Craig Lamson

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.

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.

ROFLMAO! You are really getting silly now.

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.

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......

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

From you and yours? roflmao!

No video recorders to repair today Davie?

Let me see if I'm getting this right. You're saying that hunting ammunition does not deform upon impact with a skull? Because everything I've ever read on wound ballistics indicates that it's designed to deform upon impact. P.S. Dr. Olivier told the Warren Commission the fatal bullet deformed and broke up upon impact. This is most interesting because the size of the entrance wound does not reflect the entrance of a deformed bullet. And no, I don't believe for a second what's been pushed elsewhere--that a bullet breaking up upon impact will enter the skull intact and break into pieces as it traverses the skull. This explanation not only fails to pass a simple smell test, but ignores the simple fact that the bullet breaks up BECAUSE it is deformed, and not the reverse. And that it would deform at the point of greatest resistance...UPON impact with the skull. And that a deformed bullet will not create an entrance hole smaller than the width of the bullet. The slide below features a photograph of a human head struck on the back by hunting ammunition. The entrance wound of this hunting ammunition bears no resemblance to the supposed "cowlick" entry. Go out and actually SHOOT something......

What makes it dung Martin, a contrary view? Or the standard forum reaction to it.....

Oh come on Mark, how many LN's actually post here? If you have missed the educational value of many of my posts, well that's really too bad. I've passed along many valuable photographic gems. But then again you gotta want to actually learn, and that goes against the grain here. I'm not an expert Mark, I'm just a guy who earns his living with a camera and enjoys firearms. And quite frankly, at least where still photography is concerned, the JFK scene has darn few people with ANY credentials. This forum is no exception. And it shows with the silly photo claims. And surprise...made mostly by CT's. a target rich environment to be sure. Anytime you want to get schooled.....

Well look...everyone is a spook and they dont tell the truth to bobby is here now too. Can't wait for you to start with the paid CIA stuff here too. Want my telephone number again so you can call me ate at night to find out if I'm real? Roflmao! What did it take you two weeks here? Sheesh. But I must say you are getting really good at the backstroke, doing it again I see. Fmj? How about altered or damaged fmj bobby? Oops......

Poor bobby.I exercise my second amendment rights to the fullest, and in addition one of my good friend, is ex special forces and is a world class armorer. We have spent quality time at the range shooting all manner of conventional and modified projectiles into ballistic gel and other ballistic backstops. The YouTube videos are just a bonus and offer some nice visual proof to refute your nonsense.

Lots of possibilities all of which lay waste to bobby....his "expectations" be damned.Gotta love YouTube vids that show "crudely modified" rifle projectiles accurate at 250 yards. How far was it in the plaza?

Poor bobby. First I'm not ct or ln. At least try and get ONE thing correct. Second. Your expectations are really quite meaningless. You don't know and most likely never will. Welcome to reality The possibility exists for a modified or even damaged bullet.

Despite your claims it appears you need more research Pat. The entrance of a scored or cut bullet is big and messy? That's a howler. This is all about possibilities Pat and since you can't define the actual bullet that struck JFK's head ( let alone a concensus of direction) all the possibilities remain on the table.