Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

Members
  • Posts

    5,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Craig Lamson

  1. Earth to Chris. That is not frame 161, its the ESTIMATION of where frame 161 MIGHT be. Is this really that hard for you to understand? Try this. Locate the EXACT position of the center of the film plane for ANY of the photographers in the plaza. Not even and inch of variation is allowed. You can't do it Period. You can get close because the best you can do is estimate. Want examples? Look at the Moorman and the MANY attempts to find the exact spot. Lots of them are really close, none perfect. And that's with fixed points and multiple lines of sight. And you think it was done EXACT using a moving object ( using the wrong object) and guesses as tot where the camreas were positioned? Please, Come back to reality
  2. Lets review just where all this alteration nonsense stands... A few frames have been removed from the Z film....oh...oh wait..... The film was shot at 48 frames per second and frames removed to make it 18.3 frames per second....No..NO...No... There is a WHOLE OTHER film that only a handful of people have ever seen and they can't talk about it....Hold on..Hold on.... Someone painted over just a few frames ..... NO! That shoud be... THE ENTIRE FILM IS A CARTOON CREATED A FRAME AT A TIME! Yea....gotta love the CT FANTASY WORLD.... ROFLMAO!
  3. Nice sentence there old man... did you remember to wipe the spittle from your screen as we can all see you frothing and cursing as you type away with your two chubby little index fingers... You really want to go there you tiny child? Ok..karma and all of that.. davie jo sez: So you do the SAME OLD TIRE THINKG over and over and over... Can't state what you think or believe cause then you;d have to defend it. How can they be anything ELSE but estimates you little boy? The did not make marks on the street for every frame as the limo went past during the actual assassination. And you want proof they are estimates, compare them to the Z film and see if they all match up completely and with 100 percent accuracy. Heck even Chris as admitted this in this very thread. You are really out to lunch. Or match up the two different recreations and see if they match. Oh wait, they don't. You lose. I just did. Is it too hard for your pea brain to follow? Compounded error based on bad estimates. Welcome to reality little boy. Garbage in Garbage out. YOU should understand that, its what you give us... I see are afraid to deal with the reality of the words YOU posted, both from the WC and your own. You AFRAID to see if your claim is wrong? Afraid you would lose and leave the forum? Whats the matter little boy, you having a cluck cluck moment? You now have the evidence the recreations are both ESTIMATES. Do your best to refute the evidence davie jo. It will never happen because you can't. But I'm sure we will see more spittle from the kettle soon.
  4. WOW! You truly are delusional davie jo. I can't believe you just made that claim. Truth is clearly beyond your grasp. Sure is easy to get inside your head. Not surprised that nothing is there once you get inside... Pot meet kettle. A very delusional kettle. You are really scared of me davie jo..it shows. But hey I really like this claim you have just made...no supporters on a SINGLE thread here an NO ONE agrees with me. So you petulant little child, If I can find even ONE supporter and one person that agrees with some post I've made, you can apologize and then leave the forum forever. What do you say baby davie jo. Your made the claim, you willing to stand by it, or is it just another one of your spittle filled untruths? ROFLMAO! your panties are sure in a bunch you silly little boy. Lets review this thread. I've been saying all along that the frame locations are not exact. They are estimitse...GUESSES! They YOU in a fit of rage decide to post your famous cut and paste nonsense and low and behold you post the words the confirm exactly what I'm saying. What were they...GENERAL locations from eyewitnesses...MORE PRECISE (compared the the GENERAL) locations from the films. WOW..the locations are not EXACT! They are ESTIMATES...GUESSES! Thanks so much for proving my point. even though anyone with a functioning brain could have understood that the recreations would never match the real even. You are so far out of your league its not even funny. You are a photographic ignorant of the highest order and yet you go on spittle filled rants constantly telling the world your nonsense is correct. What a loser. But lets review just where all this alteration nonsense stands... A few frames have been removed from the Z film....oh...oh wait..... The film was shot at 48 frames per second and frames removed to make it 18.3 frames per second....No..NO...No... There is a WHOLE OTHER film that only a handful of people have ever seen and they can't talk about it....Hold on..Hold on.... Someone painted over just a few frames ..... NO! That shoud be... THE ENTIRE FILM IS A CARTOON CREATED A FRAME AT A TIME! Yea....gotta love the CT FANTASY WORLD.... ROFLMAO!
  5. must really suck trying to rid the world of Zapruder film alteration scenarios, all those Dealey Plaza surveying facts and figures, whilst knowing you can't comprehend professional film-photo composition... gotta be tough there Craigster, gotta be REALLY tough! You're not providing competition these days dude, whats with you, Gary Mack got the leash on you? That's all you have mo? Really? I'll go head to head with you any day davie on photo composition...it's been my life for 30 odd years while you fixed the tape deck in the back room of the station and did HR docks.... You got no film game video dude..just a poser... Bring it in mo, or slink back away. Jigs up . Alteration theory Is done, fifty years and you still have nothing...never will
  6. So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films? A simple yes or no will do. ASKing questions yet again instead of answering them... or even trying... Are you so old and lost that you can't even FIND where the legend in question was discussed or why? You keep saying the same old BS over and over as if you believe it to be the truth... yet you really don't know do you CL? That this legend was created to EXPLAIN THE SHOOTING... using the films as refereence to position the activities AT THE CORRECT LOCATIONS... CE884 is the data being referred to... WCR Chapter 5 page 96... is where this legend is referred to.... and why. "The general location of the car was described and marked on maps by eyewitnesses as precisely as their observations and recollections permitted (261). MORE EXACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MOTION PICTURES TAKEN BY ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER, ORVILLE O. NIX AND MARY MUCHMORE, WHO WHERE SPECTATORS AT THE SCENE (262) 261. CE 347, 354, 699. 262. 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthler) ; CE884 ; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt). Gauthler is an FBI Inspector... The document is designed to be a LEGEND old man... which means it explains what is presented in the MAP in detail... as he explains... So what you keep saying is that the FBI provided a legend to explain the assassination that does anything but explain the assassination... what it shows is how the Zfilm cannot be used as a reliable source of information for once you apply the legend to the film and correlate what the legend says occurred, when and where, it CANNOT be applied to what the Zfilm shows... CE884 was accepted as the detailed explanation of where the limo was at each of the identified frames.... Except the data relates to a vehicle doing anything but smoothly traveling down Elm.... and in turn creates the math you have no chance at understanding... EVIDENCE old man... we deal here with EVIDENCE... all you do is whine and moan and press for answers that have nothing to do with the discussion... Here. the FBI tells you that CE884 IS the breakdown of the killing.... yet the same WCR tells us that the shot was at 4+95, not 4+65... the Zfilm does not show what this legend suggests... Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting. I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. (The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.) Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier. It must be really difficult for you. The points you reference...aside from the fixed landmarks are noting more than GUESSES. Let me repeat that for the learning impaired like you...GUESSES. Since they are GUESSES they have no true relationship to the Zapruder film. But if course this is way beyond your ken...and it's reality which is REALLY beyond your ken. But keep trucking little boy. Maybe one day you will actually grow up. Btw, since reading is so hard for you, I suggest you re read your post...you might even learn they tell you the locations are guesses.... Who needs the Zfilm at this point when you have Towner instead. The true importance of Position"A" is Towner's LOS to a fixed landmark. Remember, it is not 91.6ft from the snipers nest rifle to JFK, hence Position "A" in the context of rifle angles is B.S. as it is stated in CE884. chris Will you EVER come to realize that all the numbers you keep playing with are garbage? EVER? They even told you so. "More exact" compared to " general" Drill that into your head. You have spent the last few years playing in the garbage. Really sucks to be you.
  7. So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films? A simple yes or no will do. ASKing questions yet again instead of answering them... or even trying... Are you so old and lost that you can't even FIND where the legend in question was discussed or why? You keep saying the same old BS over and over as if you believe it to be the truth... yet you really don't know do you CL? That this legend was created to EXPLAIN THE SHOOTING... using the films as refereence to position the activities AT THE CORRECT LOCATIONS... CE884 is the data being referred to... WCR Chapter 5 page 96... is where this legend is referred to.... and why. "The general location of the car was described and marked on maps by eyewitnesses as precisely as their observations and recollections permitted (261). MORE EXACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MOTION PICTURES TAKEN BY ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER, ORVILLE O. NIX AND MARY MUCHMORE, WHO WHERE SPECTATORS AT THE SCENE (262) 261. CE 347, 354, 699. 262. 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthler) ; CE884 ; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt). Gauthler is an FBI Inspector... The document is designed to be a LEGEND old man... which means it explains what is presented in the MAP in detail... as he explains... So what you keep saying is that the FBI provided a legend to explain the assassination that does anything but explain the assassination... what it shows is how the Zfilm cannot be used as a reliable source of information for once you apply the legend to the film and correlate what the legend says occurred, when and where, it CANNOT be applied to what the Zfilm shows... CE884 was accepted as the detailed explanation of where the limo was at each of the identified frames.... Except the data relates to a vehicle doing anything but smoothly traveling down Elm.... and in turn creates the math you have no chance at understanding... EVIDENCE old man... we deal here with EVIDENCE... all you do is whine and moan and press for answers that have nothing to do with the discussion... Here. the FBI tells you that CE884 IS the breakdown of the killing.... yet the same WCR tells us that the shot was at 4+95, not 4+65... the Zfilm does not show what this legend suggests... Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting. I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. (The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.) Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier. It must be really difficult for you, trying to function without a working brain davie Jo. The points you reference...aside from the fixed landmarks are noting more than GUESSES. Let me repeat that for the learning impaired like you...GUESSES. Since they are GUESSES they have no true relationship to the Zapruder film. But if course this is way beyond your ken...and it's reality which is REALLY beyond your ken. But keep trucking little boy. Maybe one day you will actually grow up. Btw, since reading is so hard for you, I suggest you re read your post...you might even learn they tell you the locations are guesses.... you're getting to the old Craigster, Mr. Josephs. Old Craig has even used the term "guesses" which is all he's done for 8 years, especially concerning the Z-film. Perhaps he's warming up to the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about? It's tough these days supporting WCR conclusions concerning conspiracy! Roflmao! And here comes mo...lol! You are doing Larry and Curly proud...can't deal with the truth and you posts are all slapstick. Empty as usual. You got no game mo.
  8. So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films? A simple yes or no will do. ASKing questions yet again instead of answering them... or even trying... Are you so old and lost that you can't even FIND where the legend in question was discussed or why? You keep saying the same old BS over and over as if you believe it to be the truth... yet you really don't know do you CL? That this legend was created to EXPLAIN THE SHOOTING... using the films as refereence to position the activities AT THE CORRECT LOCATIONS... CE884 is the data being referred to... WCR Chapter 5 page 96... is where this legend is referred to.... and why. "The general location of the car was described and marked on maps by eyewitnesses as precisely as their observations and recollections permitted (261). MORE EXACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MOTION PICTURES TAKEN BY ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER, ORVILLE O. NIX AND MARY MUCHMORE, WHO WHERE SPECTATORS AT THE SCENE (262) 261. CE 347, 354, 699. 262. 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthler) ; CE884 ; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt). Gauthler is an FBI Inspector... The document is designed to be a LEGEND old man... which means it explains what is presented in the MAP in detail... as he explains... So what you keep saying is that the FBI provided a legend to explain the assassination that does anything but explain the assassination... what it shows is how the Zfilm cannot be used as a reliable source of information for once you apply the legend to the film and correlate what the legend says occurred, when and where, it CANNOT be applied to what the Zfilm shows... CE884 was accepted as the detailed explanation of where the limo was at each of the identified frames.... Except the data relates to a vehicle doing anything but smoothly traveling down Elm.... and in turn creates the math you have no chance at understanding... EVIDENCE old man... we deal here with EVIDENCE... all you do is whine and moan and press for answers that have nothing to do with the discussion... Here. the FBI tells you that CE884 IS the breakdown of the killing.... yet the same WCR tells us that the shot was at 4+95, not 4+65... the Zfilm does not show what this legend suggests... Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting. I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. (The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.) Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier. It must be really difficult for you. The points you reference...aside from the fixed landmarks are noting more than GUESSES. Let me repeat that for the learning impaired like you...GUESSES. Since they are GUESSES they have no true relationship to the Zapruder film. But if course this is way beyond your ken...and it's reality which is REALLY beyond your ken. But keep trucking little boy. Maybe one day you will actually grow up. Btw, since reading is so hard for you, I suggest you re read your post...you might even learn they tell you the locations are guesses....
  9. So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films? A simple yes or no will do.
  10. I could spend a few thousand words showing just how bad your post really was but I'm afraid the mods might not find it amusing, So I'll just comment on tidbit for now. ITS THE ONLY WAY THE PHOTO COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN PAT. And this has been proven via proof of concept. And its been tested over and over again with the same results. It can be debated which lens was used but the results are the same. And how do I know? I've tested it repeatedly. What is also true is that your attempts to dispute this information are pure ignorance. You simply have no clue about how any of this works nor have you posted accurate information. This will be shown conclusively very shortly and I'm sure, par for the course for you, you will concoct some bs response to try and save face. You are simply a BS'er Pat. Welcome to reality even if it hurts. So its not convincing to people who try to find Oswald innocent at any cost? Wow, imagine that. I'm shocked I tell you..shocked. Hang on to your fantasy for a bit longer Pat. Think your work on this has merit. It won't last much longer.
  11. Oh I get it, you are playing with made up data. You can't prove anything with made up data. GIGO and you are the king of it. Welcome to reality.
  12. The problem is Chris is trying to use recreation data to try and impeach the Zapruder film. Recreations...all of them are flawed. Trying to using faulty data makes Chris's work faulty as well. Chris is living a fantasy. It's really too bad but it's simply a case go GIGO. No amount of shucking and jiving will ever overcome the problem of faulty. There is nothing else to discuss. His entire body of work is based on bad data. That's what he will never get. West could have done the most accurate survey, but other than fixed landmarks every other data point is nothing more than a guess. The entire concept off Chris's work fails because of this. And he will never get it.
  13. I see these guys have you on the run, eh Craigster? Btw, if planned recreation is anticipated to be flawed, beforehand, why do it? Seems kinda dumb, unless you're into disinfo of course.... just curious. Oh my. Have me on the run? You really are a few floors short... Recreations will ALWAYS be flawed, that's just reality davie. Why I could give to a simple photo of a pop can on a white sweep and it would be impossible for you to recreated the photo accurately. Oh wait, you can't photograph your way OUT of a pop can. My bad. So why did they do it? Why not. They were looking for answers and this was ONE avenue...flaws and all. Craig, Recreations can be intentionally flawed when the real facts are known. And the WC knew them. There is no need to figure out what happened down the street when you first need to understand what happened up the street. Frames are just one aspect of the game. Another is angles. 1inch =10ft. I'll give you a little hint if you don't understand it. Station 2+00 is not Position "A". It is where CE884 starts its measurements from. The real distance from rifle LOS to (JFK) Position "A" is 80ft. chris P.S. I entered the Station# of Position "A" in CE884, for those interested. P.P.S I think Shaneyfelt was confused again. lmao You will never get it Chris. You are lost in your own little world and it appears there will never be an y escape for you back to reality. The only confusion here is yours. What a shame.
  14. Translated from 'larry' speak..I would prefer not to be on the record about Speers claim. You want to talk about evidence, be my guest. Heck you silly ct's can't even decide on what size the bag is let alone any of the rest of it. Its a giant custer f. So bang your drum all day speculating to your hearts content. You got nothing concrete and quite frankly I'm simply not interested in word games over things that will never be resolved. Clearly that suits you just fine. You are as empty as the 'conclusions' you posit. So shine on, play your parlor word games. 50 years and all you have is conflict and speculation. Leave the photo work to those who know. Its really quite clear you don't have the first clue and you never will. Its WAY beyond your limited ability. And mind you 'larry' I address the evidence all the time...THE PHOTO EVIDENCE. Which is exactly what I'm doing here. Photographic principles have no politics nor bias. They are what they are. And if they put your fantasy based conclusions in jeopardy, so much the better. But thanks for playing 'larry' . Good to see you are another clucker... BTW this is not about personal war against Speer. His WORK is the target and his ignorance. Not to mention the gross disinformation he has posted on his website. You claim to be seeking the truth. You should WELCOME the detailed inspection of his claims. He represents YOU. And I must say your reluctance to even take stand is remarkable considering you have had no problems doing so in the past. Very illumiinating.
  15. I've defended it time and time again, there are HUGE threads both here and at Duncan's site with tons of my original work. Your search finger broken? Its really very simple. Speer says the bag seen outside the TSBD is a different size than the one in the archives. I say his work is whackjob and prove it. I'm just about to bomb his latest drivel back into the stone age. So tell us "larry", is he right? A simple yes or no will do. Why don't you go on record? Maybe I can turn you into a sheet of glass....
  16. LOTS of whackjob ct theory and disinformation why not toss your hat in the ring and actually take a real STANCE on something for a change. Is Is Speer correct about the fake bag photo or not? Or are you just more chicken clucks? We need to change you name to "waffle" Healy
  17. I see these guys have you on the run, eh Craigster? Btw, if planned recreation is anticipated to be flawed, beforehand, why do it? Seems kinda dumb, unless you're into disinfo of course.... just curious. Oh my. Have me on the run? You really are a few floors short... Recreations will ALWAYS be flawed, that's just reality davie. Why I could give to a simple photo of a pop can on a white sweep and it would be impossible for you to recreated the photo accurately. Oh wait, you can't photograph your way OUT of a pop can. My bad. So why did they do it? Why not. They were looking for answers and this was ONE avenue...flaws and all. position of a pop can = the position of president of the United States head? Really? You are getting worn out with all the mental gymnastics you're performing here. Z-film alteration is not going away, is it? In fact, you can't live without Z-film alteration mis-direction! Heaven forbid trolls, WCR supporters and .johnites have to deal with JFK (assassination) case medical evidence, eh? You proving you you are a few floor short again davie... Learn to read. I know its a REALLY big stretch for you but ry it anyway... z-film alteration is TOAST davie. 50 years and the very best you can do is dr john failing parallax 101.. You got nothing left. No game at all.
  18. I see these guys have you on the run, eh Craigster? Btw, if planned recreation is anticipated to be flawed, beforehand, why do it? Seems kinda dumb, unless you're into disinfo of course.... just curious. Oh my. Have me on the run? You really are a few floors short... Recreations will ALWAYS be flawed, that's just reality davie. Why I could give to a simple photo of a pop can on a white sweep and it would be impossible for you to recreated the photo accurately. Oh wait, you can't photograph your way OUT of a pop can. My bad. So why did they do it? Why not. They were looking for answers and this was ONE avenue...flaws and all.
  19. Look, "larry" is here. Right on cue. So "Larry" is Speer correct with his fake bag photo claim or not. Get on the record so we can make this a three-for now. I do so like making you look like a complete clown.
  20. You sure that's where you want to go jimbo? You are gonna look even more silly that you look right now if you do. But I understand something as simple as basic perspective is WAY over your limited ability to understand. This is gonna be double the fun now.
  21. You simply don't have a clue jimbo, about why Speer washed up with his fake bag nonsense. Its WAY beyond your ken as it is his. Talk about a crackup...enjoy your fantasy.
  22. Poor jimbo, can't even understand the topic let alone the processes. You are WAY out if your depth jimbo...and blinded by dogma.
  23. Not a near miss, Jim. Not even close. Frazier claimed to see the bag on the back seat of the car, and spent some time with the FBI trying to estimate how much of the back seat was covered by the bag. His estimate was that the bag was 27 by 6 (or 162 sq. inches). The bag in the archives photos is 38 by 8 1/2 (323 sq. inches), basically TWICE as big. But Pat, that is different. In my opinion the pouch, wrapper, bag, etc, whatever you want to call it, that the DPD brought down, this has no relation to the Frazier story. Having gone over this material several times, I just do not buy the story that Studebaker would not take a photo of it lying in situ. ANd the DPD could never get their story about this. Secondly, if you look at that photo of the DPD out front of the TSBD, well I just do not think that that partiucular wrapper matches up with Frazier's testimony. Then there is the Troy West testimony. Which in view is pretty devastating tot he WC. Yes, I know. I devoted several chapters of my website, and hundreds of hours of research and argument, trying to prove that point. And you failed...miserably. Your 'attempts" to find the bag was fake are a complete joke. Your complete ignorance of perspective, basic photographic skill, and just poor research are readily apparent to anyone not jaded by dogma. And your attempts to show me wrong are highly comical. Just your garden variety ct loon stuff.
  24. Wrong phrasing davie jo. It should read, AS USUAL you get something right... No, they tell us 'here are the results from our ATTEMPT to recreate the event" and here are the conclusions we draw from it. As is you sop, you just make stuff up to fit your fantasy. Anyone with a fully functioning brain will understand that an ATTEMPT to recreate will be flawed. Welcome to reality davie jo. Why davie jo, you do that EVERY time you attempt (and badly) to play photo analyst. They offered the results of their work, and it appears they did so KNOWING it id not match the real event. But again. They were INTELLIGENT enough to know their data was FLAWED compared to the real event. That's something that still elude you. Is there a data entry error? Don't really know. Sure looks like it. Stuff happens. YOU make a claim, its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND IT. Can't or wont do that, you lose. Welcome to the real world. Your (and Davidsons's) answer is flawed just like your data. The only befuddled ones are you two, who think inherently flawed data can be used to impeach the real film. You are delusional. I have an answer. YOU don't. Oh I will. I will continue to reinforce the obvious...that reality escapes you and your simply don't have a clue.
×
×
  • Create New...