-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Craig Lamson
-
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?. Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data? Good luck with that. Craig, Refer back to Post 31. You seem to have trouble with the instantaneous speed (3.74mph + 2.24mph = 5.98mph) aspect. chris Just to follow up on the "instantaneous speed" B.S. in relationship to frame 161-166. Take note of the distance traveled for the 5 frames. Obviously, the extant film doesn't show this speed. This is where the WC entity got a little confused (understatement). You see, .9ft was not the distance traveled for 5 frames, it was the DISTANCE PER FRAME traveled for 5 frames. Now for 5 frames, we get a distance traveled of 4.5ft. And, .9ft per frame x 18.3 frames(1sec) = 16.47ft per sec. 16.47ft sec/1.47(1mph)=11.20mph Shaneyfelt's supporting testimony is below the chart. chris P.S. Do you know what 4.5ft + 30ft = ? Look for that answer in a few previous posts. P.P.S. 136.1FT/8.3seconds = 11.15mph More bs from Davidson. You know Chris its getting quite obvious you are jsut making stuff up from thin air to fit your loony toons theory. First you tell us the Data is correct, then you tell us its not. So which is it really. They have TOTAL distance traveled as .9. You say its correct. Now you say, oh wait its PER FRAME....which of course you made up from THIN air like almost all the rest of your garbage. You put garbage in you get garbage out. The recreation is flawed. It has to be flawed. Its impossible to do a totally accurate recreation. So the data it produces ...compared to the real, actual event, is at the VERY BEST a poor but educated GUESS. So what does Chris do? He goes nuts trying to use this FLAWED data to somehow prove the film of the original event, has been altered. Is it possible? OF COURSE NOT. WHY? Because his base data is FLAWED. All calculations and assumptions towards the REAL event will ALSO BE FLAWED. Garbage IN Garbage OUT. Nothing from stopping you from continuing your silly game, and hey its your time so have at it. But, considering you source data you will ALWAYS just be peddling GIGO -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I see "mo" has decided to join Larry and Curly. So lets review "mo's" latest brain fart. The 1964 Stemmins sign post..a flimsy steel thing driven into the ground at an odd angle, and quite posssibly in a different position than the 1963 post....is now a "Dealey Plaza survey benchmark"! ROFLMAO When 'mo" speaks people do spittakes. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?. Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data? Good luck with that. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You are trying to measure using the pole on the sign post? Really? -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
So the documentation fits the film exactly? Is that what you now claim? Then show us. After all you just said they had the film and they had the plat. Show us all the distances fit. Pretty simple. Better yet, just show us 161 to 166. Good luck with that. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You just can't understand, because you are blind. You start with crap you end up with crap. Once you understand that, the fact that you have nothing will be easy to comprehend. But I'm not holding my breath. Here's some more for you. It's not real difficult to figure out what Station#, Frame 133 is at. Just use frame 136 and that post in the background. chris Great Chris. Now why don't you match up all the frame entries and distances from the WC and the film and see if they all fit. Then you wee see exactly what it is you have proven. That the recreation DOCUMENTATION (and the recreation itself) are in error. Great work. Pat yourself on the back. Oh wait, its Impossible to do a completely correct recreation. oops...Time to take that back pat back. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Oh god a Jack White clone....give us a break. Fake people! LMAO! -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. What arrogant stupidity. I interviewed those people, in person, with a tape recorder in November 1971. The Newman's were particularly impressive--Bill Newman in particular. "I don't care what the film at the Archives shows," he told me. "I was there. The car stopped." And his wife agreed. I asked him how certain he was--and he invoked the Ivory Soap ad: "99%". Yeah, I know. . .you think you can type in some acronym which substitutes for reasoning, and the witness' account will disappear. But that's not how it works. DSL 4/5/12; 3:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Wow! you had a REAL TAPE RECORDER! You are quite the guy. Its well proven that eye witnesses suck. So did EVERYONE in the plaza that day that was ever interviewed say the limo STOPPED? EVERYONE? No? Really? You say the limo stopped and we can rely on witnesses, yet some witnesses don't say the limo stopped? Oh you get to PICK and CHOOSE? I see. Reality ...such a foreign concept for a guy like Lifton. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Right on cue...davie Jo hops in like a bunny with nothing of value to add as usual. You tell us all the time the wc is crap, except when the crap fits your silly fantasy. Can you say hypocrite? I knew that you could. You continue to play with fantasy figures from a fantasy event and then to try and tell us you have solved the REAL event. Roflmao! The rebuttal has been given over and over and you still can't come to grips with it. Your warped worldview just won't allow it. So you continue to wallow in yor little fantasy world. You simply have no choice and no escape back to the real world. So calculate the crap out of the garbage davie Jo and the outcome will always be garbage. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You just can't understand, because you are blind. You start with crap you end up with crap. Once you understand that, the fact that you have nothing will be easy to comprehend. But I'm not holding my breath. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
And its exactly what you are giving us....gigo...which is why your "math" sucks. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
GIGO...as usual. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Many people have. Why don't you ask Zavada, he has seen it a number of times including under a microscope. Or Mo Weitzman. He has some interesting things to say about alterationists. He contacted me out of the blue some time ago and we had a nice chat. So Ian, what exactly do YOU base your "misgivings" on? And why do you think you or anyone else should be able to drag the original out of storage when forensic copies exist? -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
deleted -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Refute Zavada davie jo. Have at it. Oh wait, you tried and failed, and so did Horne and HIS fantasy. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. Maybe to you, Craig, but remember, your argument is not with me, but with the witnesses. Laugh at them if you will, but they were there, and you and I weren't. Yea, trot out those witnesses and see them all over the block on what happened. Simply people being people, and being quite unreliable when it comes to recollections. But hey if you want to place value in this kind of stuff, have at it. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You can't even deal with reality when its right here in front of you davie jo. Witht this post you show everyone want a fantasy wrold you live. I was already here. It was YOU who showed up (right on cue). It was you who did the "grandstanding" it was YOU who got it all wrong. (as usual) Your fantasy world is betraying you davie jo. Must be all that silver scratch-off paint.... -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
The only portion of this case NOT a national security issue... ?? I also found in Zavada's attachments the letter from Phil Chamberlain explaining the FBI watched their film on an "Analyst" projector, which is a 16mm device that allows for running the film forward/backward and to stop on individual frames.. His footnotes states he knows the Analyst projector is 16mm yet "I'm pretty sure we were doing this in 8mm, so it must ahve been another projector" 27 years after the fact the change CLEANS things up a bit.... During the entire letter Phil holds fast to remembering only TWO (2) IIa copies, not three.... but since there are three, he states "I believe three copies have been accounted for" These footnotes are added NOT in the 70's when written but within a few days of sending the notes to Rollie... in 1997. http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-11.pdf The footnotes remain a nother classic example of, "That was the first story... it needed to be changed" You fail basic common sense 101 davie jo. Welcome to unreliable witness testimony. Its why you look so foolish every time you post. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You really do like making yourself look foolish don't you davie jo. Yea it is BS again..yours. Zavada has the facts and you are simply can't follow them. Because they destroy your fantasy world. But let play along with your siilly game. I know all of this is way too much for you to follow davie joe, but try anyways. What makes you think this is how the film came off the processor davie jo? Its the original at NARA, which means it has passed through the hands of the lab techs at LIFE. Opps, davie makes a major league blunder. What a surprise. As usual you just make up crap thinking it means something. Same mistake as above and you missed it again. Surprise. BTW, you don't "bracket" Kodachrome processing. Welcome to the real world. The three copies have the EXPOSURE bracketed not the processing. Again you prove you don't have the first clue. More complete bs. Please show us the details that prove the original was slit. Oh wait, this was your best try and you failed. 16mm ORIGINAL? ROFLMAO! Once more you post dogma and call it fact. And you have NOTHING of value to back up yet another silly claim. Its pretty clear you don't have the first understanding of basic photo lab processes or limitation. That's why you make this silly claims and then make a complete fool of yourself. Why not leave the copy unslit? Oh wait, it won't fit your fantasy. BTW do you know what a contact print is and how it works? I guess not. Zavada provides the evidence the film us authentic. And you can't refute it. The one without evidence is you. And of course you know that, which is why you created this massive piece of bullsnit. Sorry but you failed again. Maybe you should stick to something you know? What no scratch off lottery tickets inthe JFK case? Well I guess that leave you out. -
Dallas 50th, who and where?
Craig Lamson replied to Dawn Meredith's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
No now I've just shown you to be nothing more than a garden variety hack. Still can't defend the major mistake ol dr. john made can you davie? -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Actually Zavada has, and you know it. And the overwhelming evidence says it is. But that is beside the point. YOU CAN'T PROVE ITS NOT. And my oh my the alterationists sure have tried...and failed over the years. Your attemps are childish at best and talk about speculation! ROFLMAO! Heck even you very best tried to do "science" and he failed at step one of his claim. The rest? Pure bunk. Like I said davie you got no game, never have, never will. And you are a major league hypocrite to boot. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Poor davie, Still stuck on that tired old song and dance, and you are still a hypocrite. Can you prove the film in storage is NOT the in camera original daive? Opps, there you are stuck.. again. I'll wait for you to offer up yet more recycled garbage.... you got no game...never did. -
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
Craig Lamson replied to Edwin Ortiz's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
And yet all the ct alteration goofballs are OK making their claims using copies. Can you say hypocrite davie? What a very tired and over worked canard. But then again its the very best you have and you don't have squat. What is your very original and witty reply...oh yes, carry on son. -
Dallas 50th, who and where?
Craig Lamson replied to Dawn Meredith's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
At Lancer they desire to put to rest any doubts on the Z-film's authenticity. I have a hard time believing serious objections/objectors will be entertained. All this at a time when there has never been more reason to be disgusted at this fraudulant film-this worthless piece of junk and deception. Zavada has to answer to the limo stop witnesses, the Parkland hospital staff, witnesses to an avulsive wound in the back of the head (with no, absolutely no debris exiting the back of the head in the extant film) and Horne's research. Good luck Rollie. What a waste of time, at least this presentation. I'll add Harry Livingstone name to whom Rollie has to answer to, Dr. John Costella too! It is certainly amazing how an *alleged* altered Zapruder Film scares the bejesus out of the 6th Floor Mausoleum AND Lancer. WHY? Here's the line up against any altering of the Z-film: Gary 'Mack' Dunkle, Josiah 'Tink' Thompson, Roland 'bankrupt KODAK' Zavada, Craig 'Lampoon' Lamson, Bill 'YETI' Miller, Dallas City Father's, etal.... What, praytell do lone nuts (the 6th floor mausoleum and Lancer) have to fear? Even after 50 years, the Dallas City Father's or sumpin'? Listen up nutters, you have a museum/mausoleum dedicated to the assassination of JFK (most popular public attraction in Dallas)... therefore, Dallas becomes known as: Dallas, Texas--the city where JFK was murdered... It's in the cards dudes! Dr. John was destroyed here and he is too afraid to show his face and try to salvage his lost reputation. The poor fool can't even understand how parallax works. Pretty bad for a guy who says he is a PhD in physics. Only one way for a pan with Zapruders camera to NOT produce parallax and there is no way that ever happened. You even know how that works davie? http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Maybe you can do a better job of trying to defend dr johns ignorance in this regard than than Burnham did.