Todd W. Vaughan

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?

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

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, Yes, poorly worded, because your line above "I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did" reads as if I also determined the branches were about a foot long, when in fact I did not. What I said was that the branches were "sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray” What you said was that you "determined the branches were about a foot long" What I'm asking you 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)? Get it? Todd

Bill, How are you? Well I hope. It's been some time since we rode the rails together. A thread all about (or mostly about, or partially about) me? I should be flattered. But looking at most of the drivel that has been said about me I'm quite obviously and understandably (I hope) not. Nice to see that you don't seem to be part of that. To answer your question directly, no, I don’t subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination (you’ll notice I’m not listed as a co-signer at the end of the article - Rahn actually wrote and published the article before I had even heard of him and his group), at least not in the context of his using a “coincidence” explanation to completely dismiss all possibilities of conspiracy in this case. That said, of course I believe that coincidences do often normally occur in this world and certainly there are coincidences in the JFK assassination. Do I believe that there is "No room for conspiracy." ? Absolutely not and my mind remains more than open. Now, as for Todd Wayne Vaughan and the Ken Rahn Group… Back in October of 2004 I attended a weekend get together put together by some of the Non-Con members in a hotel conference room in Toledo, Ohio, which was close enough to where I lived at the time as to be only a few hours’ drive (http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html) . This was a rather informal event that I primarily attend this to discuss the Acoustics aspect of the case and because Steve Barber, a good and long-time friend of mine was also going to attend and I thought it would be a great chance to touch base with him (Steve wound up cancelling at the last minute - actually while the meeting was underway). I was asked by Rahn at the end of that weekend if I wanted to join the Non-Cons. I stated at that time that I did not want to be a member of the “Non-Cons” for the reason that while I believe there was probably only 1 shooter in Dealey Plaza, I am (and remain very much so) open to the possibility of a conspiracy and did not like the idea of aligning myself with a group whose “Non-Cons” name in and of itself outright dismissed all possibilities of a conspiracy. I therefore did not join the group, did not provide any of the biographical material on myself that Rahn had requested for their website, and specifically stated and made clear that I did not want to appear on any list of members. I did however agree to join their email group, provide Rahn with my email address, and have been a member of that group ever since. I’m also a member of Paul Hoch’s email group that includes both CT’ers and LN’er of all statures. Thanks to your post here today I see now at http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, (a site I’ve not been to in years) that despite my clearly stated desires and my agreement with Rahn my name appears in their list of members - though with no bio since I deliberately provided him with none and misspelled to add insult to injury! Certainly the last time I visited that site several years ago my name did not appear. So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website. Todd "So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website." And have now done so.

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 The focal lenght of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the branch in comparison to the background. It's the camera to subject distance that matters. Take the same photo from the same distance with a wide and tele photo lens and the size of the branch in relation to the background will remain the same. only the angle of view changes. Agreed (I don't think i said or implied otherwise) But zoom does make the camera to subject (in this case the branches) distance appear less, and thus closer (and larger) in the foreground, correct? No, not really. They will retain the exact same perspective regardless of the lens used as long as the camera to subject distance stays the same. Its simple to test if you have a camera with a zoom lens. The same exact thing can be seen by just cropping a wide anle lens shot. Yes, I know they will retain the same perspective no matter lens, zoom, etc. But all I am saying is that using the zoom will make the images, all of them, appear closer in the viewfinder and on the film.

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?

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 The focal lenght of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the branch in comparison to the background. It's the camera to subject distance that matters. Take the same photo from the same distance with a wide and tele photo lens and the size of the branch in relation to the background will remain the same. only the angle of view changes. Agreed (I don't think i said or implied otherwise) But zoom does make the camera to subject (in this case the branches) distance appear less, and thus closer (and larger) in the foreground, correct?

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

Dean, For my “affiliation” with Ken Rahn’s Non-Con group, see my reply above to Bill Kelly. For my being a “real researcher”, I’ll ask that you to define exactly what a ‘real researcher” is. As for my “grasp on the photographic evidence”, I’ll put my “grasp on the photographic evidence” up against yours any day of the week. As for your claim that I’m a McAdams groupie, nothing could be farther from the truth. I began researching this case long, long before McAdams showed up. As for me having “ties” to McAdams, I’ve met him once and had a scant few email exchanges with him, both several years ago. And last but not least, the only reason I’m “trying so hard to disprove my latest study on the Pyracantha bush” is because I believe you are wrong. Yours, The Real Todd Vaughan

Bill, How are you? Well I hope. It's been some time since we rode the rails together. A thread all about (or mostly about, or partially about) me? I should be flattered. But looking at most of the drivel that has been said about me I'm quite obviously and understandably (I hope) not. Nice to see that you don't seem to be part of that. To answer your question directly, no, I don’t subscribe to Ken Rahn's "Coincidence" Theory of the assassination (you’ll notice I’m not listed as a co-signer at the end of the article - Rahn actually wrote and published the article before I had even heard of him and his group), at least not in the context of his using a “coincidence” explanation to completely dismiss all possibilities of conspiracy in this case. That said, of course I believe that coincidences do often normally occur in this world and certainly there are coincidences in the JFK assassination. Do I believe that there is "No room for conspiracy." ? Absolutely not and my mind remains more than open. Now, as for Todd Wayne Vaughan and the Ken Rahn Group… Back in October of 2004 I attended a weekend get together put together by some of the Non-Con members in a hotel conference room in Toledo, Ohio, which was close enough to where I lived at the time as to be only a few hours’ drive (http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html) . This was a rather informal event that I primarily attend this to discuss the Acoustics aspect of the case and because Steve Barber, a good and long-time friend of mine was also going to attend and I thought it would be a great chance to touch base with him (Steve wound up cancelling at the last minute - actually while the meeting was underway). I was asked by Rahn at the end of that weekend if I wanted to join the Non-Cons. I stated at that time that I did not want to be a member of the “Non-Cons” for the reason that while I believe there was probably only 1 shooter in Dealey Plaza, I am (and remain very much so) open to the possibility of a conspiracy and did not like the idea of aligning myself with a group whose “Non-Cons” name in and of itself outright dismissed all possibilities of a conspiracy. I therefore did not join the group, did not provide any of the biographical material on myself that Rahn had requested for their website, and specifically stated and made clear that I did not want to appear on any list of members. I did however agree to join their email group, provide Rahn with my email address, and have been a member of that group ever since. I’m also a member of Paul Hoch’s email group that includes both CT’ers and LN’er of all statures. Thanks to your post here today I see now at http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, (a site I’ve not been to in years) that despite my clearly stated desires and my agreement with Rahn my name appears in their list of members - though with no bio since I deliberately provided him with none and misspelled to add insult to injury! Certainly the last time I visited that site several years ago my name did not appear. So, I’ll be taking this issue up with Rahn and will demand that my name be removed from that website. Todd

Dean, It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall, and/or that the branches we see in the Stoughton, Murray and Altgens photo are shorter than those in Zapruder. Not only was Zapruder closer to the bush, he was using the zoom feature of his camera. The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos. Todd

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

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

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

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

Yawn. It IS a branch from an overhanging tree. Do you ever think about what you're suggesting, Jack? What do you suppose the animators were trying to obscure? Since the Z-film is a cartoon, why didn't they just make the occupants of the limousine do something different altogether? Or why didn't they simply end the film a little earlier? I have decided that Fred Flintstone was driving the limousine. In one of the frames they forgot to paint out his feet sticking out beneath the car. I have decided that Fred Flintstone was driving the limousine. In one of the frames they forgot to paint out his feet sticking out beneath the car. Hilarious!

Jack I agree 100% Here is a reply I just sent to Gary Mack, with some more of my thoughts on this issue Dean, Before you go patting yourself and everyone else on the back for this latest "discovery," you might want to find out exactly when the FBI/Secret Service test pictures were made. That might have an effect on the size and condition of the bush. Gary Mack Gary I could care less about the FBI/Secret service test pictures I am talking about the way the Pyracantha bush looks in Zapruder, like Jack says it looks untrimmed and has branches and leaves all out of wack Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder? IMO, the bottom half of the Z-film was filmed before the assassination, then the top half was a mixture of the film taken by Zapruder and the other cameraman as seen in Betzner The real film of the assassination (as viewed by rich Dellarosa, whom I belive by the way, why would he lie about something as important as another film?) was used with the top half of the film taken by Zapruder to create the version we see today They had to take out the wide limo turn onto Elm, the limo stop, the brain matter going back, DCM stepping out into the road and signaling Greer to stop the limo This Pyracantha bush post by Jack makes me feel very strong about this theory I would love to hear your thoughts Dean "Why does the Pyracantha bush look perfectly trimmed with no out of control branches in Bronson, Bond, Moorman and the other pictures took at the same time as Zapruder?" Dean, I suggest you look at some of the photos with better resolution, such as Altgens 8, the Color Rickerby slide, Stoughton, and Murray. You'll find plenty of "out of control" branches sticking up from the top of the bush that could have most certainly appeared in Zapruder's film. Todd

I didn't reply Jack because it has NO relevance to the rest of the thread. I thought it WAS relevant. The photo showed Jackie and JFK looking at each other. Other photos at the same moment show Jackie holding the "dog". I think that is relevant. Sorry. Jack No Problem Jack. Assuming this is Bond (1) and Bond (2) where is Bond 3 Robin, Those two are Bonds 2 and 3. Bond 1 shows a motrocycle(s) rounding the corner. Todd

. Someone on my own forum has suggested to me that the object is a scratch on the bus window, as it appears to show itself in another Cabluck photograph as seen below. I propose that the object may have been moving, and that's why it shows again. Who knows?. I've highlighted the object in the 2nd photograph. These Cabluck photos look like stills. How could Cabluck take a picture of the North Knoll Pergola, obviously facing north and the Underpass facing west on a bus and get a scratch in the film both times? He must have moved around on the bus. But wouldn't he get off the bus and take pictures like the other photographers? If so, maybe his camera lens had a hair on it. But it's interesting. Keep us posted about UFO's there. I've seen 2 in my lifetime. Some people wouldn't believe this but on 9/11 there were UFO's seen near the WTC disguised as blue -- pardon me -- balls. Kathy C Kathy, The bus itself was moving down Elm Street as Cabluck was taking his still photographs (3 of them) out of a window on the right hand side of the bus. All of the photographs are looking essentially north/north-west. Todd

I’ve been researching the assassination since April of 1975. I’m interested in most all aspects of the assassination, particularly all of the photographic evidence and the photographers, the motorcade, the DPD radio recordings, the television and radio coverage of the weekend, the acoustic evidence, the medical evidence, the ballistics evidence, the trajectory evidence, the physical evidence, Dealey Plaza, witnesses, missed shots in Dealey Plaza, the life of Oswald, Oswald in New Orleans, Mexico City, and Dallas, Oswald’s personal possessions, the Garrison investigation, Richard Case Nagell, Cuban exiles, Alpha 66, documents of investigating agencies (particularly FBI, SS, CIA, WC, DPD/DMARC, NODA, HSCA, AARB), and the overall history of the assassination and the research movement.