Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Craig Lamson

  1. BEYOND that, whatever errors there were in the original survey were certainly subject to compounding, obfuscation, and downright manipulation at the hands of the Warren Commission. Altering the data that the surveyor computed, for whatever reason, by folks who were NOT trained in proper surveying techniques, is simply a matter of taking a less-than-ideal recreation and turning it into a completely worthless farce.

    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. So what are you saying, Craig?

    Are you saying that ALL of the recreations--BECAUSE they are recreations--are inherently flawed?

    That's what it SEEMS you are saying.

    If so, then it would appear you're saying that we'll never be able to properly examine the JFK assassination because there ARE inherent flaws in ANY attempted recreation.

    Since I'm NOT trying to put words in your mouth...am I correctly INTERPRETING what you're saying?

    If I'm not interpreting your words correctly, please tell us what you ARE trying to say.

    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.


    So are recreations flawed? Of course.

    Now if you feel otherwise please tell me why.

  3. I'll run the scenario for you.

    11.2mph average = 16.464ft per sec /18.3fps = .899ft per frame.

    .899ft per frame x 5 frames = 4.498ft

    4.498- .9ft (CE884 161-166) = 3.598ft difference.

    30ft/3.598ft = 8.33ft

    152 frames 161-313

    152/18.3 = 8.30 seconds

    Relationship Yes. Coincidence No.


    ROFLMAO! You are really getting silly now.

  4. Craig,

    CE884, when you can prove the limo traveled only .9ft from Zframes 161-166 using the extant Zfilm, then you have something to stand on.

    Until then, you have an altered film.

    btw, are you finding it difficult from the film to arrive at a Station# for Z166, once you figure it out, then we can talk.

    It probably has something to do with that .9ft distance.

    Another coincidence!!!!! Not.


    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. I guess I do need to show how Chris screwed up, by not being able to understand what he read.

    His post:


    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.


    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. An average difference of 3 mph= 3 x 1.47ft (1mph) = 4.41ft per sec.

    4.41ft sec x 6.8 sec = 29.988ft or 30ft/4.41ft sec= 6.8sec

    Where is that Mandel article?



    In case it didn't occur to you, that 30ft entry is somewhat important in the overall scheme of things.

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

    An average difference of 3 mph= 3 x 1.47ft (1mph) = 4.41ft per sec.

    4.41ft sec x 6.8 sec = 29.988ft or 30ft/4.41ft sec= 6.8sec

    Where is that Mandel article?



    In case it didn't occur to you, that 30ft entry is somewhat important in the overall scheme of things.

    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


    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?

  7. Craig,

    You are having a tough time understanding what occurs when you add and subtract frames from one span to another.

    Go back to the beginning and calculate 24 frames (161-185) @ 20.1ft and 17frames @ 20.1ft and let us know what the difference is in terms of MPH.

    It's only a 7 frame difference, how different could it be? Say 4.28 mph.



    Then you should take into account what it does to the span before Z168 and after.

    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?

  8. It always helps to convert back to time spans every once in awhile.

    For instance, 87frames/18.3fps = 4.75 sec.

    4.75 sec x 21.623ft sec (14.71mph) = 102.7ft

    102.7ft - 87.2 = 15.5ft

    That's how you make up 15.5ft, the difference between StationC 2+34.5 and the snipers nest, Station# 2+50 by the time you reach extant Z255.


    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.

  9. An average difference of 3 mph= 3 x 1.47ft (1mph) = 4.41ft per sec.

    4.41ft sec x 6.8 sec = 29.988ft or 30ft/4.41ft sec= 6.8sec

    Where is that Mandel article?



    In case it didn't occur to you, that 30ft entry is somewhat important in the overall scheme of things.

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

  10. There is only one Station# 3+29.2, that belongs to Frame168.

    Yes, Moving on.

    The Vehicle Speed Analysis document supplied previously should provide you with a better comparison of what occurs when you make a 7 frame adjustment 161-168.

    Since the WC likes working with averages, (easier to hide starts and stops) why not figure out the difference between the 2 averages for frames (168-185) and frames (161-185) using the Vehicle Speed Analysis chart.

    168-185 = 20.84mph/2 = 10.42 mph

    161-185 = 14.84mph/2 = 7.42 mph

    An average difference of 3mph.


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

  11. Craig,

    I can see that you don't approve of the .9ft conversion to 11.20 mph. That is an exact recreation. Straight from the WC.

    But, as you have mis-stated in the past, (imo) the recreations were much more exact than you will ever know or admit to.



    Moving on!!!

    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?

  12. That's a big but t.

    Frame161 was never surveyed in.

    In fact, frame161 survey info belongs to frame168, as was long ago revealed by Tom P.

    That might get the wheel rolling a bit.



    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.

  13. Mr. Speer

    With all due respect, my experience in hunting has shown me that both soft tipped and hollow point bullets will often make entry wounds no bigger than full metal jacket bullets, ie. no bigger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is only altered if the bullet begins to tumble, for whatever reason, prior to hitting the target.

    What makes it unlikely that Oswald would have altered the tip of the bullet that struck JFK's head is the fact that we know two of the four bullets allegedly in Oswald's possession that day, CE 399 and the unfired cartridge, were not altered. If going for a head shot on the first shot, wouldn't it make sense to alter ALL of the bullets? I believe this is a desperate attempt by a Lone Nut to distract us from the basic reality that a head shot from a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have produced the explosive results seen in z313.

    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......

  14. Give it up.Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.Here, it's just Lamson.You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

    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.....

  15. Your ex special forces "friend", if he exists at all outside of your imagination, should have the qualifications to tell you that a round nosed, full metal jacket bullet, ESPECIALLY a thick jacketed 6.5 mm Carcano bullet, would have been incapable of breaking up in the manner witnessed in z313 of the Zapruder film.

    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?


  16. Anyone that bases his research on YouTube videos is a definite believer in junk science.

    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.

  17. Mr. Speer

    Further to the unlikelihood of only one out of four bullets being altered by Oswald, it must be remembered that damaged or crudely altered bullets are inherently inaccurate, due to the destabilizing and unbalancing effect such damage or alteration has on the in flight characteristics of such a bullet. Also, the amount of accidental "damage" required to put a full metal jacket on par with a hollow point bullet, given the thicker than average jacket of the 6.5 Carcano FMJ bullet, is extremely hard to conceive and would only make sense in the mind of a Lone Nut.

    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?

  18. 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.

  • Create New...