Craig Lamson

So what is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip? If you attempt to claim its is a shadow or even better a reflection of the seat then you must also show exactly HOW that would be possible.

You should buy a clue, it appears the one you might have had is defective.

Uh..no this "expert has it entirely backwards. The Boeing software flight concept is NOT to override the pilots commands in ANY situation. Airbus on the other hand takes the stance this "expert" claims applies to the Boeing jets. Good grief you WILL believe anything as long at it fits your worldview. What a sheep!

Perhaps a better understanding of the angle of incidence equals angle of reflection might be helpful. No let me take that back...ANY understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflectinon..... You like to make silly drawings, Make a profile view of the limo at the back door jamb. Show us all the camera angle that will allow the seat back to be reflected in the lower chrome. Wishing it so will not make it so. show us photog.... dazzle us! I have shown you everything needed to understand this problem. You just too ignorant to understand davie? They not teach you this stuff in news videographers night school?

Perhaps a better understanding of the angle of incidence equals angle of reflection might be helpful. No let me take that back...ANY understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflectinon..... You like to make silly drawings, Make a profile view of the limo at the back door jamb. Show us all the camera angle that will allow the seat back to be reflected in the lower chrome. Wishing it so will not make it so.

I have never claimed to be an aeronautical expert. Those are your words. Of course I agree with the official story, and the points both Len and I have made in this regard are on this forum along with the relevant links. You want to find them I suggest you use the search function, if you know how. If you missed it the first time around maybe you wil have better luck this time. Len may be willing to repeat himself for the sorry likes of you, I will not. I ask for expert answers, and all I get is tap dancing. Oh well, at least you said you agreed with the official report, which is said by experts to be aeronautically impossible. Maybe possible for an F-16, but not a 757. Is that your final answer? Jack Or course it is my final answer because I have seen, what your "experts" have to say. Problem is they are no more "experts" then I am. So please bring them on if you must, but be prepared , once again, to see your "experts" debunked. Hey, maybe you can give that smuck Costella a call, he seems to be an expert in EVERYTHING!

What utter bs. If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue. The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue. This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings. The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation. You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours. All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP. Now our good friends overseas may understand WHY some of us in the States that support (or at least have an open mind regarding same) JFK assassination related photo/film alteration, pay little heed to the likes of Lamson and company. He's just to damn polite and courteous, ROFLMAO -- But we understand, Craig's pissed cause Gary Mack suffered a setback on this forum. So don't take it personal, JohnD.... Craig thinks photo reality is what sold the Warren Commission Report to the American Public. And of course, up to 90% of America agree; a *conspiracy* murdered JFK! (with or withOUT photos) CLICK!

I have never claimed to be an aeronautical expert. Those are your words. Of course I agree with the official story, and the points both Len and I have made in this regard are on this forum along with the relevant links. You want to find them I suggest you use the search function, if you know how. If you missed it the first time around maybe you wil have better luck this time. Len may be willing to repeat himself for the sorry likes of you, I will not.

What utter bs. If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue. The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue. This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings. The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation. You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours. All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

I recall making a post that pointed out that if that was JFK's hand, then his arm has to be bent at the elbow to get that steep angle. That would make his arm as long, if not longer, than his legs. I never heard you address that point, but if one wishes to believe it is JFK's hand, then I guess an arm can be as long as you wish it to be. Bill Miller I would agree that if it's JFK's hand then he was not laying on the seat on his left side as might otherwise be assumed. Perhaps Jackie was moving him around a bit to make room for Hill in the car. My goal in this thread was to discuss photo alteration in the media. There is no way the Yarborough Exhibit and the 11-24 Dallas Morning News photo depict the same shape or foot and you know it. The photo has undoubtedly been retouched. For some reason, rather than admit this simple fact, you and Lamson have decided to argue whether or not it was Hill's foot. The point, repeated now for the umpteenth time, is that the Dallas Morning News and the AP had NO WAY of knowing if it was Clint Hill's foot or any foot at all, but sold MILLIONS of photos in newspapers and books around the world with the blatantly false claim the photo depicted Kennedy's foot. I feel this is symbolic of the media's overall lack of concern for accuracy. Good god Pat, if this is the best you can read and comprehend, you have to be the worst researcher in the history of the world. RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY THREAD, I have admited the AP photo was altered. I also gave my reasons FOR NOT CARING if the AP or any publication altered an image. They still do..so what? Its a simple fact of life and I'm guessing it is going to change in my lifetime. No I have argued that you, White and Dolva have screwed up in your "quest" to find a hand instead of a foot. I simply pointed out that what you guys considered a shadow could not be a shadow nor a reflection due to some very simple physics. Of course none of you can address this problem, least of all your "photo expert" White. That is almost too funny for words! I have also stated right here on this thread when asked directly by you, that my basis for finding the object to be a foot was the total weight of the evidence. You on the other hand were willing to disregard the evidence to support your nutjob hand theory. Not very intellectually honest of you in my book. And then you are slam the media for doing EXACTLY what you White and Dolva have done...simply amazing! But I do want to thank you for laying bare the real Pat Speer. Objective you ain't.

Bravo, Peter! An excellent expose of one of the forum provocaterurs. Now do the same for all the others here. Some are assigned to JFK, some to Apollo, some to 911, some to the Zapruder Hoax. They spend full time defending official govt stories and secrets. Some of them seem assigned to follow Jack White around the internet and make vicious attacks on me. Check the forum threads and you will see they seldom post except in reply to Jack White research. It makes them stand out like sore thumbs. Better procedure would be to appear to be actual researchers to establish what the agency calls "bonafides". Instead, their every posting is to oppose and insult me. Some apparently use "agency" names instead of real names. Some have posted under two different names. I believe that (like LHO), some names are shared by different persons. Why would ANYONE spend FULL TIME defending wrongdoing? Their activities make no sense to anyone seeking the truth. As you say, why not just ignore researchers as they would "flat-earthers" if they are ordinary people? Only idiots or paid provocateurs would support the Warren Report. It makes no sense for ordinary people to do it so zealously. It is possible that all operate out of the same Langley office. It is nothing new to me. The first one was before the internet. His name was Roy Pope (no, not that Roy Pope) and he admitted to being a "former" CIA agent. He made long-distance phone calls to me from all over the world in the 70s, talking for hours about the MC rifle. He had a great voice over the phone, like a radio announcer. Several years later, Mary Ferrell brought him to one of my slide lectures, and he turned out to be short, chubby and bald...I was disappointed that he did not look like James Bond...and he fell asleep during the slide show. He claimed to be a private detective, and claimed an association with Gerry Patrick Hemming. The "other" Roy Pope was a former agent also. He founded the National Enquirer". Jack ROFLMAO!

I ask again. Quit theorizing about it. Post a picture simulating Hill's position. I can't do it. When I turn my leg far enough to the left to get my foot over the side of the couch, my trunk turns to my left as well. As stated, it doesn't really matter to me if it was a foot or a hand or a towel, for that matter. The point is that the object in the photo was clearly re-drawn to look like Kennedy's foot BEFORE the AP could possibly have known or suspected it was ANYONE'S foot. They were wrong. It was not Kennedy's foot. If, by chance, it turned out to be Hill's foot then that's just their dumb luck. P.S. Craig, do you believe, as Bill, that Hill's black socks appear white in the picture? Does that make sense to you? I'm not arguing either way, but that just seems strange. I'm not theorizing about anything..I've put my foot in a similar position. Why go to the trouble of trying to recreate the photo? I've been down that road before and its always the same thing...you retouched the photo, the angle is not quite right, you are in a different position...and on and on and on. And of course I've got no Lincoln and I'm not Hill dealing with being pumped up over the situation. So no. Either you believe me or not, I don't really care. How about you? Physics DEMANDS that for the lower chrome strip to be dark SOMETHING has to be over it..no shadow, no reflection. Thats a FACT Pat, no way around it. So what is it? I have to laugh at you going all nutjob on the papers claiming its JFK's foot, and here you are breaking the laws of physics trying to claim its JFK's hand! Intellectual honesty...anyone have any? LOL! Finally why not Hills black sock being rendered as white? Take a look at the motorcycle cops shoulder...a dark uniform rendered white...imagine that!

You are cracking me up Pat! Say, have you tried to see it YOU can get your foot into the same position as Hills yet or are you still waiting for someone to do it for you? I have tried, and failed miserably. To put one's foot in such a position one needs to turn one's right leg inwards to such an extent that it makes facing forwards impossible. Evidently, you believe one's knee can rotate as well as bend. I await your re-enactment. Uh..the leg also rotates at the hip and the foot rotates at the ankle. I've no problem getting into this position...but hey lets forget all of that and why don't you or ANYONE tell us just what might be hanging over the lower chrome strip....because it has to be something and its no shadow or reflection. You guys are trying to skip thisd vital piece of information. Dolva failed...how about you? Or White? Maybe Healy will offer an opinion! LOL!

You are cracking me up Pat! Say, have you tried to see it YOU can get your foot into the same position as Hills yet or are you still waiting for someone to do it for you?

Why not tell the forum the SOURCE of this quote.... www.cannabis.com What a great source...you sure these dudes can even remember their name? LOL!

Jack is senile. Thompson explained the drum scan on this forum already. Jack took the position that the drum scan was altered because of his idiotic 'Moorman in the street' claim. You see, his recreation photo didn't show the gap between the corner of the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background. However, that was a load of crap Jack handed everyone because it was obvious that all the Moorman prints showed the gap that Jack's recreation photo failed to achieve. When asked by Mark Oakes what she thought of the Jack White claim about her being in the street to take her famous Polarid ... Moorman replied, 'I think the whole thing is silly ... I was in the grass above the curb.' Let Jack post the gap as seen on the Badge Man print! Bill Miller Of course Jack claims the drun scan is altered...because it was the final nail in the Moorman in the street debacle. What is reaaly funny is that his claim was destroyed using many of the different scans available of variouls Moorman prints. I only suggested we do the drum scan of the negative to provide the closest and most detailed material to the original possible to complete the study. Jack on the other hand has to use scan of the zippo moorman that is nothing but indistinct blobs....go figure!

Wow! now you are claiming I retouched the drum scan? So tell me Jack, since you say you are an expert at detecting retouching, exactly WHAT telltale signs can you detect in the drum scan file that indicate retouching? And remember the are many copies all around for comparison. So don't try any funny business. And please explain why the drum scan MATCHES every other Moorman when it comes to the gap at the pedestal..even your crappy zippo, once to focus blur and the effects of your once too many jpg saves are take into account. Hell ever Costella has been trying to tell you that for years.. And interestingly it completely MATCHES the scan Tink made of the print produced from the negative that was later drum scanned. That print was posted many times on the web and and at the loonybin JFK forum for YEARS before the drum scan was made. How could I have retouched the scan from the neg when a print has existed for years on the web and as hard copy is others archives? And why would I since the drum scan can be easily compared to the original print made from the neg years ago. I can't wait to see you deal with that little tidbit as you try and make your case. So please. you make a serious charge, back it up with FACTS, not you opinion based on your eyeballing a really crappy zippo print. Of course if you can make a solid case, how wonderful for you're reputation and how very bad for mine. Of course I'm not worried because the drum scan was untouched. This should be very enterrtaining.

What century are you living in Jack, the darkroom is dead and buried... long gone in the age of professional digital. I do still have a nice e-6 dip and dunk processor, a C-41 roller transport processor, a 40" color print processor, a 20" Ilford b/w paper processor and 4 very nice Besslar 4x5 enlargers making an entire garage full of all the assorted darkroom stuff a COLOR and B/W photographer might want. Too bad its worthless these days since the advent of professional digital. I know it because I'VE done it. You? A few rolls of 35mm film on a stainless steel reel aint gonna cut it. But rest assured I can run your tired old butt into the ground when it comes to the darkroom. You dont have a chance when it comes to a camera nor retouching and compositing either. Heck I go back the the days of printing and processing 8x10s from 8x10 negs on a motorized platten contact printer..you know the kind where you use tissue paper and a grease pencil on a second stage below the negative to dodge, and with 15 or so movable lights that slide up and down and right and left to burn...well no you don't do you? Proceess 50 of them at a time in deep trays on fiber paper, soak then in a glossing agent after washing and them drying them on a big gas fired Pako ferrotype drum dryer...no you don't do you. Thats because you are a poser. Despite davies attempt to build up up, you are simply a wannabe. You have proven time and time again you don't have a bloody clue what is going on when it comes to photography. Simply a poser...50 years "experience"...what a hoot! Remember Jack you were a COPYWRITER... pretty good if too if the "facts" you like to write her eare any indication. But lets face it Jack when it comes to photography you are simply a hack.

Jack, I agree, he did however post 35 websites where one can get information regarding what I already know and know how to do... chemically and digitally... Maybe the Craigster will give the uniformed a lesson regarding the fine points of dodging and burning, I suspect he won't need Miller's website referrals, it should however keep him busy while he waits for our next post - what say, Craig? Few examples from you wouldn't hurt, take the heat of of Bill dealing with the issue and show what kind of expertise you might have -- bet only a few around here know what you do, time to get on the record? CLICK...you're gone..

Jack White sez: "I have NO THEORIES on how or when the fakery was done. But I can prove it was done. I will leave the theorizing to you. I deal in facts. See Apollo photo for example of faked photo." And he also sez in another tread on this forum: "But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short, would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist. Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above. Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that nicely. Jack" The truth is your friend Jack, you should try using it sometime. Jack White sez: "Cliff...I will be glad to respond to a reasonable question (a rarity here)." Gee there are dozens upon dozens of reasonable and to the point questions addressed to Jack White in this thread that have gone unanswered.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911 The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometime.

No Jack thats EXACLY what you told me in a long email some years ago. You even metioned wearing out 3 airbrushes "blowing out backgrounds" on product shots. You also told me how unskilled you were when it came to lighting and how your photo experience was limited to shooting small products on a table in your office with what was it...a Kodak view camera. You also told me your were considered the "top silde shooter in town" making slides on a copy stand for presentations. The rest of your limited photographic experience consists of some light darkroom work and snapshots of your locale. Not a very impressive cv if you ask me but its exactly as you told me. Now who is lying again White? But hey, post some high res scans of your "hundreds of retouched photos" and let see how good you really are..or IF you can actually retouch... BTW you can post large PNG files ( those are lossless, not like the crappy jpg's you are famous for) at www.pbase.com The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometime.

Valenti obviously is not familiar with motion picture history. In 1939 Jack Cosgrove was nominated for an academy award for the dozens of matte insertion paintings used in Gone With The Wind. Virtually every scene except closeups relied on painted insertions instead of sets...because of speed and costs. The film was way over budget and two years behind schedule. So scenes were shot in many cases with bare bones sets and were filled in by artists under Cosgrove, who used matte insertion to fill in the blanks. For instance, all scenes of Tara were paintings. A scene at the gate to Tara was shot outside the studio gates, and the background behind the gates was a matte painting. In a ballroom scene, there was no ceiling on the set, and only studio lights were above; Cosgrove painted a beautiful ceiling and combined it with the set by matte insertion. The entire movie was filmed by the 3-film Technicolor process. By 1939, Hollywood was at a TECHNICAL PEAK of inventiveness... far from the incompetence imagined by folks too young to know the facts. Investigate before saying things that are not true. Jack Of course looking CLOSELY at all of these wonderful matte paintings inserted in Gone With the Wind shows them TO BE PAINTINGS....Deal with REALITY Jack....

Your track record of spotting retouching is NIL Jack. And what did you once tell me...oh yes...that you never really did any airbrush retouching ...only blowing out the backgrounds of product shots....hardly retouching photos by the hundreds.. The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it something. Wow! you contributed to a book? That makes you special how? Oh yea..it was one of Fetzers tomes...discredited before it ever hit the press....you should be so proud! Me envy a low grade news shooter? Not hardly. Video is such a second rate form of image making. But then again you are so second rate. No head shots in those down and dirty industrial training videos you shoot for the 'valley crowd" ? ROFLMAO! But hey enough about your shortcomings..ever gonna DEAL with the issues or are you just a poser? If not..well..bye bye poser.

Sigh..moron healy posts again. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...not. Get with the program davie. I KNOW this stuff inside and out. You can't even offer a single film composite...so why is anyone LISTENING TO YOU AGAIN? Put your sorry butt on the line and offer YOUR limited professional opinion on the matter of reflectivity...show US you have an inkling of understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. They did teach you that during your long career shooting headshots for the local evening news right? Added on edit: I didn'nt address your mornic statement: "ONE doesn't have to follow *stink'in* rules." This truly shows you don't have a "stinkin" clue. If the results of retouching or compositing DOES NOT folow the rules of photography, light and shadow it will be easily SEEN as a fake. THE ONLY WAY FOR RETOUCHING OR COMPOSITING TO WORK IS TO FOLLOW THE RULES! Of course this is why Hollywood is SO BAD at compositing and its why most computer composites most detectable...they DONT follow the rules. Same applies to retouching..if you break the rules you get caught...and of course paint will ALWAYS look like paint, pencils have their own "look" as does bleach and dye. Of course you would know this IF you actually had any experience with it...but you don't. You have exposed yet again the depths of your ignorance on the subject davie.

I really don't understand this post at all, Craig. Because I noticed that two versions of the same photo fail to match, my intellectual honesty is in question? Did you look at King's comparison of the two versions of the photo? Does the "foot" in the Yarborough exhibit photo REALLY look like a foot to you? If so, please re-post the photo with an explanation as to why we should think it is a foot, similar to Jack's posting showing why he suspects it's a hand. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hand. Maybe you can convince me it's a foot. Or are you disputing that the photo was even changed? I think you're so used to shooting down everything Jack says that you're failing to see that we're onto something here. Whether or not, it REALLY was a foot, the object in the photo was changed to look more like a foot, before the AP could possibly have ascertained it really was a foot. Can we at least agree on that? Or is it impossible for you to agree with Jack on anything? Sigh...can you read Pat? Go back a few posts..I've explained my position very clearly...do I NEED to do it again? No Pat your intellectual honest is in question because of the way you have handled with this entire "hand" issue. You jumped on the 'its a hand" bandwagon and you vested yourself into that train of thought...so much so that you were willing to decide on a whim that Hill's statement might have been less than truthful because its about the only way for your "discovery" of the hand could be valid. All of the evidence points to it being Hills foot. and more importantly there IS something hanging over the edge of the car covering the lower chorme strip. Of that there is NO DOUBT. Can you consider anything OTHER than Hills foot that COULD be hanging over the lower chrome strip? I've seen NO ONE who considers this a hand to deal with this issue... And then there is the "I don't think a foot could be in that position argument..and the repeated calls for anyone to prove you wrong. What poppycock. You make a wild statement based on NOTHING and you expect people to prove you wrong! That's what nutjobs do. Perhaps since it's YOUR claim you might consider offering something other than BS to back it up. Finally I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my. This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that. Finally you are not "on to something here". Publications have altered images for decades. So what? If the original is altered thats a different matter but the best I can see that not the issue here...unless you subscribe the Jacks every photo is altered foolishness. This is much ado about nothing...well except for the starting discovery of the "hand". Sheesh. I really don't understand this post at all, Craig. Because I noticed that two versions of the same photo fail to match, my intellectual honesty is in question? Did you look at King's comparison of the two versions of the photo? Does the "foot" in the Yarborough exhibit photo REALLY look like a foot to you? If so, please re-post the photo with an explanation as to why we should think it is a foot, similar to Jack's posting showing why he suspects it's a hand. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hand. Maybe you can convince me it's a foot. Or are you disputing that the photo was even changed? I think you're so used to shooting down everything Jack says that you're failing to see that we're onto something here. Whether or not, it REALLY was a foot, the object in the photo was changed to look more like a foot, before the AP could possibly have ascertained it really was a foot. Can we at least agree on that? Or is it impossible for you to agree with Jack on anything? Sigh...can you read Pat? Go back a few posts..I've explained my position very clearly...do I NEED to do it again? No Pat your intellectual honest is in question because of the way you have handled with this entire "hand" issue. You jumped on the 'its a hand" bandwagon and you vested yourself into that train of thought...so much so that you were willing to decide on a whim that Hill's statement might have been less than truthful because its about the only way for your "discovery" of the hand could be valid. All of the evidence points to it being Hills foot. and more importantly there IS something hanging over the edge of the car covering the lower chorme strip. Of that there is NO DOUBT. Can you consider anything OTHER than Hills foot that COULD be hanging over the lower chrome strip? I've seen NO ONE who considers this a hand to deal with this issue... And then there is the "I don't think a foot could be in that position argument..and the repeated calls for anyone to prove you wrong. What poppycock. You make a wild statement based on NOTHING and you expect people to prove you wrong! That's what nutjobs do. Perhaps since it's YOUR claim you might consider offering something other than BS to back it up. I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my. This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that. Finally you are not "on to something here". Publications have altered images for decades. So what? If the original is altered thats a different matter but the best I can see that not the issue here...unless you subscribe the Jacks every photo is altered foolishness. This is much ado about nothing...well except for the starting discovery of the "hand". Sheesh.