Craig Lamson

You lost at claim ONE. Its ALL I need to do to defeat your feeble minded argument. The evidence is clear and conclusive that there was a 3"+ fold on the back of JKF's jacket up to and including the last clear frame we can see...Betzner. That alone makes the rest of your "argument", if it can be called that, moot. And you can't do anything to refute it. Period. Except Fetzering... 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.

You don't have arguments about the Zapruder film, all you have is silly drivel. You standard fare. Let the Fetzering continue....

Yes Jim, the Betzner photo..and the many others take of JFK theat day offer UNIMPEACHABLE evidence there was a large fold on the back of his jacket. Now unless you can prove that ALL of these photos were altered, you have not impeach the unimpeachable. And give you don't have the first clue about how photography and your nearly as ignorant sidekick Jack White has pasted, you are up a creek sans paddle. I mean look at the crap you are relegated to pim...er "seeling" now...Oswald inthe doorway! ROFLMAO! But hey give it your best shot. You can't impeach all the photos showing the fold by saying them MIGHT be altered. Oh wait, thats the very best you have and its useless. Now, on to your first point where you simply wave your hands and pretend you have made a valid point. Please show us your proof there there is no way JFK's custom tailored clothing could fold or budge...ever. This the SECOND time you have been asked. Are you going to answer? LOL! I made nothing up. Heck its in the urban dictionary. You are INFAMOUS. LOL! http://www.urbandict...&term=fetzering 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. And there is this one...a gem... http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/ I suspect the FETZERING will continue...

Except that the fold is very well documented. Strike two. [sarcasm] Oh wait all the evidence is faked except the evidence you want to use. Sorry how could I have forgotten your Fetzering. [/sarcasm]

What a crock. WHAT is this "negligible" amount? To make this statement you MUST have the figures. So what are they and what correction factors did you apply? The correct answer is you don't know and you applied no correction factors. You have no clue and your so called "measurements" are a best a wild azzed guess. You simply can't be honest. Surprise surprise. Try again.

We can stop at your very first unproven claim. Please provide your proof that JFK's 'tailored" jackets and shirt were ALWAYS immune from bunching and folding. Your wild and unproven handwaving has been duly noted.

LOL! Typical Fetzering. The photo is fake, sure it is. [/sarcasm] Unless you can PROVE ( and you have yet to ever do so for ANY image) Betzner has been altered, it provides unimpeachable proof the jacket did indeed have a 3+inch fold. Deal with it. Let the FETZERING begin, and the laughter to follow.

You simply can't have "debunked" anything, since the fact that this fold existed is unimpeachable. Clearly you have never read the evidence that proves this claim unimpeachable. It never ceases to amaze me how far you will go to completely misrepresent the evidence of ANY event you have claimed to have solved. But that is in fact exactly what you are doing here.

It is an unimpeachable fact that the jacket had a 3" fold of fabric during the entire ride through the plaza up to the last clear frame we can see...Betzner. Opps...so much for your "proof"...

Still can't deal HONESTLY with the fact your method of measurement is FATALLY FLAWED. Oh so typical.

ROFLMAO!

You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted. And your work is still useless. Hi Craig! You are correct that I am not a photographic expert. You were also correct in pointing out that there is angular distortion in that photo. As I'm sure a bright guy like you realizes, ALL two dimensional photos contain angular distortion - no exceptions. What matters however, is the degree of distortion and whether it is substantial enough to alter our conclusions. Is it your belief that my measurements, adjusted for distortion, would prove that the upper of the two alleged wounds matched Humes measurements better than the lower? If so, perhaps you could share the math with us that led you to that conclusion. If not, then why would it matter? Wrong again. If there is size change due to perspective, and there is, your calculations are invalid. Period. If your calculations are invalid, your conclusions are invalid. Period. Your claims fail. If you want to continue making them YOU need to provide the correct data. PERIOD. I don't have any "beliefs" nor conclusions here. Only the facts. And the facts are clear and unimpeachable. Your calculations are fatally flawed and your work is useless. Welcome to the real world.

You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted. And your work is still useless.

As usual you prove you simply have no clue. Lets look at the ruler. Take one end and compare it to the other. Are they the same size? Your argument is fatally flawed and rendered useless.

Only one small problem....no compensation for perspective in your calculations ...

Best backyard image I've found on the web... http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg The others not so much....just do a google and sort though them to find the best. Or order copies from the Archives.

No, Craig, actually, I never read anywhere that Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ever agreed that CE-133A and CE-133B and its variations were legitimate. In fact, I've been hunting for this in Google, and in amazon.com, etc. since your latest post, and I can't find this reference. I'd appreciate a reference or a citation so that I could read Thompson's alleged retraction myself. It would make a significant difference in my opinion. I do have footage on video of Thompson examining the Backyard photographs and concluding that they're fake. I'd very much appreciate reading any retraction he might have made. Thanks, --Paul Trejo HSCA Photo Panel Report. (439) Another important consideration mitigating against fakery is the obvious improvement in quality as the sequence of photographs progressed--133C, CE 133-B and CE 133-A. Quite clearly a learning process was taking place, as the photographer determined among other things how the subject would best be centered in the field of view. Finally, the presence of graphite marks on CE 133-A and CE 133-B strongly suggests that the prints were routinely developed by a drugstore or camera store photofinisher's laboratory. It is unlikely that sophisticated conspirator would have given the end product doctoring efforts to a drugstore for printing. Malcolm Thomson, the British forensic photography expert who publicly questioned the authenticity of the backyard picture, was shown a preliminary summary of the panel's report and asked to comment. He was also offered an opportunity to appear before the committee to express his views. After studying the reports, Thomson deferred to the panel's conclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of fakery. He noted the thoroughness of the panel's investigation and emphasized that his earlier comments were based upon examination of copies of the photographs rather than the original material. Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion that the chin in the backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that he had observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect a photocopied composite photograph. The photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of Defense who had stated that there was evidence of fakery in these photographs was also contacted by the committee. He indicated that he had performed no scientific tests on the photographs and had spent less than an hour examining the "very poor copies" that were submitted to him. (194)

and look whose calling the kettle black. Come on know, gett'er in focus! LMAO! You can to better then that davie, or not? You are quite the weak stick these days.

You're mistaken, Craig. I'm interested only in the truth, as well as correcting any errors I might have made. It still seems perfectly obvious to me that the SIZE of the heads is identical -- and that the right-side of the head (from the viewer's perspective) doesn't change in the slightest -- from the hair to the ear to the chin. The shadows and retouches on the lips are easily explained. It seems to me that the proof is right before your eyes, and yet you are the one who denies it. If you have a point to make, why not resort to the English language? But careful examination shows the sizes CHANGE between images. You simply get it wrong. The eyes move, the ears move, the nose moves, the chin moves...nothing matches up. You say it is a 100 percent match, its not even 10 percent. You search for the truth? Give me a break. OK, Craig, now that's just plain wrong -- when did I even mention the background plate? When you said they made three photos from one original image. Need I put the exact quote uop for you to see? What is clear to me is that the photo that George De Mohrenschildt had of Oswald -- the one signed on the back -- had a much larger background than CE-133A. I never said the backgrounds matched. All the background plates MUST be processed from a single image for your fantasy to be true. That means you must take all three background images and bring them into agreement using techniques similar to the ones available in 1963. Most any digital imaging program gives you the tools. Your claim, prove it. But I'll tell you, it will never happen. I know I've tried. You keep asking me to do the work -- but that's bizarre -- I don't have the equipment or the training to do photographic analysis. That's why I rely on experts like Malcom Thompson and John Pickard. That's perfectly legitimate. You claim to be an IT guy. If that's true you surely can operate simple graphics software. So do it. Don't have Photoshop, use it free for 30 days. Until you do you are simply a parrot who knows absolutely nothing. BTW, Thompson finally agreed the photos were legit. Surely you know this...right? This is really simple stuff. Finally, I'm not pushing any fantasy, I'm fishing for information. If you have something positive to say -- aside from insults and wisecracks, I'd be open to reading it. No you are not, you can't even be honest about the head images. The findings of John Pickard are expert findings -- and you haven't explained (in English) why you reject his findings. So, why bother even responding here? No they are not, it are poorly done and false. I repeated his work on this thread and showed it was flawed. His claim was wrong. Perhaps that's why he ran away from the findings of the photo panel. At least Thompson was man enough to admit his error. You could learn something from him. Get back to me when you have purchased your first clue. As it stands you are clueless. Regards, --Paul Trejo

You are right John, you do have perhaps the most open mind and willingness to do the work of any ct I've met in regard to images. The brush strokes don't extend to you.

You are not interested in pursuing the truth, only trying to bolster your ill formed opinion. Your only claim of any substance ...that the heads were 100 percent the same has been shown incorrect. You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you have it wrong. The proof is right before your very eyes yet you still deny it. Then you make the even sillier claim there was only one background plate was used to make all the other backgrounds. Again this claim is childish since there is simply no way to make all the backgrounds match. How do I know this? I've spent hours try to make it happen and it is simply impossible. But hey, why don't you actually DO THE WORK and prove your point has validity instead of pushing your fantasy? Oh wait, never mind...you won't go there. Forget the search for facts...you have a fantasy to maintain. CT's......

Enjoy your fantasy world.

Enjoy your fantasy.

You can't see and you clearly don't have any photographic understanding. Period. Enjoy your fantasy.

You are beyond hope and beyond rational discussion. Enjoy your fantasy.