What is this in Z frames?

[Dean Hagerman]

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 100% with the first part of your post that I put in bold

Thank you

Dean

[Craig Lamson]

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

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

That pile-o-dirt is sure getting bigger deano. Pretty soon you are going to need a backhoe instead of a shovel.

Lets review again shall we?

deano sez: "I was not comparing them.."

The deano sez: "Jack posted a picture with a Zaptuder frame on one side and the SS picture on the other"

(wondering how deano looks at two pictures side by side and does not compare them)

Continuing deano sez: "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"

Wow! deano compares the zapruder frame and FBI ( or SS whatever) frame and makes statement that they don't match. Impossible to do without COMPARING the two images.

But deano sez: "I was not comparing them.."

Sheesh, and he thinks I need a nap. You need to start telling the truth deano. Falsehoods always have a way of catching up to you.

TGZFH..yep got a proof copy from Tink before it was published. That was a waste of good paper. You think Healy had something meaningful to say? My you are an easy mark. You ever wonder if Healy had the proper approvals to use those copyrighted images (they were not his)? Ask him and he shuts up, which is not a bad thing mind you....

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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!

Ah, Turtle! Do you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion or are you the same ole' Dave I've come to know?

[Dean Hagerman]

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

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

That pile-o-dirt is sure getting bigger deano. Pretty soon you are going to need a backhoe instead of a shovel.

Lets review again shall we?

deano sez: "I was not comparing them.."

The deano sez: "Jack posted a picture with a Zaptuder frame on one side and the SS picture on the other"

(wondering how deano looks at two pictures side by side and does not compare them)

Continuing deano sez: "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"

Wow! deano compares the zapruder frame and FBI ( or SS whatever) frame and makes statement that they don't match. Impossible to do without COMPARING the two images.

But deano sez: "I was not comparing them.."

Sheesh, and he thinks I need a nap. You need to start telling the truth deano. Falsehoods always have a way of catching up to you.

TGZFH..yep got a proof copy from Tink before it was published. That was a waste of good paper. You think Healy had something meaningful to say? My you are an easy mark. You ever wonder if Healy had the proper approvals to use those copyrighted images (they were not his)? Ask him and he shuts up, which is not a bad thing mind you....

Debating with you is like debating with my 5 year old, only worse

Why dont you tell your new best friend Todd how much you care about JFK and the assassination

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Craig Lamson]

Poor deano, everytime he opens his mouth, in goes his feet. Your own words prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you did compare when you said you did not. A simple admission will set you free. Heck even Tiger can do it.

Now just so you understand fully what it is you did that you said you did not do...

1.When you make a comparison, you consider two or more things and discover the differences between them.

Your problem deano is that you can't man up and admit error.

BTW, since I've made no secret about my positon on JFK or his assassination fort he last 5 years or so, should Todd want to know I'm sure can do the research and find it himself.

[Dean Hagerman]

Poor deano, everytime he opens his mouth, in goes his feet. Your own words prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you did compare when you said you did not. A simple admission will set you free. Heck even Tiger can do it.

Now just so you understand fully what it is you did that you said you did not do...

1.When you make a comparison, you consider two or more things and discover the differences between them.

Your problem deano is that you can't man up and admit error.

BTW, since I've made no secret about my positon on JFK or his assassination fort he last 5 years or so, should Todd want to know I'm sure can do the research and find it himself.

I did make a comparison

I made an error when I typed that I didnt

However, im positive you knew exactly what I was talking about when I replied to that post

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4?

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.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan

[David G. Healy]

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!

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.....

[Dean Hagerman]

Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4?

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

[Robin Unger]

Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4?

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

Very Large ( Murray 2-4 ) Scan from my Image Gallery.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Robin Unger

[Dean Hagerman]

*** 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

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?

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4?

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

[Craig Lamson]

I'm back to making a buck these days.....

LOL! Greeter at 201 North Nellis Blvd?

Or you shooting cowboys again?

[Craig Lamson]

Poor deano, everytime he opens his mouth, in goes his feet. Your own words prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you did compare when you said you did not. A simple admission will set you free. Heck even Tiger can do it.

Now just so you understand fully what it is you did that you said you did not do...

1.When you make a comparison, you consider two or more things and discover the differences between them.

Your problem deano is that you can't man up and admit error.

BTW, since I've made no secret about my positon on JFK or his assassination fort he last 5 years or so, should Todd want to know I'm sure can do the research and find it himself.

I did make a comparison

I made an error when I typed that I didnt

However, im positive you knew exactly what I was talking about when I replied to that post

So, back on point.

We have established that Dean is quite unskilled at viewing the assembled photographic evidence in th e JFK assassination.

The question then becomes,

When are you going to admit you are wrong about the bush being neatly trimed on the day of the assassination, and that your hairbrained theory of the retouched braches is just more hogwash?

Edited December 3, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4?

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.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan