Craig Lamson

Search is your friend. I have posted MANY technical and documented (meaning TESTED) replies. I'm not really interested in doing then over and over again. In Chris's case the documentation of his error is spelled out quite clearly. He misread the data. He mistook DISTANCE to the rifle in the window for measurements at street level to the BASE of the TSBD. Clearly he got it wrong yet he persists and ignores reality. I've pointed out this error more than once. This is simply entertainment. No one's mind is going to be changed here. Too many CT's fully vested in the fantasy of choice to ever really change paths. Reality is of little concern when a long held theory is at stake. You can show, technically, that something is wrong and still have alterationists clinging to fantasy instead. Case in point. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm. And the fantasy... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16192&st=0 Notice the strawmen, and downright ignorance of the alterationists in a failed attempt to salvage Costella's very BEST proof of alteration, the on he says can't be refuted. Ooops... And you wonder why i post like I do?

If you don't like my posts don't read them. The film has not been altered BTW. Whats the use "countering" arguments with people oyu are so locked into a fantasy they can't be rational. Lets use Chris in this example. Even when faced with the fact that he is using the data incorrectly, he still just plods along doing the same wrong thing over and over again. So oyu deal directly with the errors, and I have in Davidsons case and they pretend the errors do not exist. It's FANTASY, whackjob stuff. And I tell it like it is. Alterationists are a joke. Their work is a farce at best. Even the so called 'scientists" fail miserably. Like Costella and his "best" argument..which fails the use of perspective. Show me one single argument for alteration that is correct...and prove it. Again, you don't like my posts, then please. don't read them. A PERFECT example of alterationist nonsense... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20117

Exactly correct. Now WHERE does your fantasy 15.5 feet come in again? Oh wait it does not. ROFLMAO. You just can't read and comprehend. DISTANCE TO THE RIFLE IN WINDOW Where from? The chalk mark on the stand in's back. How do we know? The surveyed elevation of this mark (for position A) is ABOVE the base of the TSBD. You don't have the first clue. Welcome to reality. GIGO...Chris Davidson.

I'm not the one having trouble at all. You on the other hand, why you can't figure out what 91.6 means for example. You can't figure out that West has the TSBD wrong. You cant figure out there are no measurements from the base of the TSBD under the sniper window. You can't figure out...well much of anything. Why? You live in a fantasy world. But please keep it up. Its highly entertaining. amazing.... everyone is wrong except the Warren Commission (and lone nut trolls), you need to accept reality Craigster, the WCR is flawed, DEEPLY flawed! Did I ever say the WC was not wrong? In fact I said they were wrong in this very thread. I know you a few floors short but do try and keep up.

Lets have a bit more entertainment. Position A. Show us how you found it. Both for the WC and the FBI. Really simple stuff.

I'm not the one having trouble at all. You on the other hand, why you can't figure out what 91.6 means for example. You can't figure out that West has the TSBD wrong. You cant figure out there are no measurements from the base of the TSBD under the sniper window. You can't figure out...well much of anything. Why? You live in a fantasy world. But please keep it up. Its highly entertaining.

94.7ft = You can find it here. http://www.historyma...Vol18_0050b.htm chris You really are beyond all hope. You don't even have the location of the snipers nest...on the ground correct. Looney Toons, and missing the intellectual honesty to acknowlege your errors. You just make up distances and locations from thin air. GIGO, the dictionary definition of the work of Chris Davidson. BTW, The West plat has the face of the TSBD incorrect. All the fantasy you have concocted from there, besides being nonsense, is positioned wrong.

You have the tsbd wrong you silly boy. All your measurements are garbage. That's where all your graphics belong. And ONCE AGAIN ( a bit a trend here) you don't have a clue what you are doing. Quite frankly you never have, and I keep showing that to the world. Roflmao! Btw, what does 91.6 represent? Oh yea, you can't read. Distance to the rifle IN THE WINDOW. LOL!

CHRIS...quit the shucking and jiving. You screwed up. Just admit it and redo your work. Or look really foolish...your choice. I'm betting of foolish. 91.6' ROFLMAO! Carry on, its your funeral. Added on edit. You don't even have the face of the TSBD correct. The Plat has it wrong. I found that some time ago as did Martin Hinrichs who shows it on his CAD map. You are plotting your positions from a fantasy location...GIGO..as usual

What is the straight line distance measurement between Position "A" and Station# 2+00? Doesn't have to be exact. 1inch = 10ft I'd say approx 69ft. chris Roflmao Chris does the backstroke instead of dealing with the reality he made a major, boneheaded mistake. Craig, I am talking about street distances, not elevation differences. Why don't you take a measurement from the snipers nest at street level, out to Station# 2+50, and give us the result? chris Get off it Chris and just admit your error. You screwed up. Deal with it. You read it wrong and..,finally... Someone caught it. Reality bites. Get back to us when you have tossed this work in the garbage and you have something valid. Thats NOT now.

What is the straight line distance measurement between Position "A" and Station# 2+00? Doesn't have to be exact. 1inch = 10ft I'd say approx 69ft. chris Roflmao Chris does the backstroke instead of dealing with the reality he made a major, boneheaded mistake.

A brilliantly plausible explanation for why Kennedy was nowhere near the center of Altgens #6, as readers can judge for themselves here: http://img26.imagesh...satevepost1.jpg ROFLMAO! The CENTER of the photo? ROFLMAO! Oh wait it is Paul Rigby. Photo analyst extraordinaire. [/sarcasm] Who just failed photo composition 101. Imagine that. http://photoinf.com/..._Don'ts.htm http://www.dpreview....-left-of-center And the list goes on and one and one. What a silly statement by Rigby, surprise surprise. I'm delighted to see that elementary comprehension remains your strong point. Or should that be your "101"? Just as I'm delighted to see you a failure once again. Or is that your legacy?

A brilliantly plausible explanation for why Kennedy was nowhere near the center of Altgens #6, as readers can judge for themselves here: http://img26.imagesh...satevepost1.jpg ROFLMAO! The CENTER of the photo? ROFLMAO! Oh wait it is Paul Rigby. Photo analyst extraordinaire. [/sarcasm] Who just failed photo composition 101. Imagine that. http://photoinf.com/General/Peter_Saw/Tutorial_on_Composition/One_of_the_Don%27ts.htm http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5058631297/photo-tip-left-of-center And the list goes on and one and one. What a silly statement by Rigby, surprise surprise.

Only one 'reality' problem with that. Altgens said he had prefocused his camera to 15 feet. A quick check of a Depth of Field calculator shows with is 105mm lens set at 15 feet for focus and at f16 (being generous) he would have had an area of acceptable focus from 12.6 feet to 18.6 feet...or only 6.6 feet of sharp focus. Altgens was a pro who no doubt shot many times prefocused. Doing so with a moving subject REQUIRES tracking the subject in the viewfinder until the come into the zone of focus. This is news and sports photography 101. We can see that Altgens camera was not at his eye, in fact is is quite a ways from it. He was NOT prepared to take the the image...HE WAS STUNNED just like he said...from the HEADSHOT. Was here a shot at this location? Maybe? Did he WC try and hide it? Perhaps? Was it the head shot? Not based on Altgens.

DUH, I just told you that above. Still puts all of your work in the garbage can.

Its the right triangle UP THE SIDE OF THE TSBD...to the window. DISTANCE TO RIFLE IN WINDOW...NOT distance to bottom of the TSBD wall... Back to the drawing board Chris. All your work just got tossed INTO THE GARBAGE CAN

OMG... So Chris. Is the distance to the rifle in the window really the actual distance or is it the distance to the BOTTOM of the TSBD like you have it drawn? Lets do some rough math and assume for this little exercise the street is level..just for the sake of argument. A squared + B squared = C squared... 80 x80 = 6400 50x50 = 2500 ( assumption the sniper window is 50' above the street) 6400 = 2500 = 8900 Square root of 10000...or the distance to the sniper rifle in the window. 94.3 feet If you use the CORRECT figures does it equal 91.6 feet Chris? lets try it again..122x122 =14884 50x50=2500 14884+2500=17384 Square root of 17384=131.84 LOL! Ok, West has the Window sill at 60 feet. Lets look again So 91.6 feet of distance to the rifle equals 70 feet from the base of the TSBD. Plot it on CE585 and its now 72 feet at 5 foot above the pavement. Time for you to regroup and start all over again Chris...

Chris did they even use the correct limo? Duh. Congrats....GIGO. Great work [/sarcasm] Chris the fantasy master strikes again.

Thanks for proving my point. "Cutler, Myers and Don R. have done a fairly good job and they all align with Position "A"." FAIRLY GOOD. As in ESTIMATED. Do they really align or do they align fairy good? . I could do no better and neither can you. All you can do is ESTIMATE And you just showed us the fact that the documentation and the ESTIMATED distances don't match. All of which means they got DIFFERENT NUMBERS when they made their ESTIMATIONS and made some data entry errors. These are RECREATIONS not the real event. You can't understand the importance of this so I'm not expecting you you ever 'get it". Great work Chris, the find of the century..that GARBAGE IN equals GARBAGE OUT. All hail the fantasy master Chris Davidson!

You can't show ANY of the numbers are correct so you can't show there is really a 15.5 foot difference. Get that through your head. Or not. Your choice. ALL the numbers are estimates Chris. But hey keep playing with your fantasy as long as you like. In the end it will still be just a bunch of garbage based on garbage. You are too far gone to have the intellectual honesty to see that. BTW, can you locate Towners film plane to within an inch? How about 12 inches? If you can't you have just proven the numbers are ESTIMATES Chris. Are you rational enough to understand how this applies?

Earth to Chris...did you even read your last post? I guess not...this is the first few lines... "Starting point at Station# 2+00 Frame161 is at 3+29.2 = 129.2ft from Station 2+00" You have lost it Chris. Those numbers are estimates Chris. The sooner you learn to deal with this reality the better chance you might have of finding your sanity again. I can hope but I'm not holding my breath. ESTIMATES Chris...ESTIMATES.

exactly.... like listening to Norm Crosby When you buy your first clue ( should you ever be able to afford it) get back to us.

No Karl, its 6000 posts of truth you don't want to hear and generally don't understand.

IF..IF...IF...and of course that's the entire point. And why not 30 feet? Fixed position are pretty much meaningless when you base the entire result on UNFIXED positions such the Zapruder camera location and the location of the limo (or JFK's head) even worst when you use the wrong car...just saying. So back to square one. Chris ( and any number of other people) have proven the recreations produced different results. Chris and others want to say the head shot is farther down the street and the z film is faked. Only one problem, you will need to prove Altgens 6 and Moorman fakes as well. (not to mention other films, but lets jmake it easy) Good luck with that.

There is no doubt you can find a POINT in the plaza, the question becomes does it represent the exact location of the LIMO for example. In your machinery example you start with plans giving you the intended locations. You don't have that with the films. You have 2d representation of moving 3d space. So how do you KNOW if the resulting location of that moving object are correct? You can't and they won't be. There is just too much ambiguity. Take the location of the Zapruder camera. If you miss the exact location by an inch or two you have already imparted compound errors over every measurement taken from that location. And that location error can be compound in itself if the error is in more that one axis. Clearly they tried ..twice ...to recreate the events seen on the Zapruder film and they got two different results. Is that surprising Of course not. They could not ever recreate the recreations! And again that is no surprise. Exact recreations are simply impossible. At least those not done on computer controlled articulating camera mounts, and even those are plagued with the exact positioning of the SUBJECT matter and lighting.