Craig Lamson

Nothing simple about that, Robert, with all due respect. JFK's back wound was at T3, not C7/T1. The properly prepared medical documents, the clothing defects, and the overwhelming consensus eye-witness testimony puts the back wound at T3. Simply put, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothing are too low to have been associated with the throat wound. Period. Except for that pesky folded jacket.....cliffy avoids reality once again.

What about the women????

So explain little boy how a ball on a batting tee moves TOWARDS a bat that is striking it....

You sure you really want to go down that road you silly little boy? Its the same as these spews of yours in this very post. You too busy trying to hide your forum postings AT WORK? cloe. Whats a cloe? Karma is a real mother, helf. HELF? whats that your gender? ackowledge? LOL! posess? hasbeen? ROFLMAO rememeber? I have no problem at all with being a very bad speller. It's who I am. But I must say seeing you make this big of a fool of yourself over one of my errors...after you made all of these...well its just warms my heart. I waited around? Really? i told you with my VERY FIRST REPLY to you over at Duncans you were wrong, I supported it with two statements and even showed your the two ACTUAL and only splices to the film. You disagreed. I asked you to SHOW US YOUR WORK ( that phrase ring a bell little boy) both here and at Duncans. it was YOUR claim and YOUR burden of proof. I was under no obligation to post 341 and 350. Consider it a GIFT that I did. The best you could do to try and support your claim was say the "only thing we have", the Costella edit, shows the splices at 349 and 340. Then you even failed to tell the truth when you got called on it. You really showed your lack of research. This is not news, there are countless references to these frames and the MPI ( the basis for the Costella edit) all over google. Instead you ran you mouth, thinking you knew better then the rest of the world when the fact is you simply MADE IT ALL UP FROM THIN AIR. You simply had NO CLUE what so ever. After all of this you are somehow upset that I did not say, "way to admit your mistake"? Oh please. You got back exactly what you gave. Little boy, I post from all over, from my phone, from my iPad, from my laptop, and from my desktop. Often while I'm traveling, having lunch, while taking a break while on a shoot , watching tv wiht my wife and family or even for after reading your really silly posts while I'm doing post processing, just to take a break. And little boy, I suggest you take a good long look at your own posts...pot meet kettle and all of that. And I got Altgens exactly correct. You lose again. He can't see what he says he sees if the shot is where you say it is. End of story. No they describe a shot from the TSBD. You have to be WAY into fantasy land to come up with a crossfire. And that 'film expert'..you mean drunk, druggie, LAB TECH? Or two copies of the same film. Good luck proving other wise, Maybe you can do better than Horne. Oh wait Horne is your 'source' Well that's really too bad...FOR YOU. You are the one one digging holes. You don't have a clue and it appears you never will.

Why didn't Altgens take any photos at this point? Too busy focusing his camera? Advancing the film? In a state of shock? Just watching the action through the view finder? All of the above? --Tommy He never gets the camera to his eye... He says he was frozen.

One more very big problem for you davie jo. You love to quote Altgens, yet Altgens tells us about the wounds he sees to JFK's head...AFTER the headshot...but if the head shot occurs where you just said it did..Altgens can't SEE the damage to the side of JFK's head. IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIS VIEW. He can only see the damage he describes if the shot occurs up around the 313 area... OPPS... NOTICE!! For research and study ONLY – NOT FOR PUBLICATION! Zapruder Film: Copyright 1967 (renewed 1995) The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. All rights reserved.

Oh daive jo, even when your words are right here for everyone to see you STILL can't tell the truth... Your words from above which you posted ALONG WITH THE COSTELLA FRAMES davie jo sez: "Right now all we have are these, and the IS area is missing in all of them since the COPY FRAMES are used to fill in the missing frames:" Now what else can you base your conclusions on since your tell us the COSTELLA FRAMES ,which you posted, are "ALL WE HAVE" ROFLMAO! No, that would be YOUR job, since the claim is yours. Show us all of the copies of the archival copy of the Zapruder film you have check, and show us they are ALL missing the IS on 341 and 350. How simple could this be? Surely give "sterling" reputation as a researcher, you have checked and rechecked before making this claim about splices at 340 and 349. You DID look at something other tham Costella...Right? What I have or do not have is not the issue here. Its the correctness of your claim and research. So show us davie jo? Did you even ask Zavada? Opps not sure your calling him the l word is gonna help .... So davie, time to pony up the depth of your research on this important matter. Your reputation is riding on it. Show us what you have.

its YOUR claim davie jo, YOUR burden of proof. How ct like. You throw a pile-o-crap against the wall and expect someone else to actually do the work. Nope. Not this time. So you base your ENTIRE argument on the splice based on the Costella edit? Really? And that's all "we" have? Really? Really? Man reality sure is impossible for you to grasp. But hey, shows us your chops. Your claim, your burden of proof. Prove to us the Costella edit, "all we have" , ( roflmao) is correct. You staked your reputation on this davie jo. Lets get a really good look at your skills.

More blatant nonsense fro davie jo. Can he show that the film was spliced at these highlighted locations? OF COURSE NOT. Not even CLOSE. But that will never stop davie jo from spewing his nonsense...not in a million years.

I have no idea and I'm not the least bit interested in guessing. You on the other hand can guess ( and that's all it will be) as much as you like. Knock yourself out. But, Craig, you're such an expert, you can tell us the head is moving forward because of an impact by a bullet from the rear. Surely you can explain to us why the head then moves backwards in the next frame. Poor bob, your reading comprehension skills and cognitive ability are as bad here are they where at Duncans forum. I never said WHY the head was moving forward, just that it WAS moving forward to show that davie jo was wrong again. I also said it COULD move either forward or backwards from a gunshot. Now if you want to make some guesses about what happened, please, knock yourself out. And then brush up on your reading skills.

I have no idea and I'm not the least bit interested in guessing. You on the other hand can guess ( and that's all it will be) as much as you like. Knock yourself out.

GUESS what ever you want...

You silly little boy.....Is there sufficient detail available in the Z film to see the blood spray that has fallen on the interior? Of course not. How about that Parkland shot? Nope again. Just gotta love the infantile logic of davie jo. I can't see it therefore it CANNOT exist. What a joke. But hey, davie jo has never let reality stand in the way of his fantasy. Never will. And the forward movement...ROFLMAO! Just a few posts ago you said... "No... JFK's head does not move forward in the Zfilm we get to look at." Make up your mind you silly little boy. Can't have it both ways. Oh wait I forgot who I was talking to. Never mind. But hey, davie jo has never let reality stand in the way of his fantasy. Never will. If a bullet hitting JFK from the back could make his head go forward, could a bullet hitting the front of his head make JFK go backwards? Why not?

You silly little boy..... Is there sufficient detail available in the Z film to see the blood spray that has fallen on the interior? Of course not. How about that Parkland shot? Nope again. Just gotta love the infantile logic of davie jo. I can't see it therefore it CANNOT exist. What a joke. But hey, davie jo has never let reality stand in the way of his fantasy. Never will. And the forward movement...ROFLMAO! Just a few posts ago you said... "No... JFK's head does not move forward in the Zfilm we get to look at." Make up your mind you silly little boy. Can't have it both ways. Oh wait I forgot who I was talking to. Never mind. But hey, davie jo has never let reality stand in the way of his fantasy. Never will.

I don't play that game Tommy. You should know that by now. Tink's waterboy does not play games.... why folks waste time on this subject matter with you is amazing... lmao! Well lookie, lookie, here comes healy. All hat and no cow.... I don't play games. I just tell it like it is, and then I prove it. Can you say the same? Lets do it again since its been derailed by those who can't deal with reality....

I don't play that game Tommy. You should know that by now.

Lol, what's the matter bob? Cat got your tongue? Now you care to get back on topic? Maybe you can try and save davie Jo and jimbos bacon. Oh wait, you don't have the chops. Sorry. Craig, So JFK's head was hit twice, right? The first one from behind and second one from the side or the front. Works for me. --Tommy I have no idea.

Lol, what's the matter bob? Cat got your tongue? Now you care to get back on topic? Maybe you can try and save davie Jo and jimbos bacon. Oh wait, you don't have the chops. Sorry.

Translated from jimbo speak: "I can't even begin to refute this..." Please explain oh all knowing jimbo.. Your explanation is sure to be the stuff of legends! Now don't be shy jimbo.... Tell us why. Roflmao! Better yet, make your own and actually prove your point instead of running your completely uninformed mouth. I see they will let almost anyone onto this forum...... Yep, here you are bob.... And I see you are still peddling the same tired junk for the same people.... What "junk" would that be bob and what "people"?

Translated from jimbo speak: "I can't even begin to refute this..." Please explain oh all knowing jimbo.. Your explanation is sure to be the stuff of legends! Now don't be shy jimbo.... Tell us why. Roflmao! Better yet, make your own and actually prove your point instead of running your completely uninformed mouth. I see they will let almost anyone onto this forum...... Yep, here you are bob....

Translated from jimbo speak: "I can't even begin to refute this..." Please explain oh all knowing jimbo.. Your explanation is sure to be the stuff of legends! Now don't be shy jimbo.... Tell us why. Roflmao! Better yet, make your own and actually prove your point instead of running your completely uninformed mouth.

Lots of empty words from davy jo. Pictures tell a completely different story. JFK's HEAD MOVES FORWARD. In the opposite direction of the motion blur. Davie Jo gets it wrong again.

and who praytell wrote that for Rollie, you, Gary? Or a gruppe effort? And, nor does Roland Zavada have a clue as to optical film printing and its techniques and process. Ask Dino Brugioni for a bit of advice.... Who praytell is being naive here,dude? Sounds like you have been taken in under the 6th floor Mausoleum? Your unencumbered zeal to protect the lone nut-WCR-LHO did it all by his lonesome position, Zapruder film as an icon of fanatical belief is duly noted, AGAIN! Your "I don't care who did it" bs notwithstanding. Now don't forget Lampoon, Roland Zavada left me on your 2004 "group of eight" e-mail list. And he, Rollie was perfectly willing to post his new and improved Zavada Report (which never happened) for comment right here on this forum. Of course Dr. Thompson and Gary were dead set against his revision to the original Zavada report. Hell man, Rollie even told me he went to Florida to check with my published source, see below link: Author-Professor Raymond Fielding: http://www.amazon.co... cinematography (source: The ART of Special Effects Cinematography1st edition-1963 Ray Fielding) re: Special Effects Cinematography. Rollie was not a happy camper, nor has his belated revision surfaced... and you know, old Rollie had no clue a 8mm film could be blown up to 35mm in 1963... what does that tell you.... did you? Imagine that! p.s. do you really need that large font, does it make you feel large? You're reminding me of a certain high school bully type syndrome, rather un-flattering too. Roflmao! You got your panties all in a bunch davie. Fielding called you... Technically naive. And of course you are. You are a video technician..a repair man..and at best just an eng guy. Heck Fielding, who DOES know, tells us you have it all wrong and it's just not possible to do the alterations in 63 And have them withstand professional inspection. And gee, the darling of the ct looney toons alterationsits, Rod Ryan, agreed that the Z film was not altered after viewing it under a microscope. Fielding is quoted above telling the world just how bad you really are at this. You and your bull crap got tossed by the very source you tried...and failed to use to bolster your silly claims. That's reality davie. You got pwned. You got no game. You are just a toothless old guard dog, barking at the moon, in a vain attempt to salvage the Z film alteration claim nonsense. That's your legacy. Enjoy it, you earned it. ROFLMAO.

Zavada on David Healy....oops... You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography. In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special optical effects changes.(pg 15) 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.

my Gawd Lampoon, this is the best you can do? Then you drag Zavada into your tirade, Zavada who was firmly backed into a corner by Livingston concerning the Zapruder film report (have you read the interview transcripts of those face-to-face meetings?). The Zavada that refused to debate-discuss the technical aspects of the Zapruder film during the 2003 University of Minnesota Zapruder Film Symposium, didn't even show up? That Zavada? That very same person the Gang of Eight protected in 2003-2004, of which you were part? So now, here you are, hiding behind Dr. Josiah Thompson and his name, personna and cred's, AGAIN, whilst calling out, "silly little boy" to one whom appears a very competent researcher? Your "product" selling here is failing dude. Your old and cranky now, back then a mere pain in the rear, not worthy of Z-film authentication issue debate, simply another opinion (informed or NOT, but opinion none-the-less). Ya should stayed with your Moorman5/Polaroid-DP camera study. The next generation is here dude, they aren't letting go... despite your "silly" protestations... Translated from the protect the" zfilm alteration claim at ALL costs guard dog."....blah blah blah, can't refute it so I'll just spew nonsense. You guys are toast and you know it..and Livingston? That goofball!! ROFLMAO, when you stoop THAT low we all know you have NOTHING...and the little boy davie jo is COMPETENT! Now you have really done yourself in. He is pretty good at making lottery scratch off tickets I hear. LMOA!