Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
dgh01: we await the demonstration
Great! I can't wait to see what you can do David. It would be a refreshing to see you actually DO something for a change instead of whinning like a stuck cat.
-
Hi!
Following several critics and mockeries* coming from members of William Reymond's Forum; I carried out the little illustration hereunder to explain my previous graphic regarding the shadows from the Backyard photos.
(*) I think that they didn't understand what I wanted to pinpoint in the previous graphic.
The shadow of Oswald body in CE-133B is obviously different of the ones from CE-133A and C.
That means that CE-133-B has been the latest taken photo.
The shadows in CE-133-A and C are almost the same.
Therefore the right snapshots chronology could be as follows: A, C and B or C, A and B.
It is obvious that the Oswald shadow angle in CE-133B is oriented in a different way, a few degrees clockwise.
Considering that, the shadow of the staircase which is projected on the barrier's picket should also be different!
It is not the case!
The shadow of the staircase projected on the picket is the same on each Backyard photo!
That is physically IMPOSSIBLE!!!
.jpg)
Marcel, what you are saying is impossible is not impossible, but rather quite possible. The study of shadows in not intuitive. Unless you have spent a great deal of time studying the effects of light and shadow, its very easy to screw up. Most laymen and many photographers cannot judge a shadow to save their soul. Thats the case here.
In the case of the backyard photos the sun has not moved between any of the three frames and both the shadows on the fence and the Oswald body shadows on the ground are consistant with each other and to the light being in almost the exact same place for each of the three photos. Noting is out of place nor has the sun "moved" between any of the three images. The only things that HAVE moved are the camera and Oswalds body, which fully account for the changes in the shadow on the ground.
None if this is rocket science and can be proven easily with any camera.
-
>"Don't worry. I have no intention of reading any further, that is unless something convincing might be presented in the interim."<
You remain unconvinced after after viewing the mountian of evidence that destroys Whites attempts to prove Apollo a hoax? I have no problem when people are igonrant in a given subject and come to a wrong conclusion. However those people become stupid when they disregard fact and emperical evidence and cling to a silly notion. Are you stupid Terry?
>"Hey, my cheap shot pales in comparison to your condescending asides regarding the subject."<
If you are going to use the cheap shot at least make it worthy of the effort.
I've already mentioned that I'm not in either your camp or White's camp on the
matter. I'm going on the assumptions I've made from observance over time, of the space program, itself. That doesn't make one stupid, as you seem to believe, but merely entitled to expression one's opinion. You seem to relish casting aspersions at whomever you would deem in opposition to your theory, or who may not agree with your slant on it. They haven't been able to reproduce the feat on a regular basis, otherwise they'd have bought up the Moon and subdivided it by now. Practice makes perfect and I haven't seen anything that is convincible to me, on that aspect of the space program. I'm sorry to all you hardworking NASA employees, if I'm not exactly in pocket on this one, and more supportive of your efforts, but the jurie's out on this one until it becomes a more common occurrence but I doubt that's ever going to happen in my lifetime.
You are going on assumptions based on observations over time? Have you ever really looked at the data? Seems like a pretty poor way to reach a conclusion if you ask me and an even worse basis to suggest that someone go back to the drawing board. As I said I'm perfectly willing to understand that someone might be ignorant of the subject matter and we have now found thats whats going on in your case.
Thanks for your unsupported opinion, its been duly noted.
-
>"Don't worry. I have no intention of reading any further, that is unless something convincing might be presented in the interim."<
You remain unconvinced after after viewing the mountian of evidence that destroys Whites attempts to prove Apollo a hoax? I have no problem when people are igonrant in a given subject and come to a wrong conclusion. However those people become stupid when they disregard fact and emperical evidence and cling to a silly notion. Are you stupid Terry?
>"Hey, my cheap shot pales in comparison to your condescending asides regarding the subject."<
If you are going to use the cheap shot at least make it worthy of the effort.
-
Lamsom dronned ON:
Duly noted. As is your ignorance on the subject matter. Believe as you wish as is your right. It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts.
how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!
I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.
education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...
Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?
Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail. Do it point by point.
here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...
Still after many chances you give us only bluster. So much for intellectual honesty.
speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!
Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....
thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh! Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao
you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?
Thanks so much for you meaningless (once again) post David.
I think I got removed from the board in question because I strongly disputed Whites photographic knowlege. And we all know that cant be allowed on that board now can it.
Paid by NASA or any governmental agency or contractor...nope, but I'm so very happy for you.
Now do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to play your regular game? I'm guessing it will just be more of your guard dog barking.
Bark away David, it seems its about all the value you have in this discussion.
Oh and by the way why would I need a Moorman cd since the original came through me and went out unedited. But I'm glad to see you find perhaps the best scan available of the Thompson #5 copy neg worthless. It speaks volumes.
Perhaps you would prefer to work with White over compressed and soft Zippo?
Bye Bye Spot. good doggie.
Well, what d'ya know! If it isn't the Annual NASA xxxxx Convention blowing into town.
I could care less if they went to the Moon, especially after what happened to the Challenger shuttle in the mid 80's. You would've thought the Apollo project might have at least guaranteed the safe passage of Kristie Macauliff, et.al, in what was a supposedly simple maneuver, like orbitting the Earth's stratosphere, right? Don't you think they should've gotten the kinks out of it by then?
Go back to the drawing board, Lamson. You and the rest of your cronies. Tell me something I don't already know. You guys are boring the hell out of me.
If you are bored than don't read, no one is forcing you.
But than again the cheap shot made you feel better eh?
-
Craig.
Google "put options 9-11" click on site, suppressed details of criminal insider
trading. If you wish to rebutt what you find there, I will happily debate it with you
I dont have time to repeat it all now, which is why I suggested others do their own
search. I am in the middle of setting up a Seminar site for Jack the Ripper students
so I am pushed for time. The names STEVE, BTW.
I get the same information I got before..2.5 MILLION IN UNCLAIMED put options, not 25 million like you claim in your post. Thats my rebuttal. If you have any information that shows 25 million please post it. For the sake of argument, your 25million, if you can find that figure somewhere, is still chump change in todays world...hell lotto winners do better than that.
As for the rest of the CIA bluster...well....sheesh.
-
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/right]
Oh there's a money trail alright, check out the stock "put" options placed on United
& American Airlines, in the days running up to 9-11.Somebody made millions from
a foreknowledge of the events. & by the way, the CIA was electronically following
these put options. Just more of those darned coincidences I guess.
I could be wrong but I seem to remember that no one ever claimed the put options. In any case they were worth millions, about 5 IIRC, hardly big bucks in todays world.
For anyone interested in this Google "put options 9-11" and make your own mind
up. The total money unclaimed ammounts to about $25,000,000. But its the CIA'S
behavior that is more ,to say the least, Strange.
Where did you find that 25million figure Steven. My search shows 2.5 million. In any case my search also shows that the put options were not unusual in amounts compared to some other trading days. Thats kind of interesting too. Its amazing what some of these things look like in perspective..... And exactly what do you find strange about the cia behavoir? Lay it out.
-
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/right]
Oh there's a money trail alright, check out the stock "put" options placed on United
& American Airlines, in the days running up to 9-11.Somebody made millions from
a foreknowledge of the events. & by the way, the CIA was electronically following
these put options. Just more of those darned coincidences I guess.
I could be wrong but I seem to remember that no one ever claimed the put options. In any case they were worth millions, about 5 IIRC, hardly big bucks in todays world.
-
WE must then accept that Mr Bush is simply "Telling it like it is" & therefore did witness the first strike.
Why must WE accept that GBW statements mean he saw the actual plane strike the building? Are there any other acceptable meanings to his statements?
-
Bye Bye Craig..
]
Hes not my poster boy Stephen, he's the president of my country and you have accused him of murder based on some pretty silly thinking. As an AMERICAN I take offence.
Quite frankly I dont care about his recolllection of the video he saw that day. He was a bit busy and had more than a few important things on his mind. I wonder how well your memory would be if you were in his position.
So like I said eariler I'm done. Go ahead and think what you will using whatever logic you desire. Enjoy your trip to LA LA land.
Blair is a war criminal? Perhaps I've gotten a peek into what makes you tick as well.
As an Englihman ,I take offence at having my country dragged into a war for
no bloody reason other than OIL.
I did not claim he SAW A VIDEO, He claimed he saw something TWICE that he
COULD NOT HAVE SEEN..... but you dont care, as you are already there how's
the weather in LA-LA Land.
What else do you call a man who drags his country into a war on nothing but
LIES, soldiers from my country lost their lives because of his toadying to Bush.
So tell me Craig just where are the WMD'S, or is that somthing else you dont
care about!!!
As for your arrogant nonsence about knowing what makes me tick...........
Why Stephen, what a wonderful edit, again affirming MY expectations of standard CT behavior LOL! Cant stay on topic to save your soul.
I remember 9/11 pretty well. I was in my car driving to work listening to news radio when the first tower was hit. I remember thinking at the time, was the weather bad in NY or was the pilot really that bad. Now after all of this I could say I heard the first tower being hit. And it would be a true statement. Not a very discriptive statement but true.
I got to my studio within miniutes of the first tower strike and my wife and I quickly turned on the tv. The coverage was a mess, with cuts from live shots to tape. I saw the first available footage of the tower on fire. I could have easily made the statement "I saw a plane hit the tower" Again it would be a true statement but not a very discriptive one. Later the second plane hit and the coverage got even more confusing. More live footage, more taped reruns of the first tower fire, more taped reruns of the actual second building strike, all along with live comentary that was even more cofusing than the video. I was just an onlooker, and other than emotion I had no part to play in the events yet confusion was everywhere. I can only imagine what it might have been like to be the commander in chief and president of the US at a time like this. I'm clearly not in a position to second guess, and in hindsight, the actions of the President. It seems you think you can. I say bunk. Thats what puts you in LALA land.
Thats the fallicy of your logic, if we can even call it that. You are applying your personal, hindsight expectations to a situation where you were not even present nor in any position of power. And from this faulty logic you have concluded that the President or the US government was behind the attacks. Sorry Steven that makes you a WOO WOO.
Do I care aabout how my nation responded in this emergency? Sure. Am I going to try and second guess the actions of a great many HUMAN BEINGS in a time of crisis? NO! Is it important to look closely at our response and look for ways to make it better. You bet. Thats what I care about. Not the sillyness of a bunch of internet wackos who have decided that they can devine the motives and assign blame by applying their personal expectations to a past event.
Thats why arguments like yours are worthless. There can be no conclusion. Only continued speculation and finger pointing. You cant test your argument nor offer any concrete proof. Thats why it the perfect platform for a CT. And thats why its worthless.
So prattle on. I'm sure you will soon parrot all the other worthless 9/11 CT claims. I'm not interested.
If you want to debate the Iraq war, start another thread. Otherwise try and stay on topic...if you can...its not the expected behavior for a CT.
-
Bye Bye Craig..
You have no problems waging a personal attack on GWB, (just look at your quotes here in this thread) and then you complain when your line of logic is exposed to be faulty. Sheesh. The sword cuts both ways Steven.
Ah,now I get the anger, It's because im attacking Craig's poster boy...
Oh and by the way the names STEPHEN...
Just a simple question..as you find my logic so faulty, lets pick an undisputed
fact. Twice Dubya claims to have seen the first plane hit the tower, not once
but twice. As video footage of this tragedy didnt turn up until the next day,
how does this square with the known facts?? And dont tell me it was the second
plane ,and Georgie got a bit muddled up with his facts. Bush was in the
classroom, listening to the children read when that happened......
Hes not my poster boy Stephen, he's the president of my country and you have accused him of murder based on some pretty silly thinking. As an AMERICAN I take offence.
Quite frankly I dont care about his recolllection of the video he saw that day. He was a bit busy and had more than a few important things on his mind. I wonder how well your memory would be if you were in his position.
So like I said eariler I'm done. Go ahead and think what you will using whatever logic you desire. Enjoy your trip to LA LA land.
Blair is a war criminal? Perhaps I've gotten a peek into what makes you tick as well.
-
Bye Bye Craig..
I see what Jack means about personel attacks, As I said in my last post, others
will either find merit in what I have to say, or they won't. but I maintain, if the
standard of evidence required by Craig were to be transfered to the criminal
justice system, no case would ever make it to court. I and many others
belive that Bush and those around him, know much more about 9-11 than will
ever be admitted, or sought,by the main stream media. As for not living up to
my expectations, Just whose expectations did Shrub live up to that day?He sits
with a far away look on his face while his country is attacked. and then runs away
like a coward. Guess thats par for the course with this particular draft dodger.
Much more tomorrow........
Personal attack? Are you kidding? How about dealing honestly with the point at hand which is your expectations have not been met and you call that evidence.
You would consider your unmet expectations as solid enough evidence to take to court? I wonder if you would feel that way if it were used against you?
You are standing an a weak wooden leg and the saw is working its way through and you have to gall to call your stance being undermined a personal attack? Now you have met MY expectations of the typical CT.
You have no problems waging a personal attack on GWB, (just look at your quotes here in this thread) and then you complain when your line of logic is exposed to be faulty. Sheesh. The sword cuts both ways Steven.
Who's expectations did GWB live up to that day. For one, enough American voters to retun him to office.
Bye Bye Steven.
-
Craig.
How do you belive evidence is weighed, is it only good in your book if the
police catch the murderer standing over the body, gun in hand, saying"I did
it, its a fair cop" And do I belive that those bodygaurds would have left bush
in that school if they felt his life was in danger,not for a minute my friend.
And I dont belive any reasonable person would either. Bush talks about seeing
the first plane hit the tower,and assumes it's pilot error, the next thing he is told by Card, is that America is under attack. Yet he asks no questions, gives no
orders, in short acts nothing like a leader. The least youve got here is a
complete incompetant runing your country. I am sorry but this behavior just does
not make sense, nor does removing the Bin laden family before any questions
could be asked, such as Do you know where ossama is. But when you've
bankrolled Junior for all the empty holes he drilled in Texas in the 70s, I guess
youre owed a favior or two.
Bring me some evidence and then we can weigh it. What you and others are offering here is not evidence but rather personal expectations that have not been met. Its baseless speculation not evidence.
Your post is a ramble again based on nothing other than it does not fit your expectations. And your changing the subject does nothing other than reinforce your ct behavior.
You are sure welcome to your views. I dont find them convincing. You want to know why many think that ct's are nuts, just look at your post. See why I usually refrain from taking part in these discussions?
Thanks but I think I end this now. Its going nowhere.
-
Thank you Craig.
In other words you have no idea why Bush etc behaved in this extraordinary
fashion..Do you belive that codes of conduct are in place for S/S agents
regarding threats to the Presidents life? or do you belive that they make it up as
they go along..And please answer this, how did Bush know how many planes
were "Jacked", where they were headed Etc, How did the S/S know that their
Presidents life was not in any danger. It's really not good enough to say, I
dont know, but nothing sinister happened anyway,cause all you C/Ts are nut's
Oh by the way, I shall never claim you are just parrotting the Neo-Cons
Of course I don't know and neither do you. Thats the point. Was it exraordinary and by who's standards? Yours? They dont count. Neither do mine. Unless you were there and WORKING as a SS agent on that day, your points are just speculation.
And of course its good enough to say "I dont know" because its true. You dont know either yet you are making grand charges based on nothing more than your unfounded expectations.
Lets cut to the chase. You are charging the President of the United States with willingly allowing (or even being part of the plan) thousands of people to die. Based on what? His actions on that morning did not meet your expectations? Sorry Steven but that is nuts.
BTW, you can call me anything you like, my skin is pretty thick.
-
Hi Craig....
I had hoped that this thread could be free from name-calling, Oh well!!!
Rather than make vague generalizations, give me an alternative take on my
last post, or indeed, any of the points I have raised. As I have said I dont
know enough about photo/video analysis to make valid points,my speciality
is in interpretation of behavior. ESPECIALLY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
Regards Steve..
There was no name calling Steven. The views you have put forth in this thread are not original, they have been around in many forms since 9/11. I'm not slamming you , just pointing out the obvious.
Heres what we are dealing with here, and you even allude to it in your post. GWB did not respond on 9/11 as you might have expected him to react.
In other words, your positon stems from "I think he should have acted and reacted this way and he didnt". Based on your "interpretatiuon" of his actions you have now spawned this huge yarn.
Now clearly thats your right and you can think what you will but its based on pretty shaky ground.
Thars the problem with whats called research into most ct's. And its the reason I usually avoid the most of the JFK discussions, because its mostly nothing more than a jumble of opinion based on the thinest of thread. Clearly there are a lot of folks who enjoy the trip back in time. More power to them. I just dont take it seriously.
On GWB's actions on the morning of 9/11, I'm not going to say he did anything right or wrong nor if he met my expectations. I do so because I'm not inside his head and I'm not privy to the actions and planning of the SS. He did what he did. Attempting to read some sinister plot into his actions is beyond reason.
-
Stephen
Thanks for putting some thoughful analysis out there for the members to consider.
I appreciate the real courage that takes.
Also, it brought respected member Jack White out of hiding.
As the "Magic Christian" Guy Grand used to say in the Terry Southern novel:
"Lets make it a little hot for them"
Cheers to all, thanks for the great FORUM.
What courage? With all due respect to Steven, all hs is doing is parroting Michael Moore and even Bin Laden.
-
White sez:
"If the official story is true, why did they fake photos?"
ROFLMAO! With your miserable track record at spotting fake photos, we can all rest assured that the official DOD images are good as gold!
Aulis is the land of fruits and nuts, a perfect place for your "work".
-
-
BTW David there are 39 composite images on my pbase page, some assembled by me and some assembled by agency folks.
http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/root
All digital but one.
It is 2005 after all.
-
The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.
The anomalies are problematic.
Why am I not suprised. Fetzer would be your cup-o-tea.
Sounds like you get your tea from the Officer's Club.
<G>
-
The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.
The anomalies are problematic.
Why am I not suprised. Fetzer would be your cup-o-tea.
-
dgh02: Interpolated frames? On a optical 'film' printer? Hey listen, I understand how difficult and sore your side feels -- they couldn't BS JCostella, he didn't buy the nonsense -- so, just dig up your own Physicist that can challenge John and give it a whirl -- been 2 going on 3 years now, still NO experts from your side... Just Rollie hiding behind; " Doug Horne must not of understood..." please
Try for a moment to keep up with the discussion David. Who said anything interpolation and optical printers? Is reading beyond you now too? We are not sore, rather highly amused watching you guys spinl down the drain. Who gives a crap abourt Costella and his PhD. Hes a woo woo, PhD and all. Now maybe I understand why he's teaching high school math and not at UM. Like I said maybe he should pick up a camera and provide some emperical evidence as proof of concept. While he's at it perhaps he could even learn about light and shadow. It would be an inprovement.
dgh02: Durnavich showed what? roflmfao! You are behind the times... Loved his Pov-Ray (sign)nonsense though tsk-tsk... Miller? Well we know all about him
He showed what happens whan a camera moves. What did Costella show? Oh yea I remember...that he does not know how a camera works...LOL!
[dgh02: the MPI version, and added the missing frames --
Good for them, too bad thats not what we were discussing. Try to stay on topic.
dgh02: yeah, I know compositing comes from way back, made mention of that somewhere, and of course the black art of motion compositing came from the 'still' world...
Hands on? Well lets see a few pieces your film work, after all if your claiming compositing expertise, I think I can pass judgement on that -- you've done motion work? Post a URL, more than one of us would like to see your 'expertise' in action....
Who needs to show motion? A composite is a composite. And an optical printer is just a device that made doing composites in motion fast, affordable and reasonably accurate. There is nothing "magic" to an optical printer.
Heres one I have online, goes back to 1977. Shot on 8x10 chrome. After the shot the client decided they did'nt like the way the dry ice "smoke" looked in the original so the base with the smoke, water and arrows had to be changed. Since the product was long gone the set was rebuilt without the product and the new background was combined with the furnace in the darkroom. BTW, I did ALL of the work.
http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596424
Now its your turn.
dgh02: What's this? mine is bigger than yours? Company's been in the family for 29 years.
Good to know. You are working OPM.
dgh02: bet that composite is digital... LOL
Of course it is. It is 2005 in case you forgot.
BTW who is Owen?
-
The film was obviously doctored.
The County records and Jail are matted over and fuzzy.
A mysterious blob clings to JFK's parietal temple area.
The cloud of blood dissipates in a miraculous fashion.
The color is oversaturated and the splices are obvious.
The approach to the kill zone is simply missing.
(I expect a long winded McAdams style denial, but this is fact)
Thank you for your reply Shanet. You showed us all your photographic skill in the apollo threads. But keep trying.
-
dgh01: Jack White must be off for a few day's -- Or is Owen taking your shift?
Oh no, Jacks been around, but his lack of a voice makes it look like he has run off with his tail between his legs. Rightly so, he has been shown to be ...shall we say...foolish and ignorant about most things photographic. Pretty sad when he is billed as a photographic expert LOL!
And who is Owen? More quality research from the horde? LOL!
The Backyard photos
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
John,
The main reason for the differences in the body shadow on the ground is simply the body position of Oswald. His body position changes and the shadows on the ground change. Nothing sisister here at all.