see why nobody likes you, for no reason you try to smear my name because you dont agree with my theory Instead of engaging in a friendly game of who knows more about the photographic evidence you want to make me look stupid without posting all the facts All that people need to do is go back and read the thread Dean, I did tell the whole story. I don’t know why Jerry called it a POP photo, you’d have to ask him. I wasn’t in a discussion with Jerry, I was in a discussion with you. And I never once said you “didnt (sic) look at any Murray pictures.”, as you claim above. Why do you claim I said that when it’s demonstrably not true? Why would you say something that’s not true, Dean? As for Bond, if you said to me “look at Bond 4-9 for unruly branches”, I would think you’re talking about Bonds 4-9. But that’s because Bond only took 1 roll of film, Dean. Murray took 4 and there needs to be a way to differentiate between the rolls. If a cameramen only took 1 roll of film, it’s not referenced as Bond 1-4, Bond 1-5, etc. There’s no need for that! As for your “I can now see why nobody likes you…for no reason you try to smear my name because you don’t agree with my theory…Instead of engaging in a friendly game of who knows more about the photographic evidence you want to make me look stupid without posting all the facts”, in fact it was you who tried to smear my name by insinuating that I wasn’t a “real researcher and questioning my “grasp on the photographic evidence”. You then had the audacity to tell me that you were going to “put the photographic beat down" on me (followed by the Mills Lane-esque “let’s get it on” line). Now you get spanked and you act like you’re little Mr. Victimized? Please! As you said, all that people need to do is go back and read this thread (and the “Todd Wayne Vaughan” thread). It’s all there for them to see. Todd P.S. If you’d like, email me your mailing address and I’ll send you out a copy of Sprague’s May 1970 list – I think you’d find it most helpful and interesting.

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief IV on page 185.

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? LOL, yes it is. Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed. How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days? well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO! Ah, Turtle! Do you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion or are you the same ole' Dave I've come to know?

Craig it looks like your new best friend has some old friends who dont think very kindly of him LOL, I could care less what people think of me, especially Rossley.

Not a problem. I didn't start out researching this case 35 years ago to win any popularity contest, nor did I join this forum for that reason.

More info on Vaughan at the Rossley website: http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm And what a fine scholary website that is, don't you agree?

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

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

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Jerry Nice blow up That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small I still think the bush in Zapruder is way more unruly Dean Dean, It seems likely to me that the trimmed appearance of the firethorn in some photos is the result of resolution and contrast differences from camera to camera. Consider the Secret Service reconstruction photos of 11/27/63. The first shows what appears to be a neatly trimmed bush. Closer photos show the Firethorn is untrimmed and "unruly". Also note that the reconstruction photos are taken less than a week after the assassination and they show the Pyracantha in the same condition as Zapruder. The bush had to do a lot of growing in 5 days to get to the state shown in the reconstruction photos if it was neatly trimmed on the 22nd. Best regards, Jerry Very nice, jerry.

All, Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963. Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder. The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder. Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size. I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly. I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used. Todd

Dean, I know. I was being kind. Todd

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

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

Hi Todd, Thanks for the interesting story about the origins of the Non-Cons Group. Do you have any idea why the group would ignore your specific instruction not to appear on any list of members? Was it simply because you gave them your email? Let us know when the webpage has been corrected! Regards, Peter Fokes Peter, My post wasn't about the origins of the Non-Con group - it was about my experience with them after they had already formed. I sent Ken an email about this and he replied back. He wasn't sure how my name ended up on the website's list and said he must have made a mistake. He will take care of the problem at the end of the month when he returns to the US. Thanks. Todd

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

Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No Are you sure you're looking at Murray 2-4? Again I love how you think im stupid and have no clue about the photos taken on 11/22/63 I see in Murray what I see in all the other pictures I have been checking for the last two days Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4?

Jack, That Shaneyfelt photo (Shaneyfelt Exhibt No. 33, 21H481) was not taken "a few weeks later". It was taken when the FBI was investigating the Main Street curb bullet mark which was in July and August of 1964, some 8-9 months afdter the assassination (21H472-483). Any idea how many times had the bush been trimmed in those 8-9 months? Todd