Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? So your allowed to guess on how fast a pyracantha bush grows But im not allowed to guess that Emmit Hudson, whos job it was to keep the Plaza nice and trimmed would not have the Plaza as neat as can be on the day the President would visit his city? How does that work Todd? Why can you guess and I cant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? Dean, Everybody gets to decide what's reasonable for themselves so you're entitled to your position. However, most people don't think shrubs grow all that much in 5 days in late December. So if your objective is to convince other people as well as yourself, them you need to offer some explanation for the transformation of the pyracantha from trimmed and neat on the 22nd to what matches Zapruder on the 27th. Right now we can believe one of two things. 1) The bush underwent a spurt of growth in 5 days that just happens to match Zapruder on the 22nd, or 2) the firethorn appears trimmed from a distance but a closer look like Altgens, Murray, or the reconstruction shows that it's ragged just like in Zapruder. We see exactly this in the reconstruction, where the bush looks trimmed at a distance but not up close. As I wrote, you're entitled to believe 1, but I think must people would lean toward 2 unless you can explain the reconstruction photos. Best regards, Jerry Jerry Thank you for your nice level headed reply You are the only one so far who has casted any doubt on my pyracantha theory And being civil about it makes melook deeper into what you post Jerry Thank you, anything else you find please post it in this thread, I look forward to your thoughts Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination! You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination! You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging! easy spanky..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Jerry Thank you for your nice level headed reply You are the only one so far who has casted any doubt on my pyracantha theory And being civil about it makes melook deeper into what you post Jerry Thank you, anything else you find please post it in this thread, I look forward to your thoughts Dean Dean, your words support my theory that it is far better to discuss matters civil to convince anybody instead of harsh critic. Jerry did it in a modest way (like some others too) and now you consider to update your thoughts. Thats the way it should be. There is really nothing wrong with the Pyracantha branches and their lenght. Altgens 8, which Robin has posted speaks for itself i think. And Zapruder was simply the closest to this bush and used a zoom lense as some here mentioned as well. Therefore we see much more detail. If you ask me, Richard B. Trask got it right. Who else than Altgens it should have be? The only one close to him with a camera was Bothun. Altgens used a zoom lense and Bothun not and thats the reason why Bothun's FOV (you propably know his famous photo with the alleged James Files walking away in the background) is much wider/covered more enviroment. Both men were south of Elm street as they had taken their photographs. (Altgens has already passed Elm in Bothun's photo which was taken seconds later). best to you Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Jerry Thank you for your nice level headed reply You are the only one so far who has casted any doubt on my pyracantha theory And being civil about it makes melook deeper into what you post Jerry Thank you, anything else you find please post it in this thread, I look forward to your thoughts Dean Dean, your words support my theory that it is far better to discuss matters civil to convince anybody instead of harsh critic. Jerry did it in a modest way (like some others too) and now you consider to update your thoughts. Thats the way it should be. There is really nothing wrong with the Pyracantha branches and their lenght. Altgens 8, which Robin has posted speaks for itself i think. And Zapruder was simply the closest to this bush and used a zoom lense as some here mentioned as well. Therefore we see much more detail. If you ask me, Richard B. Trask got it right. Who else than Altgens it should have be? The only one close to him with a camera was Bothun. Altgens used a zoom lense and Bothun not and thats the reason why Bothun's FOV (you propably know his famous photo with the alleged James Files walking away in the background) is much wider/covered more enviroment. Both men were south of Elm street as they had taken their photographs. (Altgens has already passed Elm in Bothun's photo which was taken seconds later). best to you Martin Martin I agree with everything you said in your post above but find it surprising that you suddenly found the time to write it because just a few minutes earlier that you were still too busy to reply on the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination! You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging! easy spanky..... Woof woof, the guard dawg is tugging on his chain...I'm so afraid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 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? Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination! You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging! You must have misread what I posted I was not comparing them, I said that all it proves is that why would it be neatly trimmed months and months later for no reason but left untrimmed by Emmit Hudson on the day the president was to drive through the plaza that Hudson took care of You need to slow down when you read Craigester And listen to David Healy, go easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) 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? Todd, Jerry, others A couple years ago Rollie Zavada (the Kodak product engineer who lead the teem that invented Kodakchrome II and examined the original Z -film) told me that challenging a alterationists beliefs was "like questioning someone's religion" You might as well try and reason with a Moonie Edited December 2, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Martin I agree with everything you said in your post above but find it surprising that you suddenly found the time to write it because just a few minutes earlier that you were still too busy to reply on the other thread. Len, i've posted already. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0&start=150 I knew that i couldn't escape your eyes. BTW, i glance daily based here and see what's been posted. I work at home with several computers. To post something fundamental is another story. That needs time. I'am not a supporter of rush judgements. best Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 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? Todd, Jerry, others A couple years ago Rollie Zavada (the Kodak product engineer who lead the teem that invented Kodakchrome II and examined the original Z -film) told me that challenging a alterationists beliefs was "like questioning someone's religion" You might as well try and reason with a Moonie All that Zavada confirmed was that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME". He did not very any of the content. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 You must have misread what I postedI was not comparing them, I said that all it proves is that why would it be neatly trimmed months and months later for no reason but left untrimmed by Emmit Hudson on the day the president was to drive through the plaza that Hudson took care of You need to slow down when you read Craigester And listen to David Healy, go easy Lets review shall we? Deano says upthread: Great work Jack Again my theory that Emmit Hudson would have had the Plaza in tip top shape for JFKs visit is confirmed Why in the world would Hudson trim the pyracantha bush AFTER the assassination instead of before? The bush WAS trimmed before JFKs visit as shown in all the pictures except Zapruder The branches of the pyracantha bush have been altered in Zapruder You are viewing the FBI photo taken months afterthe assassination and saying "look, this is the state of the bush on the day of the assassination...trimmed" You then go on to state the bush as see in in Zapruder has been altered. It is impossible for you to make this (false) statement without comparing the photos of the bush on the day of the assassination and the photo of the bush taken months later. Every time you run your mouth the hole gets deeper deano. You ready to quit yet and admit your defeat like a man? BTW, the day Healy brings anything of substance to the table I'll listen, until then he is just unfiltered noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 You must have misread what I postedI was not comparing them, I said that all it proves is that why would it be neatly trimmed months and months later for no reason but left untrimmed by Emmit Hudson on the day the president was to drive through the plaza that Hudson took care of You need to slow down when you read Craigester And listen to David Healy, go easy Lets review shall we? Deano says upthread: Great work Jack Again my theory that Emmit Hudson would have had the Plaza in tip top shape for JFKs visit is confirmed Why in the world would Hudson trim the pyracantha bush AFTER the assassination instead of before? The bush WAS trimmed before JFKs visit as shown in all the pictures except Zapruder The branches of the pyracantha bush have been altered in Zapruder You are viewing the FBI photo taken months afterthe assassination and saying "look, this is the state of the bush on the day of the assassination...trimmed" You then go on to state the bush as see in in Zapruder has been altered. It is impossible for you to make this (false) statement without comparing the photos of the bush on the day of the assassination and the photo of the bush taken months later. Every time you run your mouth the hole gets deeper deano. You ready to quit yet and admit your defeat like a man? BTW, the day Healy brings anything of substance to the table I'll listen, until then he is just unfiltered noise. Holy cow Craigster Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through my post? Jack posted a picture with a Zaptuder frame on one side and the SS picture on the other I was refering to the fact that the bush should be nice and trimmed for the presidents visit, instead it is not trimmed, yet in the SS picture it is trimmed Someone even said, maybe the SS trimmed the bush to get a better view Craig I think you need a nap And by the way have you ever read David Healys chapter in TGZFH? I hope you have, but it sounds like you have not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now