Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
things get a tad bit tougher defending Zapruder-film legitimacy when you have to deal with documented s right Craigster? But when in doubt, try throwing the presenter under the bus, eh?
Sad, Craig Lampoon Lamson. We're all entitled to the facts as well as truth, just NOT yours. Carry on!
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.
-
If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.
One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.
chris
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.
-
Here's another one for you. Getting close to that 30ft mark.
8.75ft traveled in 5 frames.
chris
You are trying to measure using the pole on the sign post? Really?
-
Actually, the WC documentation was not in error, it fit their scenario quite nicely.
A plat was created, they had the film, and could utilize the landmarks for point to point distances.
They just didn't do the entire show this way. You know, the way a normal investigation is done.
Here's another one for you. Getting close to that 30ft mark.
8.75ft traveled in 5 frames.
chris
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.
-
Craig,
See if you can tie it back to this area.
CE884 starts it's measurements from Station# 2+00.
From Station 2+00 to Station "C" is 34.5ft. If you don't believe me, look at the reenactment photos/measurements from Position"A"-313. It's all math.
I just gave you a couple of distances in the previous posting in regards to frame 161-166.
Those would be 27.084ft and 7.4ft.
Add those together and you get 34.484ft
Once you understand this relationship, the rest is a little easier to comprehend.
chris
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.
-
You must be bored. My God, there are fake people on the damn zapruder film! How about we talk about about all of the anaomlies and blatant distortions on it first!
Oh god a Jack White clone....give us a break. Fake people! LMAO!
-
...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw.
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.
-
Old man... anyone can be a critic of others work that they dont understand... you just xxxxx and xxxxx until you get what you want...
We are SORRY you can't grasp the concepts... your inablility to comprehend does not make it wrong...
It only adds to your looking stoopid, once again, with nothing to say about the subject except to insult the messenger.
But please, since you simply cannot help yourself look more and more pathetic with every utterance... keep trying to show off that big brain of yours and learn how to add/subtract/multiple/divide
The "Garbage" you refer to are offerings from the WCR as an attempt to explain the assassination...
All we continue to do is show how and why the info was offered in the first place and how poorly it works...
You know, like the rest of the WCR and it's subsequent rubber stamps.
Peace out CL...
Your entertainment value would just keep skyrocketing if you weren't so pathetically ignorant about the case, the evidence and the calcs.
At this point all that's left is to shake one's head and exclaim, "Yup, that's Lammy doing his thing", laugh and sigh.
Prove me wrong old man... actually post something of value to anyone, anywhere... just once.
If you had the chops, you would. If you knew what you were talking about you'd post a rebuttal... not just more insults and sneers at data that is simply too far over your head to comprehend...
See ya old man... now you have something to do for the rest of your day... let us all see that Big Brain...
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.
-
Craig,
See if you can tie it back to this area.
CE884 starts it's measurements from Station# 2+00.
From Station 2+00 to Station "C" is 34.5ft. If you don't believe me, look at the reenactment photos/measurements from Position"A"-313. It's all math.
I just gave you a couple of distances in the previous posting in regards to frame 161-166.
Those would be 27.084ft and 7.4ft.
Add those together and you get 34.484ft
Once you understand this relationship, the rest is a little easier to comprehend.
chris
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.
-
Craig's patented answer.
A slight bit of math using the plat will yield a distance traveled of 7.5ft for frame 161-166. Actually 7.4ft to be more exact.
At that speed, how far would it travel in a second:
18.3frames/5frames = 3.66
3.66 x 7.4ft = 27.084ft per sec
27.084/1.47(1mph)=18.424mph
18.424 - 5.98 ((3.74) + 2.24))= 12.44 mph
12.44 mph = 1ft per 1frame.
Referring back to CE884 entry for 166-185, 19.2ft in 19 frames = 1ft per 1frame.
chris
And its exactly what you are giving us....gigo...which is why your "math" sucks.
-
The only way to begin to understand what was done.
Compare it to CE884 entries for frame 161-166.
chris
GIGO...as usual.
-
So Mr Lamson has not seen the in camera original either?.
What's in the vault ? ,anybody know?.
Has anybody here seen "the kings new clothes"?.
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?
-
-
As well as with Zavada and Horne and the personnel involved with the Zfilm....
Refute the evidence big man, the messenger had nothing to do with the creation of the evidence or the many analyses
you neither bother withwhich to familiarize yourself...or understand if you ever got around to it...
but hey, your opinion is worth something, to someone, somewhere... maybe.
Refute Zavada davie jo. Have at it.
Oh wait, you tried and failed, and so did Horne and HIS fantasy.
-
...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw.
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.
-
Thanks CL... always a pleasure when you post and show yourself for who you are...
I always know I'm right whenever you show up to grandstand... so please, continue exposing yourself,
seems to be the only thing you're any good at....
Cheers
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....
-
Why no splices on the family side of the film?????.
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.
-
You really do like making yourself look foolish don't you davie jo.
Here we are again... BullSh!t personified... since you can't prove anything, make others prove what you know cannot even be accessed...
Why not look at what your buddy Zavada writes?
Rollie needs ever standard procedure to have been scraped and even then he can't explain the problems with the film called the "camera-original"
He needs the actual personnel who stood next to the SS agents and actually processed and developed and copied the films all to be wrong... ALL of them.
He needs them wrong about edge printing, he needs them to be wrong about bracketing, he also needs the SS to be wrong as to which film was where and when...
So your entire play here is, "You go first" ?? That's the best you can do to provide evidence of authenticity? "Read Zavada" you even imply... but have you even bothered to?
Doubt it highly...
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.
Let's start with easy stuff for you... the length and physical condition of the "original" taken from a 33 foot, max length, roll of film.
http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1c.pdf
Zavada tells us that the film at the Archives has 8 inches of white leader, SPLICE, 6 feet 3 inches of "assassination film", then 2 feet 7 inches of black film (no image), SPLICE, then 19 feet 3 inches of black film that flashes to clear, SPLICE, 6 feet 2 inches of black film, SPLICE, and 5 feet 8 inches of black film, SPLICE, then 6 feet 9 inches of "Light - Struck Leader.
The home movie side... side "A" is 32'7" in length (a standard roll of film has 25 feet of usuable film and 8 feet of leader for a total of 33')
Side "B" has 8" + 6'3" = 6'11" + 19'3" = 26'2" + 6'2" = 32'5" + 5'8" = 38'1" + 6'9" = 44'10"; so side "B" of a 33' roll of film with NO SPLICES winds up being almost 45 feet of film SPLICED 5 times.
(EDIT: I missed the 2'7" for a total of 47 feet 5 inches... even worse for ya )
and THIS is what you claim is the original film? which does not even include the test frames taken on side B adding even MORE length to the film... ooops.
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.
shall we look a little deeper?
The "Original" has no ID number 0183
The copies have 0183 in the wrong place if it was copied from the original
The employees state repeatedly that the film was NOT PROCESSED using bracketing - that a single setting was agreed upon and used... the three copies are bracketed
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.
The copies 0185 and 0187 do NOT have these numbers anywhere on them
and finally... Max Philips sends Rowley a note with the Zfilm he mails the evening of 11/22 explaining that Sorrels has 2 copies, Zap has the "master" and the Third Print is forwarded...
except we all know that Zapruder "retained the best first day copy for himself" and subsequently gives it to Stolley on the 25th... he supposedly projected an 8mm film on 11/23 - surely NOT the original... yet even
IF it was the original, it would have been in 8mm format... not 16mm. So we come to learn the identified "original" was indeed split to 8mm (and rec'd by Dino the night of 11/23 afterwhich it simply disappears)
0186, seen by the FBI the morning of 11/23 is a 16mm version shown at Kodak with no documentation of what occurs with this 16mm version.
More complete bs. Please show us the details that prove the original was slit. Oh wait, this was your best try and you failed.
McMahon creates his briefing boards (which are not the same as what Dino/Lundahl created the day before) from a 16mm original delivered by an SS agent who tells them the film was produced in Rochester.
a 16mm original... take a look at the enlargements... do they appear of a quality that would come from a 16mm original? and can you explain how CIA450 details these boards EXACTLY... and goes on to show that internegs were to be shot and 3 prints were to be made... - coincidence, right?
So we need to address - Would a COPY have been left in 16mm format for any reason - 0186 is acknowledged as the film given to the FBI, yet they viewed a 16mm film at Kodak...
and why on the SS copies does the edge print info read BACKWARD when viewing the film correctly?
Try and address the questions and evidence BEFORE you launch into ad-homs and misdirection CL... just this once.
BRING the evidence of authenticity and POST IT
or is that simply too much for you?
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.
-
LMFAO! NOW you're a comedian? Getback in the studio I have a row of seats I need photographed! LMAO!
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?
-
...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw.
EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure.
-
yet, you can't answer a simple question, one that you surely know the answer to (after all it's your own experience), why is that, Craig?.... Can YOU prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film currently stored at NARA is in FACT the **ORIGINAL** film shot by Abraham Zapruder.
Let me save you some face, you can't! Nor can Rollie Zavada, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, etal.... best ANY of you have is pure speculation!
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.
-
and YOU have seen, touched, smelled and saw projected the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original currently stored at NARA? Is that what YOU are saying here? YOU can prove the alleged in-camera original is in **FACT** the in-camera original? Speak to us, a simple yes or no will do. Yes or No, quite nicely, actually!
I'll wait while you ring Gary for his response.....
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.
-
good question Ian, however, I suspect Len is much over wrought with emotion from his current spiritual experience.
Perhaps he or Ortiz (above) fill us in on exactly what is on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, the film that no one here has ever seen or touched much let alone seen laced up in a projector and projected on to a screen, ANYWHERE, including the National Archives.
My lord, I think the .john mcadams-ites are now climbing out of woodwork, beginning their Z-film disinfo work in prep for the 50th anniversary. Carry on troops!
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.
-
Rollie Zavada is going to speak?
Ah, yes, the authenticity debate concerning the allege in-camera original Zapruder film is alive and well..... that should require a invite to Harry Livingstone, Rollie has a lot of questions to answer.
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.
Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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