Doug Horne

[William Kelly]

I don't think Doug Horne was invited, but when the ARRB finally finished up its work they presented their "Final Report" to President Clinton, and he asked "Did you find any evidence of conspiracy?"

Which was said to have been answered with deafening silence.

There must be a photo op of this moment. Does anyone have one?

Just like LBJ getting the Warren Report, and saying, "It's heavy."

BK

[Craig Lamson]

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH

If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion

How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?

Think what you want deano, but as you have shown you can't define fact from speculation.

I've ask more than once for you to show us the fact in that dreadful tome, fact you have checked for yourself and found to be true, and is not more bunnies in the clouds, but you can't. Why is that deano?

[Dean Hagerman]

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH

If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion

How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?

Think what you want deano, but as you have shown you can't define fact from speculation.

I've ask more than once for you to show us the fact in that dreadful tome, fact you have checked for yourself and found to be true, and is not more bunnies in the clouds, but you can't. Why is that deano?

I can define speculation from fact

Fact: The Zapruder film is altered

Speculation: Using a DVD cover in place of a scarf and thinking its the same thing

Edited December 27, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Craig Lamson]

Just to reinforce the realization that Craig Lamson is a hypocritical charlatan, his emphasis upon replicable experiments applies to some contexts of research but not to others. As an undergraduate at Princeton, for example, I conducted inclined plane experiments to confirm Galileo's law of falling bodies, where deviations from predictions derived from free fall conditions were explained on the basis of the coefficient of friction of the wooden plane and its grooves. That kind of replication is appropriate when we are seeking to test laws and theories about falling bodies and the like. But other scientific contexts are not repeatable in the laboratory. Newton's synthesis of Galileo's law with the motion of the planets around the Sun and of the Moon around the Earth were not situations in which you could conduct laboratory replications of planetary motion--except by way of simulations and models. But it was not unscientific for that. It was pursuing the study of the phenomena using the appropriate methodology.

Yes some things simply cannot be tested, and thats why I don't deal with them. Photography claims CAN be tested and the tests repeated. My area of study and experience is photography, and thats the area of my workh ere. However, conclusions based on opinion are not fact. Sadly Fetzer wants the world to believe that conclusions ARE fact and PROOF. And thats where he makes himself the village idiot.

In the case of determining what happened at the NPIC on the weekend following the assassination, the appropriate techiques of research include studies of the documentary records--which, in this case, even include the fourth of the four "briefing boards" that were prepared for an unspecified high official, who appears to have been John McCone, Director of the CIA, but also--and rather obviously--conducting interviews with those who were involved. These we know included Homer McMahon, Ben Hunter, and Dino Brugioni, then Deputy Director of the NPIC. These interviews established that an 8mm version of the film was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, when Ben Hunter was not present, and a second, 16mm version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 November 1963, when he was, which, according to its custodian, William Smith, had been processed at the super-secret CIA lab known as "Hawkeye Works" at Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, thereby establishing the existence of two copies of the film.

Yes, conclusions and speculation. Interesting but not proof of anything.

Lamson would have you believe that this is "speculation", but it is nothing of the sort. It is precisely the kind of patient, detailed and thorough investigation with multiple witnesses, documents and other records that historical research entails. For Lamson to suggest that it should be dismissed because it does not involve replicating experiments in a lab reveals the depth of his cynicism.

Thanks for making my point for me Fetzer. Horne looked at the data, as have you and others and SPECULATED about what the data means. YOU (collective) decided what you considered true and what was not. YOU decided what weight to give each datapoint and fit that into your existing worldview. YOU reached a CONCLUSION based on the specultive data and your own preconceived position.

YOU PROVED nothing. You have very few hard facts. But you have PLENTY of opinion. That is PROOF of nothing. And thats why it is worthless in the context of proving z film alteration.

He has also dismissed the Hollywood experts who studied the 6k version of the film after digital transfer, where each frame was reproduced at a pixel density of 6,000 per frame. It was then projected on a large screen and studied. In case anyone misses the point, this was an experiment, which could be replicated. The film could be transferred at different pixel densities or at the same one used here and studied. The results of this repeatable experiment were that these experts were appalled at the very amateurish character of the fakery, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head had obviously been painted over and the "blob" painted in.

No I've dismissed the hollywood EDITORS on the advice they appear to have given Horne that the edge of the sign might be proof of alteration. The basic principles of photographic exposure, double exposure and blurring prove this claim to be bullsnit, and thus the hollywood editors appear clueless about the very basics of photography...just like Jack White. Thats why they have been dismised.

To see you stoop to calling a standard film scan and playback on a monitor an "experiment" truly shows the bankruptcy of both James Fetzer as a broker for truth and for his opinions. The fear in your post is palpable. You are truly running scared!

As for the blob, at this point all we know is that these guys have formed an opinion, and nothing more. We don't know if they have any actual fact to back this claim because they have yet to present any. But that does not James Fetzer..Village Idiot...from proclaiming they are correct...and pimping this opinion as fact...all without having seem a single piece of evidence from them! And this man calls himself a scientist! Epic Fail!

Once again, we find the methodology appropriate to the subject matter being employed by experts in the relevant disciplines. As I have previously explained, moreover, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., conducted the most exacting and painstaking measurements of the amount of light that passes through an X-ray to determine its density properties, which facilitates calculations of the relative density of the objects whose exposure to radiation created the images. He discovered that the massive blow-out to the back of the head had been obfuscated on the X-rays, initially supposing that it was done by "patching" the blow out with material that was much too dense to be human bone, more recently proposing that it was effectuated more simply by massive overexposure to the X-ray prior to its development. Either way, Mantik's studies are objective and scientific and replicable by any one who has the appropriate equipment and training to conduct them. So the highest standards of empirical inquiry have been satisfied here.

I'll not dispute Mantik's work or his CONCLUSIONS. I don't do medical. But the question becomes, how do YOU know his work is correct? Have YOU repeated the tests? Have you reached the same CONCLUSIONS and formed rhe same OPINIONS? Or are you once more just being the pimp...James Fetzer, in the big purple hat?

Lamson would have you believe that he is an expert on the nature of science.

No, I would not. I have some expertise in the craft of photography. Unlike James Fetzer I don't pretend I have knowlege I don't.

That, alas, is simply one more form of deception to which he is subjecting this audience. He is unwilling to acknowledge that observation, measurement, and experiment support the discoveries that Doug Horne is presenting in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009).

I'll be very happy to acknowlege and study any experimental empirical evidence produced by Horne that proves z film alteration.. Show me some from his book...from his website..anywhere. I'm not interested in Horne's opinion on z film alteration. He has proven he lacks the basic photographic skill set to offer any meaningful opinion and quite frankly more opinion, expert or otherwise adds anything of value to the claim and proof of z film alteration. I'm also not interested in his conclusions nor his "analysis", because neither are proof of anything.

He is doing that because he appears to have been either assigned the task or taken it upon himself to attempt to debunk new research on the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film.

So now Fetzer pretends to read minds and ascribe jobs to people. Simply amazing but nothing new for the village idiot.

I dare say, if he thought he could get away with it, he would want to deny that you can actually observe for yourself the blow-out to the back of the head in frames 374 and thereabout.

See, there you go again stating an OPINION and claiming it as fact! Back? Side? Oh wait, in Fetzers's OPINION it's the back.....

I challenged him to refute the argument that I presented in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". He evaded the issue by suggesting that, when it was supported on the basis of scientific procedures, then he would address it. But it had been already!

What a blatant miusquote! Your hands must be bleeding like crazy what with all the grasping at straws you are doing!

BTW, what I said was this:

I don't deal in opinion nor speculation when it comes to the photography of the JFK case, nor do I deal with opinion. I deal only with things that can be proven beyond doubt via experimental, empirical evidence. As such I don't give a rats butt about your argument, your opinions or conclusions. But if you somehow...how did you put it.... "how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism?" then I'll listen to your arguments as well.

So Fetzer, please point out where your work, "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" is supported by "how could an independent experiment be conducted that would confirm or disconfirm your criticism".

You claim it has, now prove it.

I remarked that, if he did not confront this demonstration of fakery, he would have exposed himself as the bona fide "village idiot" on this forum. Lamson is no longer "the joker" but has turned into a joke!

I must be getting way too close to the truth to warrant this much attention for Fetzer and White, if you use their often quoted logic. By golly I think I can see the village idiot Fetzer quaking in his boots!

[

[Craig Lamson]

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH

If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion

How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?

Think what you want deano, but as you have shown you can't define fact from speculation.

I've ask more than once for you to show us the fact in that dreadful tome, fact you have checked for yourself and found to be true, and is not more bunnies in the clouds, but you can't. Why is that deano?

I can define speculation from fact

Fact: The Zapruder film is altered

Speculation: Using a DVD cover in place of a scarf and thinking its the same thing

Thanks for showing the world you really can't define either. Keep up the good works deano.

[Evan Burton]

Evan a couple of questions for a moderator why is Craig Lamson allowed to call Jack a moron in his latest post 451 i believe it is..or is his nasty bad habit of callling derogatory names to be allowed all through this thread as they have been allowed through many others..also if and for fos it is fair the mods are allowed their opinions also, are they not to be none biased seeing they are moderators..thanks..b

Bernice,

If there is a clear violation of Forum rules (calling a Forum member a xxxx, saying what they have said is a lie, saying someone lacks research ability, etc) then it is clear and Moderators can act. Insulting someone is not quite so clear. As you might recall, there was discussion about being treated like children or similar when Mods told people to be more civil. What I might think as being insulting, others might consider to be a lively debate. It is especially difficult if more than one party is engaging in what might be considered to be insulting behaviour. It is difficult at best.

With respect to bias and Mods, I think Kathy Beckett's tagline sums it up nicely.

[William Kelly]

I don't think Doug Horne was invited, but when the ARRB finally finished up its work they presented their "Final Report" to President Clinton, and he asked "Did you find any evidence of conspiracy?"

Which was said to have been answered with deafening silence.

There must be a photo op of this moment. Does anyone have one?

Just like LBJ getting the Warren Report, and saying, "It's heavy."

BK

Why don't those people who insist on insulting each other direct their insults personally, rather than on the full board so everybody has to read them and they step on other, more important posts directed at the general forum rather than an individual person?

Why not insult each other privately?

Thanks for considering this option,

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

Notice that Lamson does not dispute David's studies of the medical evidence, which demonstrate that the blow-out was at the

back of the head. It follows that the Zapruder film, which shows the blow-out to the right front, cannot be correct. It follows

from the medical evidence that the depiction of the assassination in the Zapruder film is a work of fiction. It's that obvious.

More than forty eyewitnesses to the blow out to the back of the head were dismissed on the basis that the X-rays didn't show

it. We now know that they didn't show it because they had been altered. And we know that the film showed a "blob" blowing

out to the right front because the back defect had been painted black and the bulging brains to the front had been painted in.

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding. He can't discuss HOAX intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only

option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. 2010 is going to be a very bad year for anti-alterationists!

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That Lamson is going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing. Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have

been working to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. Doug has thereby done us all a very good turn!

Jim

I dont think Lamson has really read TGZFH

If he did he would not be saying it is all speculation and opinion

How can a logical person as you claim to be Craig be so blind to the facts presented in TGZFH?

Think what you want deano, but as you have shown you can't define fact from speculation.

I've ask more than once for you to show us the fact in that dreadful tome, fact you have checked for yourself and found to be true, and is not more bunnies in the clouds, but you can't. Why is that deano?

I can define speculation from fact

Fact: The Zapruder film is altered

Speculation: Using a DVD cover in place of a scarf and thinking its the same thing

Edited December 28, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Dean,

Notice that Lamson does not dispute David's studies of the medical evidence, which demonstrate that the blow-out was at the

back of the head. It follows that the Zapruder film, which shows the blow-out to the right front, cannot be correct. It follows

from the medical evidence that the depiction of the assassination in the Zapruder film is a work of fiction. It's that obvious.

I don't dispute it because I've not studied it and I don't intend to. I don't know if he is correct or incorrect but the fact of the matter is that YOU don't either. You don't have the skill set to check the work yourself. You simply BELIEVE because it fits your worldview. What was it they said in Animal House.... oh yea..."Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to got through life." I don't know if you're drunk....

More than forty eyewitnesses to the blow out to the back of the head were dismissed on the basis that the X-rays didn't show

it. We now know that they didn't show it because they had been altered. And we know that the film showed a "blob" blowing

out to the right front because the back defect had been painted black and the bulging brains to the front had been painted in.

Well there you go again, stating speculation and opinion as fact. You never learn. I think I might need to reconsider that drunk thing....

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding.

What exactly defines "serious". I'm quite serious about showing the falsehoods foisted upon the public by the likes of Janes Fetzer, Jack White and John Costella. I'm quite serious that the real truth about the photgraphy be told. That not serious enough for you? Or is the problem that its TOO serious for you?

He can't discuss it intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. Anti-alterationists are going to have a bad year 2010!

Can't discuss it intelligently because I have not read it? Thats a funny one Fetzer considering I read it before it was even published.

Yea these are smart as remarks all right...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Funny it's you and Dean who can't discuss these at all because they are simply over your station.

We will see about that bad year.

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That he should be going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing.

Yes it really is quite revealing, that it appears these guys don't have the slightest grasp of the simple photographic principles of exposure, double exposure and blur. And thats goes for Horne as well.

Even more revealing is Fetzers pimping as correct work he has yet to even SEE! Now htat eihter and amazing display od=f physic ability or village idiot with a warped world view!

Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have been attempting to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. These guys are a complete waste of time.

Or they will see that there is no fakery. Time will tell. It's amazing however, the amount of time you have spent trying in vain to discredit a "complete waste of time". Using your own often stated logic, I must be getting really close tot he truth for you to be running scared and acting like the village idiot! Thanks for the unintended vote of approval for my work!

Jim

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I don't think Doug Horne was invited, but when the ARRB finally finished up its work they presented their "Final Report" to President Clinton, and he asked "Did you find any evidence of conspiracy?"

Which was said to have been answered with deafening silence.

There must be a photo op of this moment. Does anyone have one?

Just like LBJ getting the Warren Report, and saying, "It's heavy."

BK

Why don't those people who insist on insulting each other direct their insults personally, rather than on the full board so everybody has to read them and they step on other, more important posts directed at the general forum rather than an individual person?

Why not insult each other privately?

Thanks for considering this option,

BK

If you don't want to certain peoples read posts ..USE THE IGNORE FEATURE.

[William Kelly]

I don't think Doug Horne was invited, but when the ARRB finally finished up its work they presented their "Final Report" to President Clinton, and he asked "Did you find any evidence of conspiracy?"

Which was said to have been answered with deafening silence.

There must be a photo op of this moment. Does anyone have one?

Just like LBJ getting the Warren Report, and saying, "It's heavy."

BK

Why don't those people who insist on insulting each other direct their insults personally, rather than on the full board so everybody has to read them and they step on other, more important posts directed at the general forum rather than an individual person?

Why not insult each other privately?

Thanks for considering this option,

BK

If you don't want to certain peoples read posts ..USE THE IGNORE FEATURE.

Yea, but that doesn't stop Lameson or Colby or Healy from stepping on someone else's more significant post, that isn't directed as an insult at any one person but actually advances what we know about the subject.

Why don't you just text each other insults instead of making us read them too?

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson's position, described in philosophical terms, appears to be a variation on solipsism, which maintains that the only things that are real are the contents of his own mind. This, of course, produces a severely constrained conception of reality, insofar as a mind of this kind cannot accept any information, evidence, or opinions for which it is not the source. In the case of the study of the death of JFK, its effects are profound. Consider what he has to leave out of his personal consideration, which is symptomatic of a strange but clearly solipsistic form of mentality:

* cannot accept the results of studies of X-rays by a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology and who is therefore an expert on their interpretation;

* cannnot accept the conclusion of a world authority on the human brain, who is also an expert on wound ballistics, that the brain shown in diagrams at the archives cannot be that of JKF;

* cannot accept the diagrams of a physician who was present during the treatment of JFK and two days later his alleged assassin, because they are not diagrams he himself has draw;

* cannot accept the proofs of Zapruder film alteration produced by Jack White, David Mantik, David Lifton, or John Costella, for the simple reason that they are not his own proofs;

* cannot accept the professional judgment of Hollywood experts on film restoration because, after all, he was not there and cannot be responsible for the opinions of others; and,

* cannot even accept that the blow-out to the back of the head can be seen--actually, observed--in Zapruder frame 374, for example, because "observation entails interpretation".

But consider the absurdity of his unwillingness to accept the established conclusions of qualified experts simply because they are not his conclusions. The kinds of observations, measurements, and experiments involved here are relatively uncomplicated and yield discoveries that are well-supported by evidence. It is reflected by the tendency to dismiss the conclusions of others as "merely opinions", as though all opinions were on a par except for his own. This is not a normal attitude toward the world and appears to indicate a serious impairment of rationality.

If each of us could only know what we can prove for ourselves, then our knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines would be extremely limited. This unwillingness to grant that others can possess the relevant expertise to drawn significant conclusions is the sign of an atrophied mind. Lamson, like other solipsists, insists that his way is the only way, when it is instead the only way he knows. He tries to make this bizarre state of mind into a virtue, when it has the effect of denying him access to the knowledge that other experts can provide.

Lamson insulates himself from findings he does not like by dismissing them as "mere opinions" or as "matters of interpretation". The only opinions he is willing to accept and the only interpretations he is willing to consider are his own. Using the tactics of ridicule and sarcasm, he will attempt to discredit those who threaten the insular security of his own little world by introducing knowledge that did not originate with him. No one should be taken in by this form of mental illness, which would render the conduct of life practically impossible for any normal human being.

Dean,

These guys have a role to play. They are not serious about JFK--only attempting to debunk work that actually advances our understanding.

What exactly defines "serious". I'm quite serious about showing the falsehoods foisted upon the public by the likes of Janes Fetzer, Jack White and John Costella. I'm quite serious that the real truth about the photgraphy be told. That not serious enough for you? Or is the problem that its TOO serious for you?

He can't discuss it intelligently because he hasn't read it. You nailed him on it. Smart remarks are his only option. He and Colby and Thompson have reached the end of the line. Anti-alterationists are going to have a bad year 2010!

Can't discuss it intelligently because I have not read it? Thats a funny one Fetzer considering I read it before it was even published.

Yea these are smart as remarks all right...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Funny it's you and Dean who can't discuss these at all because they are simply over your station.

We will see about that bad year.

Getting Hollywood experts on film involved was the right move. That he should be going so far out of his way to discredit their professional judgment is extremely revealing.

Yes it really is quite revealing, that it appears these guys don't have the slightest grasp of the simple photographic principles of exposure, double exposure and blur. And thats goes for Horne as well.

Even more revealing is Fetzers pimping as correct work he has yet to even SEE! Now htat eihter and amazing display od=f physic ability or village idiot with a warped world view!

Everyone will soon understand the fakery involved here and that those who have been attempting to debunk its exposure are worthy of the contempt of the nation. These guys are a complete waste of time.

Or they will see that there is no fakery. Time will tell. It's amazing however, the amount of time you have spent trying in vain to discredit a "complete waste of time". Using your own often stated logic, I must be getting really close tot he truth for you to be running scared and acting like the village idiot! Thanks for the unintended vote of approval for my work!

Jim

Edited December 28, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

I don't think Doug Horne was invited, but when the ARRB finally finished up its work they presented their "Final Report" to President Clinton, and he asked "Did you find any evidence of conspiracy?"

Which was said to have been answered with deafening silence.

There must be a photo op of this moment. Does anyone have one?

Just like LBJ getting the Warren Report, and saying, "It's heavy."

BK

Why don't those people who insist on insulting each other direct their insults personally, rather than on the full board so everybody has to read them and they step on other, more important posts directed at the general forum rather than an individual person?

Why not insult each other privately?

Thanks for considering this option,

BK

If you don't want to certain peoples read posts ..USE THE IGNORE FEATURE.

Yea, but that doesn't stop Lameson or Colby or Healy from stepping on someone else's more significant post, that isn't directed as an insult at any one person but actually advances what we know about the subject.

Why don't you just text each other insults instead of making us read them too?

BK

Are you so lame you can't skip what you don't want to read? Sheesh you whine like a third grader.

[Jack White]

In regular English, NUTS is the correct terminology.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

The only opinions he is willing to accept and the only interpretations he is willing to consider are his own. Using the tactics of ridicule and sarcasm, he will attempt to discredit those who threaten the insular security of his own little world by introducing knowledge that did not originate with him. No one should be taken in by this form of mental illness, which would render the conduct of life practically impossible for any normal human being.

Lets cut to the chase and discard Fetzers babble.

I'm studying the photography of the JFK case. I have no interest nor expertise in any other aspect of case. When it comes to the photography its all quite black and white. There is simply no room for opinon when empirical fact is possible. Contrary to Fetzers warped little worldview the work I offer does not "originate from me". Its all long standing, basic photographic principle. I don't offer opinion nor interpretations. I illustrate with simple and easy to replicate experimentation the photographic principles at play and generally misused by alterationists. Its this unimpeachable evidence that works poor Fetzer into such a tizzy. He can't refute it and it destroys his opinions and conclusions. He simply can't have that give the investment he has made to his warped worldview.

Unlike Fetzer and company, I CHALLANGE the reader to NOT take my word for anything, but to rather do the work and tests for themselves.

Fetzer on the other hand prefers the old Appeal to Authority. He tells us...Trust me and my pals, after all they are experts and hold advanced degrees so we should believe what the say regardless.

But what happens when you test them? I can't say in the areas beyond the photographic but a perfect example of Fetzer pimping an "expert PhD in Physics"..that he tells us to believe because of his PhD....and who has it totally wrong is detailed here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

The facts that destroy Costella's work do not "originate with me". I simply show you how to produce the facts and ask you do to the work and check. I don't offer an interpretation. I simply show you what happens in a specfic photographic situation. No gray...just black and white fact.

Fetzer really does not want you to check the work. He just wants you to believe. Forget about thinking for yourself and checking the work of others....Fetzer has the answers, all you need to do is "BELIEVE".

Thanks but no thanks.