Craig Lamson

I don't think you're safe with such a small arsenal of weapons.

If a Venezuelan task force ever tries to occupy your home you're gonna need a couple of rocket launchers and possibly a flame thrower or they're gonna be all over you like a rash.

What makes you think that's all?

I guess because in my world only weirdos and lunatics have this type of obsession collecting and storing in their bedside drawers so many objects that have been designed specifically to kill other human beings.

Thanks for clearing things up for me, Rambo.

I see we can add being totally unable to read to you long list of faults.

Great job Lee,I can now see why your attempts at research are so miserable.

In your world, you don't have the FREEDOM to possess these sorts of firearms. You are a bitch to the state.

And yet you live in a country that has far MORE violent crime per 100,000 than mine. Maybe you can use a knife to defend yourself from the crazies ...oh wait... But I digress.

Learn to read.

Every time David imitates JFK's movement the fabric of his shirt indents along the shoulder-line.

varnell childishly makes up stuff from thin air again....next he will be telling us again that custom made dress shorts only have 3/4 of an inch of slack, like he has for years. Oh wait he got caught in that complete falsehood. So he makes up yet another whopper. Honesty? Not ever.

And why? His decades long fantasy was destroyed...by the sun. He can't understand it let alone try and counter it.

His fantasy world continues. Reality be damned.

BTW I could care less if Oswald did it or not. I'm only interested in YOUR silly escapades here.

Pinochio's nose just grew about five inches.

BTW I could care less if Oswald did it or not. I'm only interested in YOUR silly escapades here.

Pinochio's nose just grew about five inches.

LOL! Jim lives in fantasy land once again.

So typical.

Craig uses stuff against Oswald that not even the WC found credible.

This is what the WC said about this excuse of a reload. "This is extremely unlikely because there is no evidence that the 4 recovered shells have been resized." This was clearly based on an FBi report. So Lamson is even more intent on convicting Oswald than the WC AND the FBI. Sylvia Meagher went further on this issue. She said that the above explanation was really a space filler. SInce the WC had already eliminated that excuse on the basis of the cost and bulk of the equipment. Someone would have recalled selling it to him and someone would have seen it before. (p. 281)

And yet if the brass and the lead were a mismatch, they have a pretty high likelihood of being reloads. Pretty simple really.

In any case, you, along with everyone else have now clue as to the exact movements of LHO, who he may have contacted, where he might have acquired the ammo. I guarantee you I have ammo no one could trace as to where I acquired it. Again nothing sinister, just reality.

Would someone have recalled selling him the ammo. Perhaps Would they by necessity COME FORWARD to tell someone? Who knows.

Your expectations are just that. They are pretty much worthless in the really world. But then again, that's a place you don't inhabit.

BTW I could care less if Oswald did it or not. I'm only interested in YOUR silly escapades here.

Go back to Varnell.

For what?

To spew idiotic and irrelevant claims which David Von Pein and Paul Baker are too embarrassed to repeat?

Neither of these fine Nutter fellows can utter a word of defense of the SBT trajectory.

They have nothing to say, Jim.

That should tell you something.

LOL..mr. "i've seen every shirt on every person waving their hand in all of recorded history" barks. Just can't quit making stuff up from thin air can you varnell? When all else fails, just count on varnell to tell yet other whopper.

Figure out how the SUN works yet?

Seriously though Craig, how do you get to that situation of having a mix of bullets and yet no storage boxes? Did you originally buy boxes of ammo but you used the rest?

Isn't the minimum quantity for bullets a box?

LOL

And BTW in those days you had to have a special machine to do that. Oswald of course never had one, since he was never into guns. And since they could never prove he purchased any, the WC was at loose ends on this one.

But not Craig. Nosiree.

And reloaders are something special? Come on jimbo...jump into reality. Oh wait, you don't do reality. Sorry.

Seriously though Craig, how do you get to that situation of having a mix of bullets and yet no storage boxes? Did you originally buy boxes of ammo but you used the rest?

Isn't the minimum quantity for bullets a box?

First you don't need to store your ammo in factory boxes, an second , yes you can shoot partial boxes at the range and save and load the rest . Again nothing sinister.

Besides how can you rule out the rounds being purchased or given individually from another person and not the store?

Craig:

This is a non sequitir by you.

Oswald was not a gun nut. Just read Reasonable Doubt .Another book you probably never heard of. All his buddies in the Marines, virtually all of them, said Oswald simply did not have any real affinity for guns.

And that has what to do with the anything? Oh yea, nothing. Just another case of a ct making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, does your ammo have Winchester bullets wrapped in Remington shells? Because that is what the evidence found at the Tippit murder scene includes.

Those are called RELOADS. Again no big deal at all. Except when a kook reads it.

Go back to Varnell.

That weak stick can't even figure out how the sun works.

BTW Craig, I saw the Wilkinson scans last weekend.

You are really not going to like it, if you ever see it.

I advise you not to.

LOL! What makes you think I don't know exactly what those frames contain in high rez jimbo and that I can look at them at will..anytime I want?

Don't pin your hopes on folks who can't prove a thing.....oh wait. That's your SOP. Never mind.

I don't think you're safe with such a small arsenal of weapons.

If a Venezuelan task force ever tries to occupy your home you're gonna need a couple of rocket launchers and possibly a flame thrower or they're gonna be all over you like a rash.

What makes you think that's all?

Well Mark, to most people these are puzzling. You don't buy ammo that way.

The thing is also: Where did the boxes go?

But see, this is even sillier. In New Orleans, when Oswald was arrested, Quigley got one of his FPCC cards signed as Hidell.

In other words, Oswald knew the FBI knew about the alias.

But yet, we are to believe that Oswald would then use a rifle purchased IN THAT NAME THE FBI KNEW OF to kill Kennedy.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

I have two different makes and types of ammo loaded in my bedside .357, the only ones of those types in my possession, and no boxes for either....And the 9mm has three different types in the mag. Lets not even talk about the .45....

Nothing unusual about it at all, unless you are trying to make something out of nothing, which is pretty much your standard course of action.

That's what you are avoiding. The physical evidence. You're avoiding the fact that every time you raise your arm to wave the fabric of your shirt indents along the shoulder-line. Every time.

LOL! varnell waves his magic fantasy wand one again and tells us he has personally witnessed every shirt and every arm wave in recorded history. This forum prevents using the correct word to describe varnell and this statement. But it's just more crap like his long standing claim of the amount of slack in custom made shirts. He just made them both up from thin air.

What a sorry and very desperate person....a fantasy so deeply embedded he must resort to fairy tales to try and justify it.

..That's it? "Weak stick"...?

I hadn't realized how far down the LN rhetoric has fallen these days. I guess that's why David VP and Paul Baker can't chime in on the subject. Craig hasn't left them with anything but thin spew...Tough break, lads.

It must be rough when you have nothing to say in defense of your position...

ROFLMAO!

I don't have a 'position'. I have unimpeachable fact. It destroys your childish 'position'.

You ARE a very weak stick who got beat because you can't even understand how the sun works.

Not that the truth will ever filter into your fantasy filled brain.

Deal with it varnell. You lost.

Cliff and Craig have mentioned the clothing evidence which I know they have "discussed" extensively before.

Again, if I try to look objectively at this, it would seem, on the whole, that the photographic record shows that JFKs jacket was not lying flat, which would explain wounds not lining up with the holes in the clothing.

Correct. The jacket was not laying perfectly flat. The hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the shirt is 4"-even below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

The shirt wasn't bunched up at all. When Martin White (or Paul Baker or anyone with a shirt on) lifts his arm to wave a la JFK it causes the shirt fabric to indent.

In other words, I can see that the hole in the jacket might not necessarily line up with the wound.

Non sequitur. The "high back wound" requires multiple inches of both shirt and jacket movement

The burden of proof is on Martin White et al to demonstrate this event.

But none of these folks ever do.

Never. Ever.

So a hole in the jacket at 5 3/4" from the shoulder might not necessarily equate to a wound at 5 3/4" from the shoulder.

The problem is, that's exactly where the autopsy sheet and Berkeley's death certificate put the wounds. So we are left, again, with a seemingly intractable problem.

The only problem is your inability to back up your characterization of the clothing evidence, Martin.

Show us how you bunch up multiple inches of tucked-in custom-made dress shirt and a near-equal amount of tailored suit jacket.

Show us. For once, just once, will you people show us what you are claiming?

Of course not...It isn't possible. But please proceed with the contentless claims, Martin...

The holes in the clothing shouldn't line up with the wounds but they do.

You don't appear particularly aware of what clothing "should do," frankly. Please produce a little demonstration of this clothing movement you posit? Tucked-in custom-made dress shirt, please.

Show us the multiple inch upward displacement by waving your arm.

Until you or Craig or Paul or David Von P produce this replication, your claims are less than worthless.

Only in your warped little fantasy world cliff

Your claim has been destroyed. That is unimpeachable.

Deal with it.

That's right. In the JFK case there are no absolutes. Unless, that is, one is needed to nail Oswald to the wall. And if the necessary absolute doesn't work just keep changing it until you get one that does. As in the case of William Whaley.

The absolute concerning the time of the bus that Helen Markham got to work every day, in the world that you and David Von Pein inhabit, doesn't exist.

In Bakerville, Helen Markham left her home that afternoon at her REGULAR time to catch her REGULAR bus that you would have us believe had already left.

Similar to William Whaley's manifest stating in black and white that he dropped Oswald off BEFORE he picked him up.

So the congratulations are all yours.

Congratulations on believing, and supporting, the biggest pile of BS ever committed to paper.

Yes Lee, I live in a fantasy world called Bakerville, where all the hard physical evidence

They wear clothes in Bakerville?

The clothing evidence proves at least two shooters fired at Kennedy.

LNers and High-Back-Wound "CTs" are in complete denial on this issue.

LOL! You don't understand the clothing evidence varnell. You can't even understand how the SUN works. What a weak stick....

Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.

The response, you guys simple got it wrong. You shallow and very amateur attempt at a recreation proved a couple of things.

First you did not prove any of your claims, in fact you did not even TRY to accurately recreate many of your so called alterations in Altgens.

Second your blatant omission of these tests proved your utter corruption.

Third, the photo of Ralph with a perfect vee shadow proves it was a round neck tee shirt.

And finally the nail in the coffin of the OIP is Ralph standing there with his white tee shirt obscured by shadow.

You simply proved YOURSELF wrong.

Getting back to the reenactment, which is the subject of this thread, here we have a collage which demonstrates a problem in the Altgens photo.

I presume no one is going to argue about the fact that Doorman's cuff appears to be in front of the Black Man's neck. We don't see his neck because Doorman's cuff comes in front of it. But, that was impossible. There was a lot of distance between them. And as I demonstrated, I couldn't get anywhere near his neck. You can see my hand floundering.

The Black Man was on a very low step, and as you went down, you went forward. The steps are both steep and deep. The black man that I placed there was tall: 6' 4", as was the black man in Altgens. He is way lower and way forward of me. My position on the landing was correct, and that is something that we figured out through trial and error. Look at the distance between his head and the column and my head and the white column. It's the same, right? I was standing at the edge of the landing, and it had to be the edge because if I stepped back much at all and I would have been in shade. And I was placed correctly from east to west. And as you can see, in actuality and in appearance, I could not get my arm anywhere near his neck. And this was using Tri-X film.

There is no logical explanation for why Doorman's cuff is wrapped around the Black Man's chin in the Altgens photo. It is an anomaly, and it should be triggering alarms in your head- especially since there are so many other anomalies in this photograph, which is strewn with them.

The logical explanation is that as we can all see quite clearly you simply screwed up your test.

And YOU complain about Myers...sheesh.

Notice that Von Pein does not "explain away" Doorman's missing shoulder, the BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, the obfuscated face, or the profile of the black man, which conceals the lower part of Doorman's shirt. Here's more proof that Doorman is Oswald, "50 points of ID for the 50th observance":

Whats to explain, There is NOTHING seen in Altgens that is abnormal. Your testing was less that professional nor informative.

Lets start with just this one.

Where are the images you took to show the body position of Lovelady from the Altgens camera position that show your stand in leaning forward, and turning towards Altgens with his shoulder dropped?

You do have these images, RIGHT?

What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films?

Thanks\DJ

So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101....

So you've finally figured out how much Z's camera has to SHIFT to produce the result we see supposedly caused by parallax?

Post your work and PROVE something rather than just telling everyone how RIGHT you are...

Or is that, like everything else... too far over your head to even attempt?

I've posted my work and PROVED I'm right. You are simply too incompetent to understand, and thus your straw man and very childish arguments.

As for the rest, there is simply not enough data to reconstruct the scene accurately. Welcome to reality. Oh wait, you don't DO reality...my bad.

(gotta ROFLMA over you posting AGAIN...this your last one before your last one? LMAO!)

What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films?

Thanks\DJ

So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101....

There is no image of me from the photo-shoot in which I have a perfect vee shadow. Lamson is basing that claim on this picture below.

Perhaps you could say that it is "veeish", but it is also meandering like a river. Doorman has two straight, unwavering arms to his vee. Just compare.

And it's obvious that my roundneck t-shirt is not being obscured by the shadow. It is preposterous what Lamson is claiming: that there is a crescent of white t-shirt that is being completely obliterated, rendered invisble, on Doorman. How does the image of me corroborate that? It doesn't. It refutes it.

Of course its a vee shadow and it wanders because it is falling on an uneven surface...the fabric of your shirt collar. This is "how a shadow works101" and you just failed.

Example..this is the very same shadow.

And that folks is the entire ball game. Cinques loses and loses big time.

Bu there is icing on the cake. There is that image of a white tee shirt obscured by a shadow.

You what that one to finally nail this coffin shut Ralph? You should know the photo well, its a tri-x shot you claim is one of your favorites. too bad it destroys you.

See ya around old man... I for one have had enough of your foolishness...

Yea, that is in fact your very best option given just how bad you look now that you have failed in every endeavor trying to refute the irrefutable.

Running away from your errors is clearly the only option you have left. Actually admitting that have it wrong just won't fit your warped worldview.

Thanks Craig....

We all get it - you just can't do it.... no harm in admitting you're WAY out of your league on this and any other JFK forum...

You simply do not have the chops to be able to apply your little experiments to the reality of the evidence...

You've been reduced, yet again, to the parents from the Peanuts cartoons... "Waa-wa wa waaaa, waa-wa-wa...."

The 2 guests here you are trying to convince can have you...

and of course you have Rago... both on equal footing when it comes to understanding the event....

Thank for playing old man.... and PROVING you're simply all talk.

It's time for your nap and meds so the grownups can have a real discussion....

LOL!

This from the guy who FAILED in his own experiment attempting to show no parallax...that actually SHOWED parallax!

Lets review daives little 'mistake" and review how "out of his league' he really is:

http://s1233.beta.photobucket.com/user/dhjosephs/media/Video0029.mp4.html

You can't have an intelligent discussion here because you simply DON'T understand the material despite the massive efforts to educate you.

The facts remain, even though it is way beyond your ken. Even Burnham knows I have it correct and Costella got it wrong, as witnessed by his very transparent attempt to change the subject and call the blatant error from the "PhD" in physics who got the physics wrong an "overstatement".

I get hundreds of hits a month on the Costella links. Lots of comments but never a single one saying it was wrong. Even YOU can't show it is wrong despite days of trying a a mountain of worthless words.

Welcome to the real world davie. Reality must suck for you.

Expertly done Greg....

Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated...

CL is, and has always been just one of the rest of the uninformed masses...

Not interested in the actual assassiantion, history, context or evidence...

Just another puffed up ego needing a release... so he vomits all over this forum, repeatedly.

Just like the little schoolground bully he likes to believe he is... look him in his beady little eyes and ask for PROOF....

and you get EVERYTHING BUT....

Once again Greg... EXPERTLY DONE and thank you for exposing, yet again, this person for what and who he pretends to be....

So what exactly has the shill Burnham exposed besides he can't read?

And this: ROFLMAO!

"Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated..."

The only hand waver who CAN'T authenticate his evidence here is John Costella. See you can't even get that part correct.

Lets review again what you and he can't seem to understand.

Costella sez parallax cannot make a 'vertical change angles when the camera moves.

This in fact proves in an unimpeachable manner that it can.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm.

Burnham nor davie here can even come close to refuting it. The best Burnham can do is call it an "overstatement" and a "shortcut" by the so called 'scientist' who holds his finger in front of his face and sez...look... He calls for measurements and yet his so called expert has absolutely none published in regards to the parallax issue. Can you say hypocrite?

In fact davie has even shown he can't even UNDERSTAND the argument nor the principle of parallax. Given the amount of material presented, this is just plain ignorance on his part.

It is really instructive to watch those you claim such a huge desire for the finding of truth, ignore it when it is their ox being gored.

There is no interest in the truth only supporting their own warped worldview.

Davie is a sterling example.

No measurements. A pity. I was going to go to bat for you.

Yep you have no data to support your claim. What a shock.

You should have stayed on the sidelines. You made your self look impotent.

I would like to thank Craig Lamson for his honesty. This thread has been here for over two years. We now find out that Craig never measured anything

within the Zapruder film. Nothing. No distances. No angles. Not a thing. (Or he just refuses to tell). John Costella measured EVERYTHING. It is impossible

to test Lamson's "work" because he cannot provide the RAW DATA that would have been required for him to reach any scientific conclusions, let alone

refute the scientific conclusions of someone else.

Lamson's cry of "Costella was wrong" is weak and irrelevant. What exactly was Costella wrong about? Perhaps he overstated a point. Big deal. It is,

at worst, a short-cut. However, this does not have any bearing on the specifics of the subject. For the specifics, we need measurements. And what did

Lamson measure? Nothing. Not one thing.

He has no argument. He has rebutted himself by omission.

LOL! What a very weak attempt to cover for the complete and abject failure of John Costella. Costella himself is afraid to come here and try so he sends this weak stick Burnham to try and redirect Costellas failure as MINE?

LMAO!

Burnham sez"

Perhaps he (Costella) has "overstated a point"

Is a direct falsehood a "overstatement"

Lets review Costella's statement:

"If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery."

Thai statement was not the result of careful measurements of calculations. it was not made by means other than Costella's inaccurate understanding of how parallax works. it was nothing more than a failed appeal to authority.

I challenge Burnham to post the measurements and calculations Costella has published to support his claim that the angles cannot change based on Parallax.

Burnham sez this:

"John Costella measured EVERYTHING."

Then PROVE IT by showing us his published works with his measurements and calculations supporting his claim that:

"If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery."

This is really simple.

Costella waved his hands and WRONGLY told the world that something was impossible when it clearly is.

I offered a very simple test that proves Costella has this wrong.

ANYONE can do the test for them self. There is not need for complex measurements or calculation, you don't even need a camera, even though that provides graphic proof.

The principle works EVERY TIME. All you need is a leaning post and a good eye.

One thing this thread has established is just how meaningless Greg Burnham's words really are. He has revealed it all.

He is simply a shill. Talk about not having a argument...