Craig Lamson

Oh come on! Anyone who reads your "studies" will know different. "This is a lunar lander?" You have said, on this very board, that you do not believe the landings took place and that no evidence can prove otherwise because any evidence to the contrary must be fake because the landing never took place ("circular reasoning" thread) Bullxxxx. You claim repeatedly the landings never took place. Evan you forgot, the whistleblowers, the big soundstage, the movable backdrops, stagehands movig prop rocks, the crane to life the rover, the tow truck in the background, airbrush artists galore, etc. Nope no theories from Jack White LOL! Intelectual honesty is beyond him.

I am definitely in the midst of a subject I have somewhat intentionally stayed away from (Zapruder Film controversy) but didn't the History Channel show a 'unedited' version of the Zapruder film a couple of years ago? Was it the MPI Video 'Image of an Assassination?' FWIW - I think there is an incredible lack of awareness regarding CIA technology circa 1963. And it is ironic how the 'temperature goes up', when 'certain aspects of the assassination' get brought up. I still havent quite figured that out, except it appears to be related to 'rejection of very cherished perceptions.' Jack is right, anyone can do the experiment but theywill find that Mary Moorman took her photo from the grass, not the street. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/...x.html#contents Badgeman is a photographic alteration, not a real segment of the original Moorman polaroid. It was created by photographic alteration of the original via excessive exposure during the copy process and increased contrast during the printing stage. As such some details of the original were "erased" and the result is a new image, which is not consistant with the Moorman original. In other words badgeman is not there. Additionally the original polaroid material is not capable of the level of sharpness shown in the badegman alteration. Having spent years using all manner of polaroid b/w films as proofing media in commercial photography, and viewing said polaroids at high magnification to check focus etc., its my extensive personal experience that the grain structure (more like blobs actually) are such that the sharpness described by White is not availble on polaroid b/w filmstock. Also the lens on the Polaroid camera used by Mary Moorman was stopped down to near f90 to deal with the bright sunlight, the 3000 iso film and the limited shutter speed of the camera which was 1/100 second. At this f-stop the lens suffers from being diffraction limited in a big way. What this means is that the lens itself, stopped down to its maximum f-stop goes very soft due to internal deffraction. There is no way the film/lens combination captured the shaprness White claims in his badgeman alteration. I have tested the lens from a polaroid camera of the same type as Moorman's on a modern view camera using both polaroid b/w and a 48 mega pixel digital scanning back. My tests back up the fact that the Badgeman image is not indicitive of the sharpness that could be captured by the moorman polaroid.

I have no doubt you (amongst others) were following this thread with "avid" interest... Understanding photography? What a concept!! LOL, a business associate and partner here in Las Vegas has been following your foolishness for a few years, now he might be considered a expert in evaluating photog's and their work, not to mention THEIR skills. He, having worked in Ansel Adams darkroom for quite a period of time might be considered a true photographer and darkroom technician (unlike digital wonders of these day's - know what I'm saying?) CL: [...] "Third, some of us also understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base." offbase? then surely you can FIND a physicist that will take his story apart, piece by piece, right? Why haven't you been able to do that, Craig Lamson? (sp.?) YOU, photo composites, on film? Then please post a URL for your latest and greatest, surely if you boast that you've done compositing work, you'll share it with all of us -- yes, please show us your expertise in the subject matter... Regaring your second point: CL: "[...] STFU [...]" Shut the xxxx up? That's very un-Christmas like, Craig! Why would the great preservers of the Dealey Plaza photographic record all of a sudden, cop a attitude? I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology! btw, send the varsity the next time, Colby can't make the frosh-soph team Yes, Virginia -- there is a Santa Claus.... So bring your "partner" on board here and lets go head to head...it might actually have some merit seeing how your team of "experts" don't have a clue about photography. I'll be happy to discuss the inside wokings of chemical based imaging, since its a very big part of my background. Hell we can ewven talk the old masters...I'm related by marriage to Cole Weston and have spend lots of quality time with him before he died. So bring him on.... No physist needed...just someone who understands how a camera works and what happens when you move it. Thats something Costella knows little about, not to mention that he has no clue how a simple shadow works....powerful "experts" LOL! You will be waiting a long time for an apology....about as long as we have waited for you to post a sample of your film based composits. And by the way I did post a link to a film based composite for you quite a long time ago at your request. I suggest you do some research if you want to find it again. And just so your "partner" can make a qualified review of my skills.... www.infocusinc.net

You know David, you are a piece of work. I've been following the recent additions to this thread with interest. First why not try spelling my name correctly...its Lamson, not lamsom. Given that our history spans a few years and also given your bitching about the way your name gets spelled the least you can do. Second some of us have read your silly book and fond it lacking. More importantly some of us also have actual experience doing photographic composites ON FILM...can you say the same? If not, then STFU. Third, some of us als understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base. Forth, some of us know your "photographic expert" is a morn when it comes to his uderstanding of photography. Is your paranoia running amok again? You think Colby and I are the same person? LOL! You are even more ignorant that I thought. Merry Christmas, David

Wow..this really sucks! Any other threads missing or is it only this one? I took a look but I don't have a clue as to what if anything else might be missing. Could it be a CT?

Good article, thanks. Comments and hypothesis withdrawn - does ALPA have *influence* regarding NTSB findings? The Wellstone crash in particular? What can ALPA [the collective], tell the NTSB about ANY plane accident, other than opinion, comments and hypothesis? Can ALPA police itself when cause may be "pilot error"? When it comes to determining plane crash causes, I suspect ALPA's input-influence goes about as far as airplane manufacturers. I would imagine that they have no more or less influence than any other large professional body. They cannot INFLUENCE the findings, but they can certainly comment on them. They'd obviously be sensitive to any type of 'pilot error' findings because they are an organisation of professional airline pilots. If they had strong opinions that a finding of pilot error was wrong, they'd loudly voice that opinion. They do raise issues of perceived pressure to 'cut corners', poor maintenance practices, aircraft / system design flaws, etc. Basically, a professional body trying to do the best for its members and the industry they work in. Evan, As a professional perhaps you could write to the ALPA and explain the Wellstone case with links and pointers to Fetzers book and ask them to comment. Since you are in the business they might respond to you. But you are correct at least in my opinion that no person or group outside of those contracted by the NTSB should have influence over an investigation. Of course thats what Fetzer is suggesting happened in the Wellstone case....

Healy dropped his bone and barked... _____________________ "Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash? " How about the ALPA? http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...5/04/c7414.html

Lets cut through all the fetzering and go directly to this little Fetzer gem" "An intense electrical surge seems to have ignited a metallic fuselage fire." Just so I understand you here. The fire in the aircraft STARTED in the metallic structure of the aircraft and THEN spread to the other combustables? Correct? Assuming this is correct how would you explain the thousands of aircraft that have been struck by lightning not having their metallic fuselages burst into an uncontrolable fire upon the lightning strike. Are you saying your yet to be produced secret death ray produces more power and heat than a bolt of lightning? I've got to hand it to you Jim. You and Costella, the all purpose expert, have engaged in some mighty handwaving on this point. What is amazing is that there are those silly enough to believe you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim, No thanks. I'll let your fellow moonbats handle that. Brown nosing? LOL. I expect better retorts from you Jim.

Jim wrote: "I do not profit from these books. I recycle the royalties to support additional assassination research." You have made this claim often. Why not tell us exactly how that happens Jim? Does it pay for your trips to England for example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Na Tink...a deranged pilot is just not as sexy as some death ray. Just think, the sound bites on Air America and Black Op radio would just not have the same impact. Not to mention the presser at the National Press Club. Nope death rays sell way more books.

You are correct in my case, left after two years when I discoverd my artistic vision. Actually learning by doing was the path for me. No regrets either. However I do love to argue and my path prior to finding photography was law.

I asked a friend to take a look at the passage with Costella's remarks...his review can be found here, the poster is JayUtah. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1126833989

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're dancing here Jim, but without much skill and all alone. I'll have to go back and check but IIRC you stated somewhere in one of your many rants that the fire was an electrical fire that ignited the metal of tha aircraft. Again the direct question is did the electrical spark directly ignite the metal? If not you are done when it comes to an electrical fire. Why? Because as both Evan and I have explained, it seems endlessly, the electrical spark must ignite SOMETHING for a fire to start and grow. You say an electrical fire burns with enough heat to ignite the metal of the aircraft and a jet fuel fire does not. Yet unless you can show somehow that the electrical system ignited the metal directly, your fire theory fails. SO please point to to anything that says you can ignite alum. with an electric spark or arc from the power sources on aircraft. I'm pretty lucky, my shop has lots and lots of stuff laying around that I can use for testing things. Today I decided to try out your "electrical Alum. fire theory" I took two 12volt deep cycle RV batteries and wired them so I had 24 volts. IIRC thats what the KIng Air uses but if I'm wrong I am willing to stand corrected. Anyway with my 24v dc power source and a pair of jumper cables, I took a small sheet of .040 alum sheeting, like that used on the sides of cargo trailers and attached the negative cable to the sheet. With the correct type of fire extingisher handy, I touched the positive cable to the shoot of metal. Sparks flew, and white smoke rose and the copper of the cable was lightly fused to the alum, sheet....but there was no fire. Now what I have read about the nature of fires started by an electrical source shows the temps of a spark or arc can reach 2000 degrees. So if thats true, and I have no reason to doubt it, why did my sheet of metal not ignite? And by the way, both Evan and I are saying the same thing, you just have failed to comprehend. Even IF the fire was started by an electrical source...it HAD to have some combustable FUEL to it to burn. The metal of the airframe is NOT that fuel. It will be in almost every instance, a combustable like the insulation of the wires, the foam on the seats, the wall coverings in the cabin...or the jet fuel. Now here is the kicker Jim...you claim it must be an "electrical fire" and not a jet fuel fire because an electrical fire is hotter and therefore can burn the metal in the airframe. Now it you have followed along as this has been explained to you at least 4 times...there is no "electrical fire" only electrical ignition. Anything that follows is a fire of a different nature depending on the combustables available. To recap, your statement that the fire must be electrical because the metal in the airframe burned and because the smoke was bluish, or bluish/white...depending on which day you wrote your posting...is false. Got that...false. No amount of dancing on your part is ever going to change that Jim, so please retract your claim. You love to write profusely that your theory of the EMP attack is the only theory that fully accounts for all of the available evidence. What this little exercise on fire illustrates is that you have manufactured "evidence" where none exists to bolster your claim that the plane was attacked by an EMP weapon. Thats not very honest of you Jim, but its par for the course, at least as it has been observed by myself and others over the past few years. Its also a common conclusion of a great many othere when it concerns the honesty of your "research". There are plenty of posts to that point available at your favortite link.... www.google.com Now I know your mind is never going to be changed and you will continue to walk around like a four year old with your fingers in your ears shouting na na na na na...I can't hear you. And you will continue to claim that no one has been able to successfully debunk your case. Fine. BUt remember this. This is a public forum and unlike the walled garden of JFKResearch we have you on the public record now. Your sillyness is recorded and SAVED for future use and for all to see. So please, keep dancing.

Ok Jim, now that you and Tink have pissed all over each other, lets get back to the task at hand, pissing on your Wellstone theory. You claim an "electrical fire" ignited the alum. skin of the aircraft. Is that correct? If it is please explain exactly how that happened. Exactly what is it you claim caught the metal on fire? Details of how that can happen please. This should be very interesting indeed.

Jim...denial is NOT a river.....

WOW Jim...more wasted bandwidth and yet still no answers from you, why am I not suprised. Oh yea, now I remember...fetzering. I'm at a loss as to exactly what you are trying to show us here with your last few posts. That there are plenty of kooks like you out there in the trees? If thats the case don't bother, most of us know that already. Now how about a link to a working weapon? And please no more silly links like the on on Angle Light...that one almost surpasses your links to the pot head sites! LOL! And about that bluish white smoke.....wheres you source on that one Jim? And then there is this wonderful missive... "Certainly, no solar flare interference would be expected to have such systematic and regular effects, where the intensity and direction of the deviation is in the same direction and of similar magnitude--and at essentially the same time!" Certainly? Really, got any reference material to support this silly statement? I've spend quite a bit of time researching this and what you state here is exactly the opposite of what one would expect, but please if I'm wrong about this I would love to see your documentation that says you are correct. And please spare us another "expert" opinion from Costella. So what to you have left? Pilots are ok? Nope Weather was fine?...Nope EMP or death ray of your choice (which seems to change as the days pass)? Nope Motive? Maybe but in serious need of some supporting facts. Bluish White smoke points to an electrical fire? Nope Simulations prove the pilots compentent to save the plane? Nope GPS was manipulated by some unseen group or person? Nope Cell phone and questionable garage malfunction was caused by man made source? Nope. FBI arrives too soon? Nope Your worldview and partisan leanings? Yep. By inference this leads us to a conclusion...Jim Fetzer, based on his worldview and political leanings devises a wild CT and then tries in vain to find evidence to support his silly theory and along the way just makes things up out of thin air, and spins factual data in a vain but failing attempt to support his CT. When the validity of his "evidence" is called into question he resorts to his standard appeal to authority and finally vitriol filled rants aimed at those who would dare question him. What we have is a perfect example of the fine art of fetzering.

Yes you can...most of the "researchers" you list here are moonbats. Its clear that conspiracies exist. Your little group that consists of Fetzer, Costella, White, Healy et al appear to be quite a conspiracy. Of course you post here also begs the question...Can we draw any inference about a person that believes that a conspiracy exists in all of these cases?

Who killed John John? John John.

Hobo would love to join but he really has a need to keep his name and image from being placed here on the forum. He told me he contacted the mods but I have not heard back from him since. Of course it is their forum and if they require his name and picture then it might be impossible for him to join.

Hey Jim...what about those bluish white smoke links? Since dope smoke is bluish white and you have a history of posting links to pot head sites to support your theories...is that what I can expect in this case as well? Time to get with the program and give us your sources for this electrical fire/blusih white smoke thingy...

Len <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down. No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The similar "glitch" was that they broke through the clouds at a very low altitude and expected to find the runway dead ahead. It was not there. Thats the glitch and its a major one. They had just decended through light ice and the windscreen was likely iced at the corners...the exact areas they were looking through to find the missing runway. They we low, slow and behind the aircraft, and now were nowhere near the runway they thought was to be right in fornt of them....I'm guessing they were plenty distracted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim we have been over and over and over this stuff on the Yahoo forum and yet you continue to behave that the evidence that trashes your "theory" just does not exist. You act like a little kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts...NA NA NA NA....in fact you and White appeare to be clones in that regard. Failure to admit you are wrong does not mean you still are not wrong. You wrote: "I doubt this very much. The Waukegan pilot, in fact, was emphatic that neither he or any other pilot he knew had ever experienced any problems with the GPS, including the degrade light irregularity they observed. If you were right, this should instead be a familiar occurrence. The cell phone anomaly, moreover, involved a wail- ing and screeching noise that was periodic and repeating in character, indicat- ing a man-made source. You and Colby seem to believe that, for my account to be acceptable, it must be certain in eliminating any possibility that it could be wrong. That is an excessively demanding standard, since inductive reasoning, which is our guide in life, depends on probabilities, not certainties. And when we consider the probabilities on both sides, the available evidence is far more probable on the assassination hypothesis than it is on the accident hypothesis." This is just so much bunk. I expected much more from you. Regardless of the experience of the Waukegan pilot, the effects of solar flares are very well known and documented. They DO have serious effects ont navigation devices, cell phone, and even sat tv. I suggest you invest a bit more effort on research into the effects of solor flares. You answer as posted here makes you look quite foolish. Inductive reasoning is fine, its just clearly visable that the elements that have lead you towards your deduction are flawed to say the least. That of course is the crux of you failer here. That and your sickness that leads you to CT thinking rather than rational thought.

Len <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down. No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The similar "glitch" was that they broke through the clouds at a very low altitude and expected to find the runway dead ahead. It was not there. Thats the glitch and its a major one. They had just decended through light ice and the windscreen was likely iced at the corners...the exact areas they were looking through to find the missing runway. They we low, slow and behind the aircraft, and now were nowhere near the runway they thought was to be right in fornt of them....I'm guessing they were plenty distracted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> . <sigh> Jim...Space weather is well recorded. Solar activity is measured and photographed by pros and novices alike. The month of Oct 2002 was a very active month for solar activity and in fact a HUGE flare hit just a few days later on the 29th. I find it amazing that someone like you who places a lot of store in research makes a post like this one. Its a crock Jim and if its any indication of your research skills you are in a world of hurt. Never mind your desire to look first for the CT in everything...thats a sickness. In any case you made your silly comment about the gps and it clicked...so I did a SIMPLE google on solar flares on the 25th of Oct and low and behold there it was. I suggest you actually do some research before you spout off again with some high and mighty anti Bush spin that has no context in the discussion of cell phones and gps. I have no idea if the solar flares of late Oct 2002 had any play in crash of Wellstones plane or the incident in Il. It does however offer a different theory of why a cell phone might malfunction or a GPS display to be in error. Its widely known to cause just such problems. In fact a Japanese sattellite was taken out by the solar flare on the same day as the Wellstone crash. If you decide to persure the GPS theory you will have to find a way to dismiss the solar flares completely and you are going to have to offer a theory on how the GPS was altered other than you normal ...its was a secret government operation.... Now how about that bluish white smorke being from an electrical fire? So far the only links I can find are one that quote YOU!