Craig Lamson

I suppose I can definitely understand that you would interpret my words as not liking your posts but honestly, I say, post what you feel, I have no problem with that. I have simply been curious to see what technical and knowledgable responses you would give in return and I do see bits here and there, generally you just seem irritated or impatient with "explaining yourself" at least thats the idea I seem to get from time to time.

You say you "tell it like it is" and that is fine but thats exactly it, what it "is" could be evidence out there to flatly refute ZFA (z-film alteration for the record) and you don't articulate any opposing viewpoints or arguments (well to be fair, none that I notice in general).

The use in responding in kind (watch a william lane craig debate to get an idea) you may believe someone's view to be a fantasy, but is it too much to provide an argument that that is so? For example (this is purely hypothetical Chris lol) Chris could say to you Lamson "hey, there is absolutely no such thing as truth" now you could brush him off and take him for a fool or a fantasy induced zombie or you could simply ask him is that statement or claim he has made is "true" for himself and use a logical argument with sufficient evidence to prove (in the classical meaning of proofs) that objective truth is more plausible than its negation. My point? Well you seem to have arguments (I assume?) that can probably show Chris or any 'alterationists' views to be fallacious on scientific and evidential grounds, I'd like to read and study them, thats all. Please, post what you will but as I read your posts here and there, I get the feeling you are more capable than simply "GIGO, fantasy land, get out, etc".

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?

Lamson, I see your responses to Chris and the others but it is odd....I mean you seem intelligent enough to posit your arguments in response to their claims but you seem........I don't know, it's odd seeing an older adult respond in kind the way I have observed you (and quite often)....I mean if Chris is offering "GIGO, ROFLMAO, guesses, fantasy, etc etc" then why not simply reiterate your knowledge against his own so that forum readers and students of the assassination can consistently see your observations or better yet provide links to your responses from other areas of the forum that are relevant to the claims Chris and others are making. It seems as though with almost every well (at the very least, on the surface for anyone who hasn't really studied these concepts and observations) spoken and thought out response or claim made by Chris or others, your response is not in kind but you are either telling him to "scram, beat it, wake up, get outta fantasy land, gigo, etc"....perhaps you are consistently annoyed with such trains of thought but I'd personally prefer to see you deal with these arguments by counter attacking with your own well reasoned studies concerning the very subjects you take part in discussing. Here is a starter for you Lamson:

Do you believe that such a theory is even possible that the film could have been altered? If not, how or why? (brief summary or you can even direct me to a written response to this very question if it exists in another topic elsewhere)

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

Referring back to the "Refresher" graphic:

Z161 = Station# 3+29.2 That would be 129.2ft from Station 2+00

Station "C" to Z161 = 94.7ft

129.2ft - 94.7ft = 34.5ft = Station# 2+34.5= Station "C"

2+34.5 (Station C) + 44ft(see CE886 in Refresher graphic)= 2+78.5= Position "A"

chris

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.

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

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.

Craig, you are having troubles thinking in terms of 15.5ft.

For instance: Station "2+00" + 129.2ft = Station# 3.29.2 = entry for Z161 on CE884.

(Station "2+00" + 78.5ft) = (Position "A") + (15.5ft = Station# 2+94) or 94ft from Station "2+00"

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't quite equal the 94.7ft .

chris

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.

Craig,

How can I shuck and jive when I'm posting the graphics for all to check. The key is provided @ 1inch=10ft.

What else can 91.6ft represent besides the hypotenuse. I showed you in terms of 15.5ft related to Position "A" at street level. The same 91.6ft distance.

Position A is Position A. The TSBD base is the base.

I didn't create these points, I merely tie them together.

So, if you measure out from the TSBD base, aligned with the snipers nest, it's approx 66.2ft.

The distance from Station 2+50(snipers nest aligned out on Elm St) to Position "A" is 28.5ft.

That total is 94.7ft approx.

Does that ring a bell to anyone?

chris

P.S.

Once again, I didn't create the distance from Station 2+50 to Position A, this is the WC work.

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.

Craig,

How can I shuck and jive when I'm posting the graphics for all to check. The key is provided @ 1inch=10ft.

What else can 91.6ft represent besides the hypotenuse. I showed you in terms of 15.5ft related to Position "A" at street level. The same 91.6ft distance.

Position A is Position A. The TSBD base is the base.

I didn't create these points, I merely tie them together.

So, if you measure out from the TSBD base, aligned with the snipers nest, it's approx 66.2ft.

The distance from Station 2+50(snipers nest aligned out on Elm St) to Position "A" is 28.5ft.

That total is 94.7ft approx.

Does that ring a bell to anyone?

chris

P.S.

Once again, I didn't create the distance from Station 2+50 to Position A, this is the WC work.

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!

Craig,

Street distances.

The answer to my previous question is 66.2ft

So my error was taking measurements from street level!!!! What error?

If the street distances are wrong, then show me the error.

chris

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

TSBD rifle in window @ 60.7ft elevation

Rifle in Window LOS to JFK @ 91.6ft as per CE884.

91.6 squared = 8390.56ft

60.7 squared = 3684.49ft

The other leg = square root of 8390.56-3684.49 = 4706.07= 68.6ft.

The right triangle is formed.

chris

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.

TSBD rifle in window @ 60.7ft elevation

Rifle in Window LOS to JFK @ 91.6ft as per CE884.

91.6 squared = 8390.56ft

60.7 squared = 3684.49ft

The other leg = square root of 8390.56-3684.49 = 4706.07= 68.6ft.

The right triangle is formed.

chris

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

In fact, if one will correlate the testimonies of Kellerman and Greer regarding transmission over the radio, with the testimonies of Agent Hill, they will find other testimonies which, when all placed into perspective, will serve to indicat that the third shot impact occurred just as James Altgens said it did.

Directly in front of where he was standing.

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.

TSBD rifle in window @ 60.7ft elevation

Rifle in Window LOS to JFK @ 91.6ft as per CE884.

91.6 squared = 8390.56ft

60.7 squared = 3684.49ft

The other leg = square root of 8390.56-3684.49 = 4706.07= 68.6ft.

The right triangle is formed.

chris

DUH, I just told you that above.

Still puts all of your work in the garbage can.

Craig,

Why don't you tell us which RIGHT TRIANGLE you applied the P theorem to.

Here are the sides for you.

The blue lines might help.

chris

P.S. Why do you think I didn't use it in the first place.

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

CE884 listing for frame 161= 137.4ft

Another 15.5ft difference.

Gee!!! What a coincidence.

Tell us once again, Craig, what did the WC use as their impact point?

Was it:

A. The limo front

B. JFK's head

C. Both of the above

D. Chalkmarks

E. JFK's bobblehead with a neck stretch of 15.5ft

F. Throw in your own

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...

CE884 listing for frame 161= 137.4ft

Another 15.5ft difference.

Gee!!! What a coincidence.

Tell us once again, Craig, what did the WC use as their impact point?

Was it:

A. The limo front

B. JFK's head

C. Both of the above

D. Chalkmarks

E. JFK's bobblehead with a neck stretch of 15.5ft

F. Throw in your own

Chris did they even use the correct limo?

Duh.

Congrats....GIGO. Great work [/sarcasm]

Chris the fantasy master strikes again.

I just showed you the 15.5ft difference in terms of CE884, the West plat, the LOS to the snipers rifle, the limo's position on the street.

But, I guess I'm off by 15.5ft according to Craig, who has yet to refute any of this, but with meaningless words.

Why don't you locate Towner's position and plot it for us Craig?

Cutler, Myers and Don R. have done a fairly good job and they all align with Position "A".

Since you don't understand the importance of any of this, I won't expect much.

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!

So within tolerances to Craig means: initially within 15.5ft.

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?

Craig,

Why do you want to move down to frame 161? You need to start from the beginning. That is your problem.

I have already shown you that the LOS rifle to JFK from the snipers nest is 80ft.

CE884 says it's supposed to be 91.6ft.

You can either go up street or down street from Position "A" to acquire the 91.6ft.

If you go up, you intersect Station 2+00, previously shown, will expand on that later.

If you go down, 15.5ft will give you the 91.6ft LOS distance.

15.5ft is also the distance between Station "C" (2+34.5) and the snipers nest. The snipers nest is at Station# 2+50.

That is the difference between "JFK in the limo" and the "limo front" in WC terms.

This is the WC initial distance spread to play with.

1inch=10ft for the attachment.

chris

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.

Nearly 6000 (sic) posts to say nothing: C.Lamson is a wizard. Read his posts or the telephone book of New York City: it's the same...

exactly.... like listening to Norm Crosby

When you buy your first clue ( should you ever be able to afford it) get back to us.

Nearly 6000 (sic) posts to say nothing: C.Lamson is a wizard. Read his posts or the telephone book of New York City: it's the same...

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

I wonder how this could be done if there were cuts and or bits missing,

Unless they were attempting to "prove" the final cut and interpret the events we see

In the "film of today" .either the timing is out or the film is not complete.

If Mr West's survey is accurate you could build a 3d model of the plaza

Then run the film through it using the west notes and Shaneyfelts data

It cannot be outside certain parameters if the fixed positions are there.

IOW I would not expect a 30-40 foot difference until this is shown physically

Most will not understand just looking at numbers or a plat covered in contours

And other distracting marks/ references.

Myers tried that just using the car data and it would appear he got some of his data wrong.

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.

An inch of variation is very good. I can locate just about any film surface. What I have never worked with is a full copy of Wests notes (all of them, field notes, follow ups. and a full copy of his plat, and I don't want to have to unravel any mistakes re fitting pieces together). From that I can recreate the plat and then go on to locate people and things.

Those who have not done surveying need to realise that the surveyor and the survey assistance is a team effort. When it comes to important things like marking precicely where a workshop needs to drill holes in concrete to fix anchors to receiv a a piece of machinery or surveying a crime site, a trained team constantly seeks the important points in contour and content continually recording it as the survey steps across the site ending up with an incredibly accurate description of the site. Not only is this an opportunity to declare Watts authoritative but also do things like locate things.

edit typos

edit add. those notes are the plat, from the step off point to the national benchmark grid to every point in the plaza. Interpolations have a quantifiable error quotient. I just want to emphasize that the West survey is so fundamental and so much arguments stem from the fact that the fundament is not available. It's entered some alternate universe with the requisite priesthood as a conduit.

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.