Craig Lamson

Yep, you ignore it. Because you have to.

Is that another, "I'm jimbo and I don't know what I think I know-ism"?

LMAO.

Ok then Craig, you are saying that the substance means nothing then huh?

Fine, you are too smart by half then, sucker.

The 'substance"? ROFLMAO! What a joke you are jimbo.

OK Craig, you don't know.

I figured you did not.

Mark, everyone once in awhile you have to show what an ignoramous Lammy is on this case. Just so the lurkers don't fall for his "photo expertise" act.

I mean our "photo expert" does not even know that a professional autopsy photographer was rendered baffled by what was missing in the autopsy pictures, and also how they were shot. Since they clearly violated standard protocol. A protocol which was actually taught to him by Stringer, the guy who was supposed to have taken the photos in the first place!

The JFK case is a complex phenomena with a complex history of evidence manipulation. Craig is utterly ignorant of all this important history. To him, the JFK case is the same as shooting an automobile or a coffee maker. (LOL)

We need to expose that utter ignorance and arrogance every so often to protect the lurkers who might be suckered by him.

I have no intention of getting into an endless Varnell type argument with Mr. Everyone should have an Uzzi and a 9 mm so we can have more Sandy Hooks..

You are such an easy mark.

If I did not know as you so wrongly suggest, then how could I have had a conversation about Stringer, Reibe and Spencer on another forum months ago, including ARRB quotes.

You see jimbo, you just got powned.

Could not happened to a not so nicer guy.

Great work jimbo.

I told you that you were not as smart and all knowing as you though you were.

Excuse me while I go clean a few of my guns....sucker.

What "wild goose chase", these points were addressed years ago in the linked threads and others, the more interesting question is why are you dredging this krapola up again after all these years?

Really simple. Fetzer is no longer relevant. He has been abandoned by all but the most overt the top CT's. No one cares anymore about his Fetzering, unless it is just to poke fun.

Jimmy is is full meltdown because he NEEDS his audience. And he has lost it.

CL: you are really not as bright and all knowing as you think you are. I'm far more well read that you would ever imagine.

OK, then tell me:

1.) Who is the witness I am describing?

2.) Where can you find the testimony in the literature?

3.) What protocol violations am I talking about, and what specific shot am I referring to?

Save your pop quiz's for the poor dweebs that are required to sit in your classroom.

I agree that it is hard to believe the shirt rose that high.

And BTW Craig, my point is a really cogent one: Where would this argument be if the mysterious autopsy photos had not surfaced? Clearly, the weight of the evidence would indicate the lower entry point.

As per the autopsy photos, I mean even the HSCA said they would be very hard to get entered into a court of law. And Stringer's student, who was interviewed by the ARRB, said he could not believe how bad they were. Whoever shot them broke just about every rule of autopsy protocol.

Really, it would indicate the lower wound, give the large fold of fabric we see in NUMEROUS plaza images?

Give me a break.

People do a bad job all time Jim, even you. Its because they are human. Look how badly you just screwed up. You are human, rihgt?

Nice cardsharp bit Craig.

That is not what I said. My argument was about the shirt.

Secondly, you clearly don't know crapola about what I am writing about with the critique of the autopsy photos. Which is par for the course with you since your JFK literacy is about at a third grade level. (Which does not stop you from flapping your chops indiscrimanately.)

The violation of protocol was not just a bad job. It was worse than that. The ARRB interview, which you did not even know existed, said there were necessary shots not taken. So this would be like an advertising client asking you to take a shot of a model from three different distances: one being a close up of her eyes and nose, one of her face, and one from the shoulders up.

You then did only the close up of the eyes and nose but you shot it from such a distorted angle that you couldn't rally make out her features.

That is not a "bad job" Craig and you know it. And if you do not know it then you are ignorant of what I am speaking about. Which, of course you are. You should really read some of this stuff some time. Then you would not come off as such an arrogant ass. First, duh? who's David Eisendrath? And now this.

Don't flatter yourself jimbo, you are really not as bright and all knowing as you think you are. I'm far more well read that you would ever imagine. I'm just not interesting in getting into a pissing match over it nor doe it interest me.. Heck your looney ct's cant even decide whats what.

So climb back down off your high hobby horse jimbo. You are just doing a bad job. I guess you are human after all.

I'm human too. I've screwed up the odd advertising shoot a time or tow.

So the most immaculately dressed politician of his time allowed not only his coat to ride up over FIVE inches, somehow his custom tailored shirt rode up to the EXACT same level?

This is incredible to me- intelligent people buying the same kind of nonsense that brought us other impossible theories; the single bullet and the neuromuscular jet effect, for example. And as Jim notes, what are the odds that Boswell, Burkley and Sibert all just happened to "mistakenly" place the back wound at the same location as the holes in the clothing?

It's much simpler, and more logical, to conclude that when an object is struck it will react according to the laws of physics, a bullet will be damaged when it strikes something, and bullet holes in a victim's clothes indicate where the bullet entered.

And you have somehow missed all the photos showing a 3" fold on the jacket and the photo showing JFK's shirt folded up WELL over the level of the top of his shirt collar?

Simple is right. His clothes were not flat.

I agree that it is hard to believe the shirt rose that high.

And BTW Craig, my point is a really cogent one: Where would this argument be if the mysterious autopsy photos had not surfaced? Clearly, the weight of the evidence would indicate the lower entry point.

As per the autopsy photos, I mean even the HSCA said they would be very hard to get entered into a court of law. And Stringer's student, who was interviewed by the ARRB, said he could not believe how bad they were. Whoever shot them broke just about every rule of autopsy protocol.

Really, it would indicate the lower wound, give the large fold of fabric we see in NUMEROUS plaza images?

Give me a break.

People do a bad job all time Jim, even you. Its because they are human. Look how badly you just screwed up. You are human, rihgt?

OK. Take bunching out of it. I explained to Lamson A LONG TIME AGO

that "bunching" does not affect the conclusion, since the back wound

as described on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's sketch, Berkeley's death

certificate, the reenactment photographs and especially the mortician's

description of the wound makes it about 5.5 inches below the shoulder

and to the right of the spinal column.

Best of luck with that one jimmy, even your die hard ct playmates can't agree.

So were did that 3" fold go? LOL!

been there, done that, got the tee shirt...

No one with a even bit of sense thinks you have anything of substance to offer.

Ya can't even tell us what generation Z-film you've studied, and provide proof as to that lineage. Till then hon, you're whistling in the dark, even the Tinkster can't help. What you got dude, is O-P-I-N-I-O-N! That is IT...

You'll be mowing that Z-film lawn for the next 20 years (if your lucky). Carry on!

Oh I can tell you what generation I have, and quite frankly I suspect its far closer to the original than you have ever seen. I just choose not to tell you , at least at this time.

Now davie, why don't you slink away because, as is usual for you, there is nothing of value to your post once again. You got no game.

As for opinions at least I have one and am willing to post it. You are deathly afraid of getting yours in the mix. Not surprising.

I would like to ask a question about all this:

If those pictures had never surfaced, where would the prepondernace of the evidence depict the back wound at?

Does it matter? The pictures exist.

And as we can see from this thread, 50 years later even die hard CT's can't agree on where the wound was.

Yes it does matter.

Because the provenance of those autopsy photos is very much in dispute.

And you would have to be either a fool or an agent not to at least acknowledge that fact.

I'm not talking about the autopsy photos.

Based on this thread, the entire issue of the back wound is still unresolved, photos or no photos

It's roflmao funny!

I would like to ask a question about all this:

If those pictures had never surfaced, where would the prepondernace of the evidence depict the back wound at?

Does it matter? The pictures exist.

And as we can see from this thread, 50 years later even die hard CT's can't agree on where the wound was.

Well, you've had four years to disprove them. I have seen no such refutations.

You are all talk and no action, Lamson. WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

I think we all know what it means when you continue to post on ad hominem

after another. It means that's all you've got! WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE?

After four years, we are entitled to presume that my arguments are sound and

to accept the conclusions that follow. SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

That you claim to have not seen the debunking of the junk "science" you pimp, does not mean they do not exist.

Here, let me help you find them.

www.google.com

You got no game Fetzer.

Heck even your ct closest friends have turned against you. And now you are stuck with Ralph Cinque.

That pretty much tells the world all they will ever need to know about Jim Fetzer and his search for "truth". There is none.

As much fun as it is to play whack-a fetzer, its getting really boring.

Keep fetzering...its all you have left.

We all know how easy it is to alter and fake photos, where the images to

which Lamson obsessively refers appear to be apt illustrations.

Great now offer proof that those photos have been altered. BTW your list of six does no such thing. Maybe you can get that master photo analyst friend of your, Ralph Cinque to help you out. ROFLMAO!

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

Once again (for the third time) prove your proofs that JFK clothing could NEVER fold or bunch as seen in the Plaza images.

This one alone does you in.

But I suspect the Fetering will continue.

Lamson just can't bring himself to cope with the arguments I have presented, for

the obvious reason that they are valid with true premises and have conclusions

that cannot be false. It is all BLUFF AND FAKERY. This guy has more moves

than a magician. Pamela has made the very sensible suggestion that Lamson,

Cobly and Unger (not by name) try something different, namely: TRY TO COME

TO GRIPS WITH THE ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE PRESENTED. That would

be novel, but of course it does not suit their purpose, which is to make serious

discussion of this central issue in JFK research SO UNPLEASANT THAT MOST

MEMBERS OF THE FORUM WILL SHY AWAY FROM THE STENCH. Compare

my posts with their posts. One side is presenting evidence and arguments that

demonstrate--conclusively, I maintain--that the film is a fabriation. The others

are posting one nasty ad hominem after another and doing their level best to

drive anyone with a serious interest in advancing our understanding away from

the discussion. And of course he cannot resist introducing an abusive attack in

the form of a "definition", which displays the extent of their intellectual incapacity

to actually come to grips with arguments and necessity to resort to childish ploys.

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving

complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being

unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as shown here with Lamson.

Over the years MANY have "come to grips" with the weak arguments you have tried to make , and over the years they have been taken apart one after the other.

Despite of that you keep coughing up these hair balls over and over again, like they actually still had merit. Earth to Jim. They don't.

I already have. Anyone can review this thread and see that I have provided

a half-dozen refutations of your alleged "unimpeachable" images, which I

have already impeached. Surely there is no one here who is taken in by the

drivel you continue to post, again and again and again. Who are you fooling?

No you have done no such thing. You offer a bunch of hand waves. Show us the proofs of alteration. You have impeached nothing, other than your own reputation. The Fetzering continues.

It never ceases to astonish me how many members of this forum run

like scared puppies with their tails between their legs when HONEST

TO GOODNESS EVIDENCE OF ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY SHOWS

UP ON THIS FORUM. Surely there are more serious students of the

assassination here than Lamson, Colby, and Unger. Where are they?

Another hairball...there is no "honest" evidence that shows the film fake. Fetzer beats a very dead horse.

Otherwise know as Fetzering.

There are too many convergent proofs to take the use of a faked photograph seriously.

Only someone of the character of a Craig Lamson would even attempt such a scam!

No jim, its a plethora of photographs. Are you now claiming they are all fake? ROFLMAO!

Please prove them all fakes.

^{I think Jim is just compliling the long list of reasons that shows the obvious differneces with the Z-Film to eyewitness testimony. To those who dismiss Jim, I would challenge you to answer each of his points concerning the films discrepancies with your "alternate" explanations. I think a single explanation is more believable and logical than a dozen or so " coincidences".}

Aside from Chaney, which one those statements is a discrepancy?

Is anyone taken in by the rubbish posts of Lamson and Colby? There have to b

some serious students of JFK on this forum. I would like to hear from them, not

the repeated carping and ad hominems from the usual suspects. THIS IS PROOF

THAT THE FILM IS A FABRICATION--ONE OF A DOZEN MOST IMPORTANT. IF

Lamson or Cobly could refute any of them, they would. They can't--so they don't.

They HAVE been refuted time and time again, and you keep 'hair balling them"...

been there, done that, got the tee shirt...

No one with a even bit of sense thinks you have anything of substance to offer.

eck, eck...another fur ball from Fetzer...

It takes a special kind of arrogance to fake your way though one refutation after another, as Craig Lamson is doing here.

No one on this forum can possibly taken him seriously after this display of deceit and deception about the back wound.

I think we are making progress as it becomes increasingly apparent who does and doesn't care about the truth re JFK.

In addition, he ignores the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and perverts its meaning beyond recognition:

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving

complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being

unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as shown here with Lamson.

It takes a special kind of arrogance like that shown by Jim Fetzer to try and deny the existence of the large fold on JFK's jacket.

It is aptly described as FETZERING...properly defined...

Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.

3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.

1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.

So I am calling his bluff: SPELL 'EM OUT, BUDDY, OR BE EXPOSED AS A FRAUD.

Been done, over and over again...and like a cat with a hair ball they get coughed up all over again.

The Fetzering continues...everything has been altered except that which Fetzer needs so that must be authentic...

Never mind all of this has been debunked many times over Fetzer regurgitates it.