Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

Members
  • Posts

    5,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Craig Lamson

  1. Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work.

    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.

  2. Let's assume for a second that Tink is wrong and Craig and Martin are correct. Their arguments are certainly persuasive. The question is, does that prove that JFK was struck in the back of the head bewteen frames 312 and 313?

    I have a couple of gifs for your consideration. These show that the other occupants of the limo all move rapidly and drastically forward and almost the same instant as President Kennedy and continue to do so after he is bowled backwards by the shot that exploded his temple.

    Z308-323R3NS.gif

    Z308-323C_zps027390e1.gif

    Is it not likely that the same force which caused the other limo occupants to move forward also affected the President?

    What about the women????

  3. Martin...

    The third law of physics is well understood... the skull MUST move to resist the frontal shot... a shot from behind carries with it much more baggage...

    Using the available evidence... please explain WHERE the shot entered the back of the head... WHERE it exited... HOW that trail of particles is left that high up...

    and WHY doesn't this xray show the bone as seen in the photos from the same time?

    Whereisflaponxray-1.jpg

    A shot from the rear, from the 6th floor, exists his face... WHY do we not have a single Parkland witness say there is any damage to the face, front or top of the head and yet can have Boswell give us this

    "approximation" showing virtually the entire skull missing?

    AARBSkull.jpg

    xraysversusreality.jpg

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

  4. WTF is "OPPS" old man...

    so excited to make a point you simply can't concentrate?

    Maybe if you ran off and took a p-iss first...you know, BEFORE you get all worked up... old men and their bladders ... :secret

    That you posess knowledge and wait around to bait others is pathetic... the much needed jollies of a hasbeen old man with nothing left to offer....

    Your childish "I know something you don't" BS adds to your reputation.

    and your inability to ackowledge an admitted mistake further proves your worthlessness as a human and your inability to play with or be accepted by others.

    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.

    No wonder you sit alone all day at your computer...

    you're just not any good at the HUMAN thing... :up

    Your paraphrasing anything in the case is worthless... post what was said so we can see what a shill you are.

    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.

    Altgens:

    "meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from."

    "Mr. ALTGENS - The left side of the car."

    little boy sez:

    The LEFT SIDE of the car based on where Altgens was, is the area behind Zapruder, the pergola and over to the RR yard and fence.

    You really can't read and comprehend with your ct goggles on.

    Left side of the car at the headshot, 313, from Altgens is the TSBD. You lose again.

    Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?

    Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.

    Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?

    Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually

    As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height.

    Behind Zapruder, to his left while facing Elm at 313...is the TSBD...THAT HEIGHT...oops.

    So we continue to see reactions related to shots from the rear AND from the side/front are mentioned by many....

    Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?

    Mr. HARGIS - ...I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository...

    Wrong again little boy, yet another TSBD.

    You take a helf step forward and 9 steps back every time you get cloe to the case. The evidence and witnesses describe a cross-fire.

    A FILM EXPERT who actually saw the movie that weekend says he saw 6-8 shots from 3 directions...

    2 sets of teams creating two sets of boards from two different Z films.....

    That hole your digging for yourself just gets deeper and deeper... the more you do to defend your beloved WCR, the worst your argument gets....

    How many people run to the TSBD after the shots? I can only rememeber one who goes on to commit perjury during his testimony by contradicting his AFFIDAVIT from that day.

    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.

  5. Well then... looks like I was wrong about those two frames...

    MPI did not make copies of 341 or 350 (486 as well I come to learn) and there does not seem to be copies of those two frames in general circulation...

    they would only be available at the archives or if you ordered that $$$ set of images.

    Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?

    Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

    At z340 Altgens moves into frame and is about 15 feet from JFK at z350....

    A headshot occurs at station 4+95 or 30 feet past z313 which is at station 4+65.

    Other than that I do not know of any significance to those frames....

    It would seem to me that if those two frames existed in their full glory... we'd have seen them by now and they would be incorporated into the available versions of the zframe movies.

    That the other two "breaks" occur at a time when shots were fired is, of course, no coincidence at all... :up

    DJ

    Mistakes happen... you learn and move on.

    You, on the other hand, will always be a :rolleyes:

    Altgens-in-Z---all-frames_zpsc0724114.gi

    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 :sun

    He never gets the camera to his eye...

    He says he was frozen.

  6. Well then... looks like I was wrong about those two frames...

    MPI did not make copies of 341 or 350 (486 as well I come to learn) and there does not seem to be copies of those two frames in general circulation...

    they would only be available at the archives or if you ordered that $$$ set of images.

    Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?

    Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

    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.

    Z341.jpg

    Z350.jpg

  7. No I do not base the conclusion on Costella

    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!

    Show us ANY FILM or ANY COLLECTION of frames that shows 341 and 350 intact, complete with IS area.

    The frames in the WCR go from 171-334 with the 208/212 spliced together frame...

    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?

    Since YOU surely have copies of every frame from the original... prove me wrong.

    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.

  8. Then post the original frames... 341 and 350

    Simple.

    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:

    Post the intact 341 and 350 and prove yourself correct.

    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.

  9. The splices occur in very specific locations 157, 208, 341, 350 as seen within the existing film.

    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.

  10. It's merely a logical extension of what you are saying, Craig. As you explained, JFK's head moved forward between z312 and z313 and then was seen to recoil backwards. What else could make JFK's head move backwards following z313, if it was not a bullet from the front?

    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.

  11. It's merely a logical extension of what you are saying, Craig. As you explained, JFK's head moved forward between z312 and z313 and then was seen to recoil backwards. What else could make JFK's head move backwards following z313, if it was not a bullet from the front?

    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.

  12. 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.

    tink.gif

    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?

  13. 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.

    tink.gif

    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.

  14. Craig,

    Do you think JFK was slammed back and to his left by a neuro-muscular reaction to being hit in his head just once? Kind of like that goat on youtube?

    --Tommy :sun

    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....

    tink.gif

  15. You tell us, Craig, we're all ears.

    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 :sun

    I have no idea.

  16. That is one of the most dishonest and manipulated gifs I have ever seen.

    And anyone can see why.

    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"?

  17. That is one of the most dishonest and manipulated gifs I have ever seen.

    And anyone can see why.

    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....

  18. That is one of the most dishonest and manipulated gifs I have ever seen.

    And anyone can see why.

    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.

  19. No... JFK's head does not move forward in the Zfilm we get to look at.

    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.

    tink.gif

  20. 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.

    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.

  21. 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.

  22. ... you silly boy

    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!

×
×
  • Create New...