Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack 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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Trolling? Coming from Tinks head xxxxx that is pretty funny Ok then we now know you are just plain nuts. I finally figured you out. You reminded me of someone but I just could not put my finger on it. This thread finally did it for me. You can "see" a head in the lights and shadows of tree branches, but you can't see shoots sticking up all over from a bush. Simply amazing! It can only mean one thing, you are straydog02, or his long lost brother! Or maybe just a looney toon like he is. Either works. One thing is for certain. You simply don't have the skill set to deal with the photographic issues with any intellectual honesty. Loon away deano, just don't forget to believe.... Craig I am not straydog, I have no idea who that is Every JFK forum I belong to my username is my real name (And that is only here, JFKresearch.com and Duncans forum although I have only posted a couple times a while ago) I would not lie about that You have my word, I am not here to play games, I care about the assassination and I want the truth Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack 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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Trolling? Coming from Tinks head xxxxx that is pretty funny Ok then we now know you are just plain nuts. I finally figured you out. You reminded me of someone but I just could not put my finger on it. This thread finally did it for me. You can "see" a head in the lights and shadows of tree branches, but you can't see shoots sticking up all over from a bush. Simply amazing! It can only mean one thing, you are straydog02, or his long lost brother! Or maybe just a looney toon like he is. Either works. One thing is for certain. You simply don't have the skill set to deal with the photographic issues with any intellectual honesty. Loon away deano, just don't forget to believe.... Craig I am not straydog, I have no idea who that is Every JFK forum I belong to my username is my real name (And that is only here, JFKresearch.com and Duncans forum although I have only posted a couple times a while ago) I would not lie about that You have my word, I am not here to play games, I care about the assassination and I want the truth Dean Straydog is Duane Damon, Craig's nemesis on Apollo. Craig and Burton got Duane banished from the Simkin forum. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tallThe branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos. Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No Are you sure you're looking at Murray 2-4? Again I love how you think im stupid and have no clue about the photos taken on 11/22/63 I see in Murray what I see in all the other pictures I have been checking for the last two days Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) CraigI am not straydog, I have no idea who that is Every JFK forum I belong to my username is my real name (And that is only here, JFKresearch.com and Duncans forum although I have only posted a couple times a while ago) I would not lie about that You have my word, I am not here to play games, I care about the assassination and I want the truth Dean The truth eh? Or YOUR own preordained truth? Big difference. Edited December 2, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) 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 Edited December 2, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 CraigI am not straydog, I have no idea who that is Every JFK forum I belong to my username is my real name (And that is only here, JFKresearch.com and Duncans forum although I have only posted a couple times a while ago) I would not lie about that You have my word, I am not here to play games, I care about the assassination and I want the truth Dean The truth eh? Or YOUR own preordained truth? Big difference. Craig You may think im dishonest because I am an alterationist (A silly reason) I would not lie about being someone that I am not I promise I am Dean Hagerman and nobody else And trust me, if you prove me wrong on anything I will admit that I was wrong You have yet to do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) CraigI am not straydog, I have no idea who that is Every JFK forum I belong to my username is my real name (And that is only here, JFKresearch.com and Duncans forum although I have only posted a couple times a while ago) I would not lie about that You have my word, I am not here to play games, I care about the assassination and I want the truth Dean The truth eh? Or YOUR own preordained truth? Big difference. Craig You may think im dishonest because I am an alterationist (A silly reason) I would not lie about being someone that I am not I promise I am Dean Hagerman and nobody else And trust me, if you prove me wrong on anything I will admit that I was wrong You have yet to do that What have you shown us you were right abiut? So far all you have offered is meaningless opinion. You say, look here is a a blob, that is a person. You draw a few lines and say "yep a person fits"..so i'ts a person. Never mind you don't have the first bit of evidence that the blob is a person and not just leaves and light. All you have is unsupported opinion. You can't prove your own opinion and yet you want someone to disprove it? Are you nuts. Then you tell us the branches of the bush are a foot long. How you decided they are a foot is beyond eveyone. You just made it up out of thin air. You can't or won't offer any empirical evidence to support your statement, other than "you have eyes". Take a picture Dean, after all this is about photography. All the data you need is available. The Zap lens data, the distance to the front, middle and far edge of the bush, and your magical 1 foot branch. Show us what a 1 foot branch at the nearest edge of the bush to Zap looks like at full zoom. Actually SEE if your bullsnit guess holds water. And finally don't tell us tha the bush was neatly trimmed, it was not. Todd directed you to the Martin image (actually there are two that show the bush) and without a doubt the bush is "unruly". If you can't see the branches you need to finda different hobby. Then in an amaziong display of....unbelievable logic, yiou point ot a picture taken months later and say "look the bush WAS trimmed down on the day of the assassination and this picture proves it!" Never mind the actual photos from the day in question that show other wise, Daman..opps..Dean claims the branches were "retouched in." Reality has passed you by. You might not be Daman, but you act exactly like him. Not the first clue about the subject matter, seeing" bunnies in the clouds" and so caught up in his own fantasy world-theory that the real truth flows right over his head. So, why not actually give us some red meat for a change. Edited December 2, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) 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 Probably the best view of the Pyracantha bush available, to my eyes it looks " Untrimmed" It would be an interesting exercise to " cut out " Zapruder and stand him back up on the pedestal. Maybe it would give us a better idea of his true height, and line of site through the leaves. Edited December 2, 2009 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tallThe branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos. Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 Probably the best view of the Pyracantha bush available, to my eyes it looks " Untrimmed" It would be an interesting exercise to " cut out " Zapruder and stand him back up on the pedestal. Maybe it would give us a better idea of his true height, and line of site through the leaves. Robin So who do you think took "Altgens"8 ? James Altgens himself said he didnt take that picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 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 Jerry Nice blow up That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small I still think the bush in Zapruder is way more unruly Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tallThe branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos. Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Perhaps you missed my answer, go back and read through the posts You did however miss my question to you Why would you try sending me out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tallThe branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos. Todd It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos. Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy Dean Dean, I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom. This isn't rocket science. Todd I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did I have eyes also, believe it or not Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches. So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Perhaps you missed my answer, go back and read through the posts You did however miss my question to you Why would you try sending me out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures? Dean, No, you absolutely did not answer my question. What I want to know is HOW did you QUANTIFY your 1 foot measurement? In other words, how did you measure the branches in Zapruder to determine that they were sticking up 1 foot (12 inches)? Craig Lamson has asked you the same thing and you haven’t responded to him either. As for your question regarding my supposed “sending (you) out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures”, no, I did not miss that, and I’ll be dealing with that later on today. Be patient, Dean, "photographic beat downs" as you like to call them sometimes take time. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So who do you think took "Altgens"8 ? James Altgens himself said he didnt take that picture Dean, you are wrong. Altgens did NOT say that he didn't take the photograph, he said that he couldn't remember taking the photograph. Duncan Huge difference 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