Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Craig Lamson

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

39,477 profile views
  1. I could spend a few thousand words showing just how bad your post really was but I'm afraid the mods might not find it amusing, So I'll just comment on tidbit for now. ITS THE ONLY WAY THE PHOTO COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN PAT. And this has been proven via proof of concept. And its been tested over and over again with the same results. It can be debated which lens was used but the results are the same. And how do I know? I've tested it repeatedly. What is also true is that your attempts to dispute this information are pure ignorance. You simply have no clue about how any of this works nor
  2. Translated from 'larry' speak..I would prefer not to be on the record about Speers claim. You want to talk about evidence, be my guest. Heck you silly ct's can't even decide on what size the bag is let alone any of the rest of it. Its a giant custer f. So bang your drum all day speculating to your hearts content. You got nothing concrete and quite frankly I'm simply not interested in word games over things that will never be resolved. Clearly that suits you just fine. You are as empty as the 'conclusions' you posit. So shine on, play your parlor word games. 50 years and all you have is c
  3. I've defended it time and time again, there are HUGE threads both here and at Duncan's site with tons of my original work. Your search finger broken? Its really very simple. Speer says the bag seen outside the TSBD is a different size than the one in the archives. I say his work is whackjob and prove it. I'm just about to bomb his latest drivel back into the stone age. So tell us "larry", is he right? A simple yes or no will do. Why don't you go on record? Maybe I can turn you into a sheet of glass....
  4. LOTS of whackjob ct theory and disinformation why not toss your hat in the ring and actually take a real STANCE on something for a change. Is Is Speer correct about the fake bag photo or not? Or are you just more chicken clucks? We need to change you name to "waffle" Healy
  5. Look, "larry" is here. Right on cue. So "Larry" is Speer correct with his fake bag photo claim or not. Get on the record so we can make this a three-for now. I do so like making you look like a complete clown.
  6. You sure that's where you want to go jimbo? You are gonna look even more silly that you look right now if you do. But I understand something as simple as basic perspective is WAY over your limited ability to understand. This is gonna be double the fun now.
  7. You simply don't have a clue jimbo, about why Speer washed up with his fake bag nonsense. Its WAY beyond your ken as it is his. Talk about a crackup...enjoy your fantasy.
  8. Poor jimbo, can't even understand the topic let alone the processes. You are WAY out if your depth jimbo...and blinded by dogma.
  9. Not a near miss, Jim. Not even close. Frazier claimed to see the bag on the back seat of the car, and spent some time with the FBI trying to estimate how much of the back seat was covered by the bag. His estimate was that the bag was 27 by 6 (or 162 sq. inches). The bag in the archives photos is 38 by 8 1/2 (323 sq. inches), basically TWICE as big. But Pat, that is different. In my opinion the pouch, wrapper, bag, etc, whatever you want to call it, that the DPD brought down, this has no relation to the Frazier story. Having gone over this material several times, I just do not buy the sto
  10. He willingly PLACED himself in the midst of the controversy and if he had wanted he could have declined to comment to on the state of the original. Your logic is childish.
  11. They have "confirmed" nothing. They have rendered an opinion. And opinion about shadow detail ...on a THIRD GENERATION copy. Unless you and the hollyweirds have forgotten , even with dedicated duplication film stocks, CONTRAST BUILDS and gradation decreases with each generation. And they are working with a 3 generation product.... Really? Wanna try again?
  12. Uh jimmy, Ryan recanted that when he view the original film at a microscopic level and not the crappy b/w images Twyman presented to him. Exactly why do your continue this charade? As for the Hollywood restoration experts...really? Care to share a link to their body of work on the subject? And what are they viewing?: A copy of a copy of a copy? Please..... And actually there is nothing CRUDE at all about the back of JFK's head in the frames in question. It is not "black". It is perfectly consistent with a shadow in term of of placement, tonality and as compared to the other shadows in
  13. You don't think all the photos you posted show the exact same thing? ARE YOU BLIND?
  14. You can't just claim the photos are fake (unless you are intellectually dishonest) you actually have to PROVE the photos are fake. Good luck with that. Give Cinque and Hooke a call. LOL!
  • Create New...