Craig Lamson

Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered. You don't have clue, say-nothing I believe anything you say? Surely you jest... And who is Rod Roderick? And whose microscope did he use and when did he view the alleged incamera Zapruder film, with whom and when, is there an affidavit stating such ANYWHERE? ... can you wannabes be a tad more specific? Say something a little meatier than the lone nut version of, "hey, my mother told me," perhaps? Believe whatever you want, say-nothing. My bad, forgot the last name, Rod - Roderick Ryan As for the rest it has been posted MANY times. Try to do better with your google this time.

Except for Ray Fielding who called you and your work technically naive, and oh yea how about Rod Roderick, who said after viewing the film UNDER A MICROSCOPE, it was not altered. You don't have clue, say-nothing

Who is paying them? Their clients. You seem to be able to do a google. Try it. I love James Russell for example... http://www.jamesrussellphotography.com/ or Christoper Barrett http://christopherbarrett.net/ Or Vincent LaFloret http://www.laforetvisuals.com/ The list is endless. Time for you to step into the real world davie You are correct that I'm not sharing my personal family videos here on a JFK forum. Again welcome to reality davie. I'm not a motion guy, Never claimed to be one. I AM a very competent adverting photographer and I DO have years of FILM based compositing experience. Not to mention digital since rh beginnign f commercial digital. As to compositing experience, I have DECADES. And about you, I don't hide my words about you I say them in public. You don't have the first clue when it comes to the Zapruder film being altered. Lets face davie, you are just a video guy. Heck we have asked you for YEARS to show us your film based composites, heck even your basic reel but you run away every time you are asked. You try and make rhe world THINK you are some sort of film compositing geek, but the reality is you are nothing more than a newsie and equipment repairman. Not a thing naive with my posts, but its REALLY clear your claims are quite naive. If you could refute me you would do it instead of your never ending say nothing posts. Did you even read what you googled, say-nothing? Can you find even a SINGLE USENET photo forum? EVEN ONE? Oh, and for ME....not some other Craig Lamson..,Roflmao!

You threw me a cop out? ROFLMAO! You need to take a really long drink of reality. And Dr. John? LMAO! Whats he afraid of? I'm here, I can't help it he is to afraid to get beaten to a pulp in a public forum. Here he is failing real world physics...PARALLAX. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Dr, John has no chops. That's why he can't face the music here. I've proven my point in a very public forum. Dr. John, is still hiding away. Time for YOU to sit down, say-nothing. Heck you can't even UNDERSTAND the argument I just posted. No chops for YOU either.

I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough.... Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days? And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up. ROFLMAO! I posted them davie, and you can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care what you think because are just a say nothing xxxxx. Yea, Final Cut 7 and I see you can't read. I told you I had AE, along with the rest of the master collection. I play with video software for fun, and dude a composite is a composite, and unless you have forgotten motion is still just a very long string of STILLS. Lots of interesting differences but its still image making in the end. And "photo consultant". ROFLMAO! My oh my are really are at the very end of your rope. Sure you have AE uh-huh... lmao! Dude it's one of the most sophisticated pieces of software made, was so in its original form when created by COSA. There isn't a successful still photographer that uses AE, to difficult, time consuming and thought processes too much like optical film composing... can't hide behind Photoshop here dude! Remember the image compositor's job number one is: ta-da believability... the WC was sucker punched when it came to the Zapruder Film! So,again, that body of work is where, these days...? End of rope? What end of rope? Man, you're on most USENET photography forums, it's been long rumored folks that do that are either hustling work or building a legend...eh? A composite is a composite? Simple as that? Never, especially not when travelling mattes are concerned..... LMFAO! Oh please grow up davie, you look sooo childish. Its SOFTWARE davie, 10th graders use it. There are LOTS of stills guys transitioning to motion dude. Welcome to reality 101. And yea, a composite is just a composite. Traveling mattes? ROFLMAO. You do understand, don't you that the reason that they existed is for SPEED and making money FASTER? My body of motion work? Lots of nice family stuff. Like I said I just play. Got my Blackmagic Pocket on pre-order. Another toy to play with. No desire to take the pro work away from my video friends. They need to eat too. If i was just starting my career, it would be a no brainer. I have all the work I need without adding video. Forums? Which ones would that be davie? Oh wait, you need proof. ROFLMAO!

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'. sitdown, you're a waste of time... bring what on? I'm waiting for YOUR proof your correspondence with Moe, Rollie Zavada and any other you deem necessary, with headers. Now if they request you not post proof of their correspondence here, simply say so. Then we can keep you in that good old tard-pit reserved for noise makers, of which there are many here these days.... The closer to Nov 2013 the more your compatriots seem overwrought and full of ill feelings. For something that happened 50 years ago, amazing... <sigh> Carry on Sluggo! You are waiting for NOTHING davie. I've posted the the contents, and I'll NOT post their personal information. You can take it or leave it, I could care less. That's how it works. If ANYONE here needs to sit down its you say nothing davie. Talk about a waste, why don't you get bac kto us when you actually SAY SOMETHING. Based on your track record that will be never.

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'.

I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy.. getting to you son? listen, you have all these words from all these folks, post them, show the entire world you're not a wannabe photo expert and photo consultant, it you have a digital record of their comments, emails etc... post them, certainly no one I know here believes you for one second... time to get off the pot dude, you've hid in fiction long enough.... Final Cut 7? Yeah, sure you do... so where's your body of video work residing these days? And not surprising, Adobe After Effects is missing from you arsenal, obviously you didn't buy Adobe's studio video package, which includes After Effects as well as Illustrator. So is motion image compositing beyond your ken (what we're talking here, son)? Speak up. ROFLMAO! I posted them davie, and you can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care what you think because are just a say nothing xxxxx. Yea, Final Cut 7 and I see you can't read. I told you I had AE, along with the rest of the master collection. I play with video software for fun, and dude a composite is a composite, and unless you have forgotten motion is still just a very long string of STILLS. Lots of interesting differences but its still image making in the end. And "photo consultant". ROFLMAO! My oh my are really are at the very end of your rope.

Why don't we ask him? Until we get his anwser, there is this..... Zavada: I have always believed that there are many film technology and time constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily detectable artifacts. Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

I have Moe's word, I have Zavada's word, I have Rodericks word. Who's do you have davie. You gonna go with Costella , the PhD who can't even figure out parallax? ROFLMAO! If you want to try and call me a xxxx davie, just do so, and then offer up your proof. I give the forum cops my permission for your to use that word towards me IF YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IT. You can't because you don't have any. What a weak play in your part. I understand you just got caught, told you are naive, and then spanked, but really, that's the best you have? Talk about playing it out of your backside... AE? REALLY? Come on davie I HAVE AE, Premier, FC7, FCX, Resolve lite... Time for you to give it up, you lost a long time ago. That's why you are say nothing healy..

Craig Lampoon Lamson was one of the Gang of Eight trying to put down Zapruder film alteration scenarios, especially those that came from the 2003 Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth symposium on the Zapruder Film. He's been chasing his tail ever since. You'd think after 10 years they'd find a Hollywood type to shred my simple presentation... he can't they're on my side of the question. 'Poon' claims to be a dark room maven, unfortunately he's never even seen a film optical film printer, nor, based by his comments here and elsewhere, worked a film lab of any type... so the poor guy is completely lost when the alteration conversation comes up... He reverts to holding Dr. Josiah Thompson hand and position when Rollie Zavada comes up.... what the dude won't tell you is Rollie Zavada has acknowledged he has no clue concerning the content of the Zapruder film, about the only thing Zavada can tell us is the film he looked at (the alleged Zapruder Film) is KODAK film. That's it! Hell, Roland Zavada was under the impression that UofMinn. Zapruderalteration discussion was based on 8mm to 8mm optical printing with no blow ups... Neither Zavada, Lamson or the remaining Gang of Eight members have the chops to even discuss the topic, much let alone to tell experienced image compositors what compositing possibilites are. The old adage, give a photog a camera, access to Photoshop (the software) and they think they're Ansel Adams re-incarnated or they have chops.... Poor davie, ever worked an Oxberry ammimation camera? I have. Optical printer? Yep? Spent any time running and doing process control on cine, RT, tube and Dip and Dunk E3, E6, and C41 davie boy? I have. How about EP2 and RA4?: How many process cameras have you used? Made any large format (and by that I mean 11x14 film) composites that need to withstand inspection FOREVER as a still frame? I have. Photoshop, yea what a wonderful invention. I have enjoyed it since V2 and a Kodak DCS200.... Those are my chops davie, not to mention my decades of shooting advertising stills. You got yours by shooting ENG and repairing the gear? ROFLMAO! Now lets find that Hollywood type again to refute your little scam. Zavada: "I have always believed that there are many film technology and time constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily detectable artifacts. Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve." Finally lets add Moe Weitzman to the list. You know another film guy who had the original in his hands....sent me this in a series of very nice emails... "The fools who think hardware or skill existed back then to alter 8mm film back then are living in la la land. I gave a talk to the SMPTE on 8mm film capabilities once. Cameras were the problem then not film. No two single 8mm cameras even from the same manufacturer could place successive frame in registration. Later magazine loads helped some. I recommended Rollie Zavada to the JFK museum when the question of edge numbers on 35mm blowup footage duplicates arose." "I had the film in my possession twice. The first time commissioned by time life and the second time by a network. The first time Ed Willett who worked for Oxberry machine recommended me because I had camera shuttles in 8mm. I jury rigged it to use as a projector shuttle but I had no sprocket advance and had to use 16mm (same distance between sprocket holes except twice a many on double 8mm). To answer your question, on both occasions I had original film definitely not a duplicate. If it were duplicated to read as an original it would have had to been done on an Optical printer so it could read properly thru the base. There did not exist at the time an 8mm projection shuttle. And even if it did exist why did they bother to put a splice where it was torn when a lab tried to make a contact print. the film was the original both times I had it in my possession."

Roflmao. RECREATION=FLAWED REALITY TO CHRIS....

You are simply beyond hope Chris. Reality has pasted you by.

So now Altgens gets it right? ROFLMAO! You bump your head while trying to walk in those big shoes?

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob. Mr. Lamson I have finished with you. Good day, sir. Wow, that took long enough, besides your goody two shoes act is wearing thin.

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob. Now waddle away in those big old shoes....

Bob does the backstroke.... I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob, and this is a prefect reason why. Chris and others who do the "Altgens" headshot like to quote his saying it was 15 feet from him. And we know for a fact he screwed up his 30 guess on the shot he took prior to the headshot. Earth to Bob. They can't have it both ways. Please learn to read Bob, and then get back to us when you do. Just don't trip in those big shoes. Mr. Lamson You seem to contradict yourself on a regular basis. One might almost say your actions border on being hypocritical. This is another serious character flaw that seems to be prevalent in Lone Nuts. On the one hand, you rely on Mr. Altgens' eyewitness testimony to admonish Mr. Davidson in this statement from you, "One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...." And yet, when pressed about the reliability of Mr. Altgens' testimony, you take the position "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob". You then go on to say that "Chris and others" (referring, I assume, to Mr. Davidson and a goodly number of other researchers on this forum) want to have it both ways when it comes to Mr. Altgens' testimony. Do you not see how you contradict yourself here? Mr. Altgens' testimony is good enough when you wish to refute Mr. Davidson, but, outside of that, you " take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt". It is clearly you who wants it both ways. The pot is definitely calling the kettle black here. Big nose make it hard for your to read? See the words..."ACCORDING to ALTGENS" I'm not taking it either way. Just pointing out the problem with using witness testimony And then YOU blew your horn around the bigtop with your left side of the head routine. Further proving how poorly you read witness testimony. Bob, don't try and fit too many of your friends inside a VW Beetle.

Bob does the backstroke.... I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob, and this is a prefect reason why. Chris and others who do the "Altgens" headshot like to quote his saying it was 15 feet from him. And we know for a fact he screwed up his 30 guess on the shot he took prior to the headshot. Earth to Bob. They can't have it both ways. Please learn to read Bob, and then get back to us when you do. Just don't trip in those big shoes.

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding bobby? If what you say is true, which it can't be...you have just created the kookiest CT since Lifton did the body tango! And WHY would it be impossible for the ejecta from the anatomical right of JFK's head to fly towards Altgens? Heck Altgens was nearly in a direct line from JFK to the 6th floor window, if what Altgens says about the location of the shooter is true. You just took ct silliness to a entirely new level! Mr. Lamson As I said, your circus antics on this forum are likely just barely tolerated. Read Mr. Altgens words again. ""There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head." What part of " the shot came out of the left side of his head." are you having trouble with? The part where you can't understand it was the left side AS SEEN BY ALTGENS....which was JFK's anatomical RIGHT. I would say something about some really clownish theories about I don't think there is a need....I can't imagine anyone here takes the thought that it was the LEFT anatomical side of JFK's head that Altgens was describing and being shot out seriously. Except you of course. Mr. Lamson I have been as patient with you as is to be reasonably expected from a human being. However, I will attempt one last time to explain Mr. Altgens' words for you. If Mr. Altgens said, "flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing", would that not clearly indicate Mr. Altgens was indicating the left side of JFK's head? If we look at z312, the right side of JFK's head is presented toward Mr. Zapruder. At best, Mr. Altgens would be able to see JFK's face, but not the right side of his head. This is further enforced by Mr. Altgens' next words, " so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head." Mr. Altgens is plainly telling us that he believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head; not the right side, not his face nor the top of his head but, plain as plain can be, "the shot came out of the left side of his head." Ok bob, you can have the red nose and the big shoes for that one...

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding bobby? If what you say is true, which it can't be...you have just created the kookiest CT since Lifton did the body tango! And WHY would it be impossible for the ejecta from the anatomical right of JFK's head to fly towards Altgens? Heck Altgens was nearly in a direct line from JFK to the 6th floor window, if what Altgens says about the location of the shooter is true. You just took ct silliness to a entirely new level! Mr. Lamson As I said, your circus antics on this forum are likely just barely tolerated. Read Mr. Altgens words again. ""There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head." What part of " the shot came out of the left side of his head." are you having trouble with? The part where you can't understand it was the left side AS SEEN BY ALTGENS....which was JFK's anatomical RIGHT. I would say something about some really clownish theories about I don't think there is a need....I can't imagine anyone here takes the thought that it was the LEFT anatomical side of JFK's head that Altgens was describing and being shot out seriously. Except you of course.

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding bobby? If what you say is true, which it can't be...you have just created the kookiest CT since Lifton did the body tango! And WHY would it be impossible for the ejecta from the anatomical right of JFK's head to fly towards Altgens? Heck Altgens was nearly in a direct line from JFK to the 6th floor window, if what Altgens says about the location of the shooter is true. You just took ct silliness to a entirely new level!

Mr. ALTOENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn’t upright.’ He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him- just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from. [/size] Pretty specfic.... Mr. LamsonYes, quite specific. I am especially interested in " There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building......." Everything Mr. Altgens is describing are observations he made about the LEFT side of JFK's head. Do you think Mr. Altgens would have difficulty seeing the left side of JFK's head if the limousine were directly in front of him? Mr. Lamson?? Which left side? Roflmao. Reading and comprehension not your strong suit? Lol!

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT? Gets you nowhere ... fast. And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Mr. ALTOENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn’t upright.’ He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him- just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from. Pretty specfic....

One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK....