Craig Lamson

Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING!

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.

Ya know the last time I spoke to Ray Fielding he said: I want no part, NO PART of a Zapruder film debate,end of discussion. Then Rollie calls me he going to Florida and talk with Fielding...perhaps old Rollie isn't so sure... What's always amazed me about the Gang of Eight is they never, ever, found a optical film lab technician or optical film lab post production director to comment on what can and can't be done, provide a few compositing scenarios concerning the Zapruder film. 10 years and counting... NOTHING!

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

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!

dude, thank gawd you took the cop-out I threw, you're easy hon! Now, rumor has it Dr. John Costella may be in Dallas for the 50th (not as a presenter, but a tourist). Reasoning has something to do with those that can't quite wrap themselves around real world & things-physics, plus discussing his Univ.of Minn 2003 Zapruder film presentation(s). Can't guarantee cameras will be around, but I'm sure a place can be made for you and your widely publicized protestations. Up for it hon?

There's nothing like proving yourself to an audience, don't you agree, it does take a man, these days!

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.

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

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!

Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant

to the assassination are:

...

Craig - photography

...

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.

Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant

to the assassination are:

...

Craig - photography

...

LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave...

Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'.

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

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.

Based on Abraham Zapruder's own WC testimony-- the alleged Zapruder film has been altered.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO! Good luck with that one davie, its a loser.

As Rollie Zavada once told me: he won't comment of the alleged Z-film content, he's not qualified to comment on possible special effects cinematography... aka film post-production effects. Wonder if he told that to Lampoon?

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.

and YOU can't figure how THAT fixes a possible alteration time timeline? and YOU have whose word and documented PROOF (such as a chain of evidence document for the alleged Z-film) that Moe was handling the NARA housed, in-camera original Zapruder film, again?

What nonsense are you trying to get away with here....methinks your pulling hope from your rear-end, son... or bending alleged truth at the very least, and possiblyBOTH as you're prone to do.

Why not invest real money son, buy Adobe's After Effects software, get with the program and see what software closed all these optical film houses around the world... and you are a photo consultant? Consultant for what and to WHOM, Uncle Sam? LMFAO! Your case for non-alteration is getting weaker and weaker, and I can't prove it WAS altered--what a mess you lone nuts are in.

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..

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

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."

If you want to get more specific about the actual location, the SS/FBI plat from DEC63/Feb64 gives the elevation for you.

If you refer back to CE884, use the elevation entry from Z313 (421.75), subtract JFK's "head height above the ground" from that, then you can figure out exactly where the "powers that be" determined the shot down near Altgens was.

Still no testimony!!!

chris

RECREATION=FLAWED

REALITY TO CHRIS....

Down the Street.

No testimony necessary.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/FBIREENACTMENT.mp4

chris

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

Mr. Davidson

Fascinating model, was it part of the Warren Commission's presentation of evidence? I've never seen this before. It certainly places the last two shots much further down the street than is officially accepted now, and lends credence to James Altgens testimony about the limousine being directly in front of him at the time of the fatal head shot.

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

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"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...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

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.

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"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...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob.

Now waddle away in those big old shoes....

Mr. Lamson

You seem quick to make assumptions. This is a character flaw I would work on.

You seem to be under the impression that I, pesonally, believe the shot exited the left side of JFK's head, when, in reality, I have never stated that belief. I am merely attempting to clarify that Mr. Altgens clearly believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head and stated so in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

In light of Mr. Altgens' clear inability to make good observations, perhaps you would care to explain your statement to Mr. Davidson (seen below) and how you can be so sure that Mr. Altgens' observations can prove that the fatal head shot occurred at the location of z313 and not further down Elm St.

"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...."

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.

Mr. Lamson

You seem quick to make assumptions. This is a character flaw I would work on.

You seem to be under the impression that I, pesonally, believe the shot exited the left side of JFK's head, when, in reality, I have never stated that belief. I am merely attempting to clarify that Mr. Altgens clearly believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head and stated so in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

In light of Mr. Altgens' clear inability to make good observations, perhaps you would care to explain your statement to Mr. Davidson (seen below) and how you can be so sure that Mr. Altgens' observations can prove that the fatal head shot occurred at the location of z313 and not further down Elm St.

"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...."

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

"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."

This is very basic material. Please do not feign an inability to comprehend. This is not the JFK Assassination Forum. People here are not amused by your circus antics.

Mr. Altgens is obviously describing the anatomical left side of JFK's head. It would be impossible for material blowing out the anatomical right side of JFK's head to have flown towards Mr. Altgens, even if JFK was struck at z313.

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...

Mr. Lamson

"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."

This is very basic material. Please do not feign an inability to comprehend. This is not the JFK Assassination Forum. People here are not amused by your circus antics.

Mr. Altgens is obviously describing the anatomical left side of JFK's head. It would be impossible for material blowing out the anatomical right side of JFK's head to have flown towards Mr. Altgens, even if JFK was struck at z313.

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

"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."

This is very basic material. Please do not feign an inability to comprehend. This is not the JFK Assassination Forum. People here are not amused by your circus antics.

Mr. Altgens is obviously describing the anatomical left side of JFK's head. It would be impossible for material blowing out the anatomical right side of JFK's head to have flown towards Mr. Altgens, even if JFK was struck at z313.

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

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.

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. Lamson

Yes, 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!

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

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. Lamson

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.

Pretty specfic....

Hi Robert,

Z313= Station # 4+65.3

CE 875 states a shot at Station # approx 4+95.

Across the steps would be Station # 5+25.

Distance from Z313 to steps is approx 60ft.

Distance from CE875 to steps = 30ft.

A shot near Altgens could be a more likely starting point for the Harper fragment.

chris

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....