Craig Lamson

You too are painting with that same broad brush. You need to not assume so much.

And the conservative is hellbent on making sure it stays just that way - unfair. Conservatives always have the attitude: I'm ok, the hell if I care about you. They oppossed an end to slavery and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives. They oppossed women's rights or rights for non-whites and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives. They oppossed the eight hour day and all other labor laws and we'd have them still if it were up to conservatives. et al........ad nauseum They oppose any kind of social services, welfare, safety nets, help for those in need, progress - domestic and foreign. They always always seem to like conflict, war, injustice - as long as they are on the 'winning' end of it. Exploitation....always been that way...no reason to change it if it 'aint broke. I've got enough or lots of money - so why bother me about those that do not....they made 'their choice' I helped make for them. It is 'broken'.....has long been...slowly we fight the Neaderthal in humans and make some slow progress. It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism. We all once lived in the sea - things can change.....try it sometime. Change - positive change You paint with such a wonderful broad brush, too bad you loaded it with BS before it hit the canvas. Take another sip of the koolaid Peter, you appear thirsty.

Question for those who HAVE NO CLUE! Exactly What is the black shape COVERING the lower triangle chrome strip. Hints for the "its a hand" crowd...its not a shadow or a reflection of the seat. Try dealing with this tidbit before wasting more bandwidth....

What do I think? I think you need to deal with what is hanging over the lower chrome strip. You do still remember that don't you? As to Hill, guess what he's a human and humans have the ability to MOVE!

Looks perfect to me...whats to question?

Nice photo of a hand shake, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with the photo in question. I am certainly amazed at how much time has been wasted on an illusion that when thought through it should have been obvious that the alleged hand is anatomically incorrect to be supported by the evidence. The amount of the alleged wrist that is seen is hardly as wide as the alleged thumb. As said before - a hand laying against those leather seats could not possibly have sunken into the cushion and hidden that much of JFK's hand and wrist and simply rotating ones hand a few degrees isn't going to compensate for this problem. Bill Miller All this hand business is just stupid. Lets take Dolva's contention that the fingers are "black" due to blood. If they were fingers they would be in direct sun and as such would have recorded on film as very light gray or more likely white. Due to the angle of he sun there would have to be a dark shadow with a very hard edge under the folded finger tips. Thats not what we see in the photo. we see BLACK "fingers" in bright sun. Dolva suggests its because of blood on the fingers. In B/W photography red can photograph as very dark grey, almost black. That works great in a situation where the surface in question is not specular. Bloodly fingers WOULD HAVE A SPECULAR SURFACE...unless the blood was totally dry...dust dry. The photo in question was taken just moments after JFK was shot. So the question becomes, can this "blood" on this "hand" be totally, dust dry just moments after the shooting? If the answer is no then its not a hand. Physics will not allow it. Wet or even damp blood would have a highly specular surface. A surface that would greatly REFLECT light...and the sky. I can't wait to see how the nutjobs deal with this one...

Nice photo of a hand shake, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with the photo in question. I am certainly amazed at how much time has been wasted on an illusion that when thought through it should have been obvious that the alleged hand is anatomically incorrect to be supported by the evidence. The amount of the alleged wrist that is seen is hardly as wide as the alleged thumb. As said before - a hand laying against those leather seats could not possibly have sunken into the cushion and hidden that much of JFK's hand and wrist and simply rotating ones hand a few degrees isn't going to compensate for this problem. Bill Miller But...but...but...the hand is at the wrong angle, you used the wrong lens, Its not actually JFK's hand, you altered your photo....

So what? The original image you are using is simply crap, regardless of the source. You can reproduce you "effect" until the cows come home using the crap image, but who really cares? Its junk research. Sheesh, there are better images right here on this thread. You are still dodging the physics. Why? This is elemental. Deal with the hard stuff John... if you can.

The problem is that in such a system as you idealize here, there are necessarily going to be people left behind and left without, and not because of some lack of effort on their part. There will be people and families who simply can't cut it in such a "strong and vibrant" system. This is just as much a fact of life as the corruption that you accept as a fact of life. It's fine to be a realist, I try to be one too, but one shouldn't be selective about it. I know there are charities and all that for folks who can't cut it. But it's an absolute disgrace IMO that the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the military, but can't provide its citizens, in this the most prosperous nation on earth, with free health care when they need it. Even folks who aren't poor are having trouble buying medication they have to have, because of the way the drug companies in this "strong and vibrant" system are gouging them simply because they can do it. You are right that there will always be those that have and those that dont. I fully understand that. I'm not against safety nets, I'm against wholesale support. We do supply a huge number of our citizens with health care ( and its not "free"). But that said not eveyone "needs" it. A good many choose simply not to purchase coverage making other choices instead. Its about personal responsibility. Some people make good choices and others don't. Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality. If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy. Beat then at their own game...of course in no time someone is bound to whine about it and suggest that the government "fix" it.

I am also a businessman who has made money out of the capitalist system. I also have the kind of political views that would get me locked up in so called “socialist” dictatorships. I am all in favour of political freedom, however I believe everybody should have this freedom, not just the rich and powerful. As a result of my income, I pay a lot of money in taxes. I do not object to that. I believe it is important that wealth should be redistributed via the tax system. However, I am very concerned that this money is not wasted, especially on some monopoly contract that has been achieved via bribing the government. Well that explains your position. The issue for you is not about government corruption or getting into an unnecessary war, it is about whether you are getting a good return for your investment. That is why people like you are so keen on governments increasing money on military spending. It probably also explains why conservative extremists are so opposed to spending on social welfare. I suppose it is more difficult to make money out of this type of government spending. You are right the issue for me is NOT about corruption as I explained eariler. I'm a realist, not and idealist, and as such I understand that corruption is an ever present human condition. Its simply never going away John, no matter how many idealists wish it so. And yes I want the best return on my investment possible, why should I want anything less? I dont feel the war is unecessary, in fact I think it was long overdue. I'm just wondering when the rest of the world will wake up. I support military spending because its needed. There may come a time in the near future when your very existance might ride on the power of the American military. Oh wait, your very existance right now might be the result of American military power. There is money to be made from social welfare spending as well. My objection to most of it is that it sucks the lifeblood from the people of the country. A strong and vibrant counrty is not a country that sucks from the tit of governent. Personal responsibility breeds strength, dependance on the government breeds weakness.

Still trying to save some face by using perhaps the worst scan of an image I have ever seen....sheesh. Instead of playing silly games trying to find detail in overly compressed jpg files that appear to have been scanned or even photographed with a digital camera from a poorly reproduced halftone ... deal with the PHYSICS John! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Gosh I love watching quality research in action! LOL!

I've seen the light John, take another sip of koolaid, you appear thirsty. So whats hanging over the lower chrome strip John? Ever going to deal with that little tidbit again or are you still trying to undersand how reflections work? John, I'm confused by this photo. (Obviously.) The two versions of the photo scanned directly from the Sat. Post by Floyd and Jack seemed to show an intact shape, looking like the toe area of a shoe, hanging over the chrome strip. Now you're posting images where the strip seems to run through the "toe of the shoe." Did this line show up when you lightened the photo? Is this from the Yarborough Exhibit? Where did this line come from? If this line is real, then Craig's observation that the dark shape is overhanging the chrome and could not be a shadow would appear to be incorrect... Grasping at straws again Pat. REGARDLESS of Dolva screwing with a jpg image of a REALLY poor scan ( thats quality research for ya) the physics eliminate this dark shape being a shadow or a reflection of the seat. Thats simply the bottom line.

So whats hanging over the lower chrome strip John? Ever going to deal with that little tidbit again or are you still trying to understand how reflections work?

post moved.

I think we are getting good value for our money. Others may not agree. So be it. In addition as a stockholder of Halliburton I expect the company to use every legal method possible be a profitable as possible. I WANT them to work on the razors edge. If they are required to return monies, it makes me happy because in my book they are doing their job. I won't complain about a tax increase to reduce debt, if thats how it actually gets used.

To quote myself from a long time ago, when I was a buyer for a wholesaler hard at work trying to get "volume discounts" from our suppliers, "the problem with economic competition is that no one believes in it, least of all capitalists." A successful capitalist, in most cases, is not someone who provides a good or service at a reasonable rate, and outworks his competition, but someone who outmaneuvers or crushes his competition, so that he can have the field to himself and charge an unreasonable rate. "Greed is good." Yep, greed IS good. Why should I try to provide my goods and services at a reasonable rate. The main goal of ANY good corporation is to maximize profit. Its my responsibility to my corporation to get the top dollar for our services goods and services. Why setlle for less? Who exactly does that serve?

It was a typo. I meant to write "won the no-bid." Uuuuuh how exactly do you "win" a no bid? That the contract wa a no bid wa the whole point Clark is a Dem activist/candidate and O'Neil had his ego/feelings hurt when he was rightly bounced for doing a crappy job. I think he actually meant Richard Clarke, but how do you explain the Downing St Memo? Yes, I'm sure the death-cult extremists who slammed airplanes into our buildings, or blew up resorts in Bali, or blew up innocent train passengers in London and Bombay had Halliburton uppermost in their minds. How great it must be to be a terrorist these days. The very Westerners you're trying to kill make excuse after excuse for your murderous behavior. It's the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. This is a war for civilization. WAKE UP. The invasion of Iraq was a huge boost for the Islamic extremists. Supposedly the CIA concluded bin Laden wanted Bush to win in 2004 thus his "kiss of death" endorsement of Kerry [ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html ]. Whether or not the report is accurate or not obviously bin-Laden was smart enough to know that endorsing Kerry would lose him votes. I see, so FDR and Churchill were just as bad as Hitler. Fighting real evil makes you evil. Gothca. No he was obviously argueing the opposite. I take it you don't have any West Coast Japanese ancestors. Or history books. I'm also pretty sure FDR ordered the execution of German saboteurs, sans trial. I take it you don't have a dictionary, find one and look up the definition of "need". The internment of the Japanese was not necessary or do you want to argue the US would have lost the war otherwise. As for the supposed "execution of German saboteurs, sans trial" please provide a citation. Even IF this were true I doubt it would have been necessary either. Len I don't think the quetion was so much that he made money but how, i.e. that he used his power and influence for personal gain at the expense of others blood and money. This not proper capitalism but rather an abuse of it. How would you feel if you were locked out of getting state and federal contracts because they were being awarded at inflated prices to a company associated with a politician? Its how business works Len, might not like all of it but its how the game is played. I'm guessing its been that way since the beginning of humans trading with other humans. The reality is there is no such thing as "proper capitalism" . Corruption exists and will always exist. Is it right? No. Can it really be changed? I don't think so. Now I can choose to play by the rules, written or unwritten, or choose not to play. I choose to play. And Ill fault no one for using their position or power to make deals. However I also expect them to follow the law and if they break it then I want them punished, which is what I demand and expect from myself. Now as this applies to the awarding of contracts to Halliburton, I don't think any laws have been broken, but I am willing to concede that point if the law has been broken. The performance during the length of the contract is another matter. I lock out my competors and charge more money than they do all the time due to personal relationships, power in the marketplace and my professional position. I've earned it. Is that wrong or immoral? Sure this on a slightly smaller level but the concept is the same.

But compositors of 1963/64 could not do such an undetectable job as to fool todays experts. Bill Miller ....and perhaps they didn't fool Jack White. Jack has taught us all too look and think and see 'outside of the box'. That alone is more important than the individual contributions/challenges to standard viewing IMHO even if I think that many, have validity in and of themselves - perhaps some others are a 'reach'. The planners and the cover-up-ers were real magicians and one must use non-standard thinking and photo analysis to even attempt to see what they were doing. To site but one...the composite ID photo of two persons so that two Oswalds could use it and share an identity. If you don't look you won't find. Thanks Jack for years of helping us see more clearly! I personally think the research community and the nation are indebted to you for peering out of the 'box' they wanted us to see in their magic act 11/22/63. Ah yes...Whites study of the LHO Minsk photo. So you find that of value eh? I'm not surpised. Thats one of White's great failures. White maintains that he is sure the photo was retouched because of a shadow behind LHO he says is impossible due to the lighting direction on LHO and must have been added by airbrushing. We are expected to believe this not based on any actual research but rather simply due to Whites "many years as a photographer and retoucher". However there is a slight problem. The shadow is not imposible, in fact quite the opposite is true. Its actually quite simple to create and the results match the LHO image to a tee. How do I know this? I made a photograph. I also detailed exactly how it could happen and posted this information at the looney forum. Of course White went into denial. Claimed he could not understand how it was possible even thought there were drawings and actual photographs to show thow it was done and how it WAS possible for that shadow to appear in the LHO photo. He would have none of that of course. Claimed all sorts of things to discredit the findings, even gave me the nickname "Mr. Light". Jack never attacks...LOL! Anyways the point is that Jack knows far less than he wants everyone to believe. That has been shown over and over and over. Now you find Jacks questions to be outside the box. Great. But unless you can deal with the REAL answers to his "out of the box" questions, what is the point? In the end do you actually WANT to deal with the real answers or are you, as it appears, more interested in anything that supports your worldview regardless of the validity? Jacks work alsmost always fails because he does not understand most of the basic principals on which photography is based. Instead he makes stuff up and asks the reader simply believe him based on his supposed authority ( you know..his often stated 50 years of photography experience and years as a retoucher) . The problem is we know his appeal to authority is a false appeal. He has no authority. He was a snapshot shooter who has admitted he has little understand of light and shadow. He has also admitted to having little experience doing detailed retouching on photographs, and no experience doing composites. His statements concering photographic effects have been shown to be false time and time again. So why is it you find his work of value? Because it's true? Or because regardless of the validity, it fits your worldview?

I am afraid your memory fails you. This is the story of what is now called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap). In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world. The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make. KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes. The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes. KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place). Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton. Thanks, thats mostly what I found as I read last night. I personally dont have a big problem with all of this. Halliburton and its other companies certainly have the skills and the assets to perform these tasks. Someone is going to profit in WAR OR PEACE from government actions. And sure the principals of Halliburton made money but it also flowed downhill to a whole lot of other folks. As for Cheney, are the yeary sums his pension? Again I've no problem with Cheney making money from his association with Halliburton. I'm a capitalist. I am a business owner. I support the process. I count my lucky stars that I live in a place and time that makes my choice to risk it all and chase my dreams possible. So as long as what Cheney and Halliburton has done is within the law, more power to them. If and when they break the law then punish them...its nothing more than I would expect for myself.

Pat, From memory ( and it sure could be wrong) the no-bid contract was awarded during the Clinton Administration and was still in effect when Bush took office. And again from memory the contract was awarded after a bid competition... I recall reading reasoning behind this setyup ws to allow for quick response in times of need. Not sure if thats a great reason.... I'll do a bit of research and see how well my memory is doing in my old age.

Thats correct.

Uh, if thats a shirt cuff it is turned at least 1/2 a turn from where it should be, which would be BEHIND HILLS FOOT! LOL!

Not bad art, simply bad deductions on your part. The fingers don't appear to be even close to the second chrome strip but rather just resting on the down slope from the bubble top ledge. You dont see the fingertips because they are hidden by the top edge of the lower chome strip. Too long, I dont think so. More like a silly CT's run amuck. Shadow? What shadow? None there. A reflection from Hill knuckles...yes. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all that rot ya know. And yes the angles do work. Like I said eariler, buy a clue because dude you are clueless. Entertaining stuff though, I'm lmao.

Where are Hills fingertips? Tablesaw accident? LOL!

Here is another scaling I tried, but abandoned it because of possible parallax problems. These guys would have you think I just fell off the turnip truck. Another lie which they rely on: Blakey's ambush of me with the arcane word PHOTOGRAMMETRY which is used to smear me. Before that day, 99.9 percent of the populace had never heard of that word. I had worked all my life in photography and had never known of it...but I also DID IT EVERY DAY. It is a fancy way of saying MEASURING PHOTOGRAPHS. There IS NO SUCH SCIENCE. I recently googled this: UNIVERSITY COURSES DEGREES PHOTOGRAMMETRY and found that not a single university offered a course in photogrammetry, much less a degree. I found one mention, that it was used by the military to analyze AERIAL PHOTOS. So much for that baloney. Jack Nobody ever said it was a science. It's a technique used in several different scientific fields. And yes, you still don't know what you're talking about. Blakey: 1 White: 0 Oddly (maybe not) virtually all google choices refered to Jack White and HSCA. It was difficult to even find a definition or even mentions of it being used in any scientific fields, as mr know-nothing claims. Most uses referred to NASA or the military or aerial photos. It is a little used terminology which means "taking measurements on a photo" and is not some technical specialty. I know that it is taught at places like MIT, but even there, I could not find it mentioned, because I googled "MIT photogrammetry" and found no mention. Basically, it is a non-issue....just like ONCOLOGY, which most people do not know means the study of cancer. Jack Non Issue..yea right! ROFLMAO! Thanks for showing us all what a crasppy researcher you are...ROFLMAO! I'm not sure these folks think its little used terminology or that its not some technical specialty... http://cipa.icomos.org/ http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/papers/goeteborg/97s023.pdf http://www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch/research...cad/dapcad.html http://www.archpho.al-wie.de/ Learning photogrammetry: http://www.plan.aau.dk/~jh/ldip.htm http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/354000810...ce&n=283155 http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/OEEPE/tour/theory.htm http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/subjects/451-447.html (I LOVE this one..U of Melborne..Costella's haunt! LOL!) http://www.pct.edu/catalog/courses/for122.shtml http://www.ge.ucl.ac.uk/courses/msc_taught..._remote_sensing http://www.engr.wisc.edu/cee/courses/cee405.html http://www.citadel.edu/registrar/eq.shtml http://fortlewis.edu/cmsdocs/course_catalo...rse_catalog.pdf http://www.evc.edu/mse/course_desc.asp?sub...ng%20Technology http://www.esri.com/industries/university/...s/cayugacc.html http://www.esri.com/industries/university/...s/cayugacc.html http://www.ferris.edu/survey-engineering-degree.htm http://www.eng.ohio-state.edu/academic/deg...ograms/GEOM.php http://www.colorado.edu/geography/virtdept...oto/rsphoto.htm ...and on and on and on... Photogrammetry Cameras: http://maya.csuhayward.edu/archaeoplanet/A...o94/Bronica.htm http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/Roll...ogrammetry.html