Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,063

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Craig Lamson

  1. Craig Lamson
    Mr. LamsonAre you suggesting LHO purposely made a soft point or hollow point bullet by cutting the tip from a full metal jacket bullet? I hardly think this could be the case, for a number of reasons. First, the unfired cartridge in LHO's alleged carcano was intact and unmodified, as WC evidence photos will attest. Do you seriously think LHO knew exactly how many rounds he needed and only scored one (or two) of them? Why was CE 399 not scored? Second, I have tried this before with surplus Lee Enfield .303 cartridges. It is impossible to make a straight and even cut, even if all one is doing is scoring the tip (and considering the thickness of the 6.5 Carcano jacket, this would have to be a VERY deep score). Although a hit at very close range is possible, accuracy at distances approaching 100 yards suffers accordingly. Third, was not the intact jacket nose of the bullet that hit JFK's head supposedly found in the front of the limousine? You are babbling bobby. Try a file next time.Translated from bobbyspeak... "I can't deny this so ill spew instead" If the bullet that struck JFK's head was "filed", why was CE 399 and the unfired cartridge found in the 6.5 Carcano not filed? Do you seriously believe Oswald knew exactly which bullet was going to strike JFK's head and only "filed" that one?And have you forgotten that the INTACT jacket nose of the bullet that struck JFK in the head was supposedly found in the front of the limo passenger compartment, completely "unfiled"? If you do not wish to address these two points, this will be the last time I respond to you on this thread. Please stop wasting everyone's time. You are the time waster here bobby. Why not only file one? Would that not have been a BETTER choice than modifying them all? If the tip was found surely you can produce substantial evidence to support your " supposed"... Just like the Rather nonsense you posted, here you are again telling us that YOUR expectations are not being met, instead of dealing with the reality that you don't really have the first clue what may or may not have been used. Pretty much par for the course...
  2. Craig Lamson
    Mr. LamsonAre you suggesting LHO purposely made a soft point or hollow point bullet by cutting the tip from a full metal jacket bullet? I hardly think this could be the case, for a number of reasons. First, the unfired cartridge in LHO's alleged carcano was intact and unmodified, as WC evidence photos will attest. Do you seriously think LHO knew exactly how many rounds he needed and only scored one (or two) of them? Why was CE 399 not scored? Second, I have tried this before with surplus Lee Enfield .303 cartridges. It is impossible to make a straight and even cut, even if all one is doing is scoring the tip (and considering the thickness of the 6.5 Carcano jacket, this would have to be a VERY deep score). Although a hit at very close range is possible, accuracy at distances approaching 100 yards suffers accordingly. Third, was not the intact jacket nose of the bullet that hit JFK's head supposedly found in the front of the limousine? You are babbling bobby. Try a file next time. Translated from bobbyspeak... "I can't deny this so ill spew instead"
  3. Craig Lamson
    Ever score the tip of a fmj Bob...
  4. Craig Lamson
    Ok, and this statement about what Huffaker & Rather did was made how many decades after the assassination? And has what corroboration? And are we taking into account that people generally try to inflate their own importance when they retell a story (that minnow becomes a whale eventually). I think we're seeing some of that in the above. What evidence is there that Rather obtained a copy of the z-film from any source on Monday, and what evidence is there that Rather saw the film multiple times (other than Huffaker's statement)? I see nothing in that statement that is believable -- as it conflicts with all the evidence made contemporaneous to the assassination. For example, the known evidence indicates Zapruder did not provide a copy to CBS or any television station. And Rather & CBS (or KRLD), having this blockbuster film on hand and available for viewing, did NOT broadcast the film, but instead, only put Rather on the air to describe it? That makes no sense to me. For those reasons, I find it difficult to put much credence in Huffaker's claims. Hank Mack says that the FBI/SS watched a 16mm print at KLRD screened by Huffaker. Tke it for whatever that is worth.
  5. Craig Lamson
    I don't take ANY testimony at face value and as a general rule don't pay much attention to any of it.
  6. Craig Lamson
    That's just not true, Craig. You've painted with too broad a brush. Its reliability depends on a number of things, including: how much time passed between the event and the reporting of the event; the personal bias or prejudice of the eyewitness; the presence of peripheral distractions; the presence or absence of trauma related to the event; the age (very young, in the middle or very old) of the eyewitness; the eyesight of the eyewitness; if the eyewitness had special training in observational techniques, such as, those learned by police officers, cinematographers, or news reporters...; among others things. Reliability is a joke. You want 10 or 15 percent? How about 25? Good luck with that.
  7. Craig Lamson
    It's ALWAYS unreliable.
  8. Craig Lamson
    Unreliable witness testimony. When you rely on people and WORDS this is what happens. More proof? Just read Bobs posts.
  9. Craig Lamson
    You can't seem to read either Pat. I never said Rather watched the film in ANY manner. I offered up POSSIBILITIES. I said more that once I did not KNOW how he watched the film, and quite frankly YOU don't either. In fact I also said I don't care if he did not see the forward movement and he just made it up , because in the end he got it correct, that the violent forward movement was in fact in the film. Now if YOU and Bob want to put words in my mouth, without merit, I'm gonna defend myself. And if someone CONTINUALLY does it time and time again after being shown my EXACT WORDS to the contrary, well, that is a fantasy. And of course my ENTIRE point here with Rather's words, is the FALLIBILITY of witness statements, and Rather was a witness, of sorts. Welcome to reality.
  10. Craig Lamson
    No the reality is this bobby. You don't have the first clue what Rather could or could not have seen because you don't have the first clue HOW he viewed the movie. And of COURSE he could have seen the forward movement in stop action and even in slo-mo. We have proof of that in the form of a gif on this very thread. Rather's words IN CONTEXT are not conclusive. You can't even begin to tell us how long it took to view the film, and his frame by frame comments are also ambiguous. The REALITY is there is no hint AT ALL of how he actually watch the film. You just continue to twist the words to fit your warped worldview. Who are you trying to deceive bobby? No bobby that's not even CLOSE to reality. And best of luck with that altered Zapruder film nonsense. That's been a loser for nearly 50 years now. Its your silly fantasy. As we can see in this post alone, you can't handle reality. You run from reality. You are deathly AFRAID of reality because it DESTROYS the neat little FANTASY world you have constructed to contain your warped worldview. Lets get real bobby. Your fantasy has run amok. Before you got bounced from Duncans for claiming most everyone who disagreed with were paid CIA or whrtever , you claimed I did not exist. When challenged you googled me and called me late one night and were SHOCKED to find I was exactly who I said I was. This is really KOOKY stuff bobby. FANTASY WORLD STUFF. Clearly you are beyond actually dealing directly with the reality here. You are far to vested in your fantasy. So carry on. You are your own worst enemy. And I find you worthy of only amusement value at this point.
  11. Craig Lamson
    I got the words correct bobby. Sorry if your limited reading and comprehension ability got in the way. Lets review: My paraphrase: There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME. Actual words: They turned the projector on and there it was. the whole assassination; you know, frame by frame by frame." Please note the PERIOD at the end of the actual quotation. You are wrong AGAIN bobby. I refer you back to the beginning of this very silly crusade of yours. I said then I did not know how Rather viewed the film. I STILL DON'T. Neither do you. Actually NO ONE DOES but the people who were in the room. I never claimed he viewed it in stop motion, or slo-mo or even in real time. I just posted his words. Now you can try and say I tried to deceive, yet I gladly posted the link to the video. Yes you are warping words, that's reality booby, deal with it. I can see you take getting smacked down here as badly as you did at Duncans. I don't know or care how Rather came to say what he did but the fact still remains the film DOES show a violent forward movement. Again, in case you missed it every other time it has been posted, that's the REALITY of the situation. Leave ti to bobby to try and make a HUGE mountain out of nothing. And wow, people want me banned? Imagine that.
  12. Craig Lamson
    Again from the youtube video... talking about viewing the film "I almost levitated out of my chair" "I leapt out of my chair" Words....people...welcome to reality
  13. Craig Lamson
    I just posted what he said bobby, and quite frankly your continued attempts here are simply silly. BTW, what exactly is FAIRLY QUICKLY? 22 seconds? 60 seconds, 2 mins? 5 mins? And despite your best attempt to warp the words it is not clear if it was stop action, slo-mo or real time projection bobby. See the problem when what you rely on are WORDS bobby? I don't care what he said, how he said it or WHY he said it. I direct you to this from another post of mine. Not that I expect you to be able to actually read and comprehend. And again, all of this is really quite meaningless. If he lied and did not really see it, Fine. If he DID really see it, fine. The end of the story is regardless of HOW he came to make the statement, he GOT IT CORRECT. JFK's head DOES move violently forward. Which takes us full circle back to my very first post on this matter. You keep looking worse and worse with every post.
  14. Craig Lamson
    And yet in his oral account on Youtube he tells and I paraphrase , There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME. And again, all of this is really quite meaningless. If he lied and did not really see it, Fine. If he DID really see it, fine. The end of the story is regardless of HOW he came to make the statement, he GOT IT CORRECT. JFK's head DOES move violently forward. Which takes us full circle back to my very first post on this matter. Mr. Lamson " There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME." If you have paraphrased this sentence, would you be so kind as to print the entire text and cite your source for this quote from Dan Rather? YOUTUBE...try a google 4:22
  15. Craig Lamson
    And yet in his oral account on Youtube he tells and I paraphrase , There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME. And again, all of this is really quite meaningless. If he lied and did not really see it, Fine. If he DID really see it, fine. The end of the story is regardless of HOW he came to make the statement, he GOT IT CORRECT. JFK's head DOES move violently forward. Which takes us full circle back to my very first post on this matter.
  16. Craig Lamson
    Mr. MacRae As Mr. Lamson seems to be desperately avoiding the question, perhaps you could tell this forum how Mr. Rather was able to see the violent forward motion of JFK's head, if that entire forward motion took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film? Poor bobby, you are SO technically inept. Ever heard of slow speed playback? Frame by frame playback? You seem to (wrongly) assume the film had to be viewed at a single playback speed. (And what playback speed would that be bobby?) Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather. Neither do you. But one thing is abundantly clear, you simply don't have a clue how REALITY works. You should have quite MANY posts ago. Mr. Lamson I don't suppose you could verify for us that Mr. Rather was awarded the privilege of viewing the Zapruder film at anything other than normal speed? Even if Mr. Rather watched the Zapruder film in frame by frame stop action, it is inconceivable that he would have been able to discern the small forward action of JFK's head in the single frame, z312. This motion was only discerned years after the assassination, when technology was developed to allow enhancement of the Zapruder film for analytical purposes. And, small and brief as the forward movement was, it is inconceivable that Mr. Rather would have described it as a "violent forward motion". That being said, we are still left with the question you CANNOT or WILL NOT answer; how was Mr. Rather able to see the forward motion of JFK's head in z312, if that entire forward motion of JFK's head took place in just one frame of the Zapruder film? What part of these words is beyond your ken? Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather. And of course he DID get it correct regardless of how he viewed the film. JFK's head DID move violently forward.
  17. Craig Lamson
    Mr. MacRae As Mr. Lamson seems to be desperately avoiding the question, perhaps you could tell this forum how Mr. Rather was able to see the violent forward motion of JFK's head, if that entire forward motion took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film? Poor bobby, you are SO technically inept. Ever heard of slow speed playback? Frame by frame playback? You seem to (wrongly) assume the film had to be viewed at a single playback speed. (And what playback speed would that be bobby?) Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather. Neither do you. But one thing is abundantly clear, you simply don't have a clue how REALITY works. You should have quit MANY posts ago.
  18. Craig Lamson
    Give it up bobby, you lost a few posts back and now you simply look very desperate.
  19. Craig Lamson
    How YOU things is your big problem bob. Always has been , and it looks like it continues here. I was not there, I don't know how Rather viewed the film, so I don't have a clue what happened. He said he did. YOU can choose to believe him or not. Thats your option. I really don't care because: Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards.
  20. Craig Lamson
    Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements..... Mr. Lamson And are you claiming Dan Rather was able to see this one frame phenomenon? Learn to read bob. Let me post what I said again. Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements..... Now I know reality is a tough one for you, and you always over-reach when you get your hat handed to you, but that's not my problem.
  21. Craig Lamson
    Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....
  22. Craig Lamson
    Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward.... Mr. Lamson JFK's forward head movement lasts for exactly one frame and cannot even be seen unless individual still frames of the Zapruder film are viewed. I would hardly describe that as moving violently forward, unless I was a desperate Lone Nut. So, lets review bob... A two inches or so forward movement of JFKs head over the course of 1/18 or so of a second is a slow, lazy movement to hapless bob. And this slow, lazy forward movement can only be see if your slow the film down or watch ti frame by frame. WOW! That's quite a pantload for you bob.
  23. Craig Lamson
    Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward....
  24. Craig Lamson
    And you got your chops, writing that work of fiction,"Best Evidence"? Was the title "Invasion of the body snatchers" already taken in the fiction section?
  25. Craig Lamson
    That the best you can do davie? He was GREAT until he was not... Fetzer: "Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert on special effects " You simply can't win can you daive? LMAO!
×
×
  • Create New...