Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

Members
  • Content Count

    5,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About Craig Lamson

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

39,144 profile views
  1. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    I don't know if they just screwed it up or did it for a reason. The problem is trying to take data that is just an educated guess and saying it is accurate so the film of the event is false. Is the film false? I don't think so after some really careful study over a lot of years. Obviously others feel quite different. That said to think any of the recreations nailed it exactly is really wishful thinking.
  2. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    Yes ALL recreations are flawed simply because you can never cover all the variables. Can recreations offer insight? Sure. Can they be counted on to be completely accurate? Never. Lets take the recreations of the Z film for example. How do you find the location, in a recreation, of a single frame of the film? Do you stand on the pedestal and try and sight it in? What happens if you get your eye or camera in the wrong place? Does that effect the outcome? Does human error figure into the equation? I've photographed many 'recreations", images I had to try and duplicate for advertising. Many times I knew ahead of time I would need to try and duplicate the efforts and I would take copious notes so I could find the correct positions later. Even with solid notes, shooting to a computer so I could overlay the old image with the new one, it was impossible to get it all correct. I often shoot parts and pieces, meaning I shoot a scene many different times with different lighting and them composite them all together in post (see gif below) If I even bump the camera ever so slightly the parallax and perspective changes enough that I need to start over because the parts no longer fit. http://www.craiglamson.com/rvbuild.gif So are recreations flawed? Of course. Now if you feel otherwise please tell me why.
  3. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    ROFLMAO! You are really getting silly now.
  4. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    No Chris, not an altered film, that's very flawed logic on your part. All you have is bad numbers on a chart that shows he GUESSES created by doing a recreation. I'm really sorry your years of work on this have gone up in flames, but thats the reality of it.
  5. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    I guess I do need to show how Chris screwed up, by not being able to understand what he read. His post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20094&p=271388 Note he confuses the distance from the chalk mark UP TO the rifle IN THE WINDOW with a fictional distance from the limo to some undefiined point on the base of the TSBD. Really poor work and he has yet ot even admit this gross error. And of course the post pointing all of this out. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20094&p=271417 No one is really paying close attention to his work, and when we do AGAIN it is found he has the basics all wrong. He got caught with wrong measurements on the plat last time and now we find he used other measurements incorrectly. And you just keep digging the hole deeper. You notice not even Davie Jo has stepped up to help you......
  6. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    But then again you did screw it up in spades. Do I need to post the link?
  7. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    ratios=meaningless About your past MAJOR mistake..you ever gonna deal with that one?
  8. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. Well, no. I use the reporter to help me find the story within the story. Or, in this case, the film within the film. For example: When dealing with math, you should include ratio's. Especially when using different scenarios to fit one event. So, the change from Z168-255 to 161-255 changed the ratio away from .6 87frames/145frames = .6 Mandel says 74 frames and 48 frames later or a total of 122 frames. His second shot location becomes a matching ratio from 1st-3rd shot span. 74/122 = .6 chris Nice coincidences...all from someones guesses. And when dealing with math, why round? Still got that whole guess thing to deal with Chris, and you can't. You ever correct YOUR guess about the WC distance to the rifle IN THE WINDOW? And then there is this little question still unanswered... So lay out your complete plat Chris to show you how you screwed up your measurements and your conclusions, by using the wrong numbers and measuring to the wrong places. Or have you corrected your mistakes?
  9. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    I understand completely. Its a recreation, which is a guess and of course there are errors. That's what happens when you guess. So lay out your complete plat Chris to show you how you screwed up your measurements and your conclusions, by using the wrong numbers and measuring to the wrong places. Or have you corrected your mistakes?
  10. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    Sadly, as has been established many times before the Chris's take on the "snipers nest" at 2+50 is false. This is really quite amusing, since it was also shown conclusive that Chris did not even know what he was measuring on his plats, and that his plates were incorrect for the size and location of the TSBD, that here he is trying to sell the proven false data once again. There is no 15.5 foot difference. Its all more smoke and mirrors from Chris. But hey, give it your best shot. Lay out the complete plat, and show us. And this time actually use the numbers correctly....I don't think that's possible for you.
  11. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris.
  12. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    Again translated for Chris Davidson EVASION speak...Only ONE number matches so I was being misleading...
  13. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    Thanks for proving ONCE AGAIN the inaccuracy of the GUESSES made while making this recreation. Welcome to reality Chris.
  14. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    Translated from Davidsonspeak. The numbers I quoted don't match. Let me try and wiggle out of that problem by creating a strawman. Your attempted dodge is duly noted. Lets try again. You say the notes from West for 168 match the 161 entries on the WC document. Can you match up all the numbers? Its a simple questions, same as it was the first time I asked. If you can't just say so and we can discard your theory. BTW, do you understand the term AVERAGE?
  15. Craig Lamson

    Undressing CE884, Randomly

    Really? Why don't you match up all the measurements from the West notes to the WC exhibit and get back to us. I'll understand why you won't.
×