Doug Horne

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson's post provides further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false! He even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETTION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre?

Consider his dismissal of Horne's work in this passage: Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview?" That Doug, like me, is not an expert on photographs and films--much less on X-rays and autopsies--would disqualify us from having opinions on any of these matters, even when they are substantiated by the work of content-domain experts! No one who actually reads what Horne has written would confound Horne's observations with those of Hollywood experts. So what is going on here?

He writes here as though he were describing his own solipsistic methodology of rejecting anything anyone has ever done in relation to the study of JFK that he (Lamson) does not accept or has never studied, which includes most aspects of the case (by his own admission). After all, Doug sought out experts on film because he is not one of them himself! What could be more rational? Just as I solicited the assistance of David Mantik, John Constella, Jack White, David Healy and David Lifton in arranging a conference on Zapruder film deception--because each of them knows far more about photographs and films than do I! But Lamson dismisses any work by anyone who has not done it all on their own, which is an abnormal--and extremely bizarre!--mind set.

Read what Horne has done. He has consulted with experts on film restoration. They adopted a procedure that was virtually guaranteed to produce results by creating digital versions of the film with 6k pixels per frame, which could be projected on a large screen for their inspection. Of course, they would be using their powers of observation, a process that Lamson would reject--unless it were he himself making the observations!--but which is obviously what is required in this context. And what did these film restoration experts discover? That the film has been faked--and in a very crude fashion--where the blow out to the back of the head has been painted over and the "blob" painted in! Just read what Doug has written about his experience with these experts in conducting this experiment with the film:

"When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009." (INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, page 1361)

Doug followed the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who had consulted with Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. Now he has gone further by creating a 6k version of the film and enlisting the expert judgment of film restoration specialists, who not only know more about film that Doug Horne but know more about film than Lamson! So what is Lamson's response: "Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful."

But Horne is not reporting his findings: he is reporting those of film restoration experts! And his background as an historian makes his reports all the more appropriate and credible. Indeed, at this point in time, the number of domain experts who have concluded the film is a fake has grown to at least seven or, counting Ryan, eight! And when Dean Hagerman suggests--appropriately--that Lamson really ought to obtain Horne's book and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER HOAX (2003) to study, Lamson's response is equally bizarre: he won't read them because he already knows they have nothing of value to contribute!

"Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it.

TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult."

We all have to appreciate that excluding available relevant information from his mind is an essential stage in the defense of his own personal worldview. If he were to access evidence contrary to his system of beliefs, that might cause him some form of emotional discomfort. So Lamson is displaying an extreme form of cognitive dissonance, which could only be expected of someone who is zealously protecting his own personal beliefs or who is seriously mentally deranged. It is simply not normal for any of us to discount the sober and detailed presentation of studies by domain experts on the subject of greatest interest to us--the authenticity of the film! And yet that is what we have from Lamson, over and over again, as a crucial element of his solipsistic methodology.

Consider, too, what he did in relation to the previous post in which I exposed him as a fraud. Here is what I wrote, which he virtually completely ignored:

Today, 06:01 AM

Post #279

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 308

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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.

And here what he had to say--and this is the complete post he published as his reply--in response to my analysis of his strikingly bizarre modus operandi:

Today, 06:36 AM

Post #282

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 2955

Joined: 15-November 04

Member No.: 1913

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 28 2009, 06:01 AM) *

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.

Of course, all knowledge is a form of belief, since "knowledge" is defined as warranted, true belief. Since we have no direct access to truth, we have to depend upon the evidence that is available and relevant in any given case, where reliance upon domain experts is indispensable. We can't all have Ph.D.s in physics, be M.D.s who are board-certified in radiation oncology, have gained the Kennedy family's permission to study the autopsy materials and have visited the National Archives (now some nine times); or be world authorities on the human brain who are also experts on wound ballistics and have supervised an emergency medical center for the treatment of injured Japanese prisoners of war and injured Okinawans during the Battle of Okinawa, for example. Yet Lamson would have us discount their expert opinions!

This is a form of madness--unless, of course, it is being adopted as a guise to conceal covert effort to undermine some of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination! All beliefs are forms of opinion, but not all opinion are on a par! Those of the quality that I was citing are unimpeachable--unless, of course, you want to pretend that you have to have a Ph.D. or an M.D. and be board-certified in radiation oncology or be a world authority on the human brain to be entitled to have an opinion! That is especially absurd when your opinion is based upon the research of others whose credentials go beyond your own because they are Ph.D.s, M.D.s, and world authorities!

And notice the bifurcation between Lamson's privileged access to the truth and the limitations that he claims are confronted by others but not by him:

"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."

But all we have are our opinions. How can Lamson's views not be "opinions" in turn? The answer, of course, is that they cannot, but in his bizarre state of mind, his work qualifies as knowledge that is opinion and interpretation-free! This, of course, is a logical impossibility, since knowledge is a special kind of opinion. Moreover, nothing that Lamson has ever had to say has caused me the least concern. Even if John Costella, Doug Horne, Jack White, David Lifton or David Mantik occasionally offers an opinion that happens to wrong, that is of no significance. Their work is typically of the highest standard. Science has the self-correcting capacity of adjusting conclusions based upon the acquisition of new evidence. We all make minor mistakes along the way. But few make the major contributions of scholars of their stature!

Lamson, however, is not really interested in truth, only in discrediting the best people who are doing the best work in advancing our understanding of the assassination and the cover-up. He talks about appeals to authority, but does not seem to understand that there are non-fallacious as well as fallacious appeals. Appealing to Einstein on phsics is non-fallacious, since he is an authority in that domain. Appealing to him about baseball card collecting, however, which is not an area of his competence would be fallacious. The appeals that I have been making are obviously non-fallacious, because the experts are qualified within their own domains--and that even extends to each of our own powers of observation in relation to the blow out which is visible in Zapruder frame 374! Apart from those with faulty vision, we are all competent to make ordinary observations of obvious phenomena within our range of personal experience! Who would want to deny that?

So what is going on here? If there are expert conclusions from bona fide authorities--on X-rays, human brains, or photographs and films--that you do not like because they undermine your objective (of obfuscating serious work on the assassination of JFK)--then dismiss it all as a matter of opinion dependent upon interpretation, as though any of your own research were some kind of exception! Espouse a solipsistic--even schizophrenic--methodology, according to which everyone has to be a domain expert to draw warranted conclusions about any of these things. Disregard the ordinary human dependence upon the work of experts and deny them credit for anything they have found, unless it fits into your own preconceived worldview! And be vile and abusive toward anyone who has the courage to confront your apparently insane, but deviously self-serving, methodology as a form of corruption of the search for truth--and hope that no one will notice!

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

Perfect post Jim, I agree 100%

I am glad that Doug is backing the alteration position with his extensive background with the ARRB, Vol 4 is amazing

How can Craig and Len simply refuse to buy or even accept Dougs work?

Craig I suggest you read TGZFH again, I think you must have missed pages 1-496

2010 will be a great year, im proud to back up and have the same views as Jim Fetzer, Jack White, David Healy, Doug Horne, David Lifton, Rich DellaRosa, Bernice Moore, David Mantik, Noel Twyman and others

Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful. Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview?

Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it.

TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult.

Edited December 28, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Well thats your opinion Craig, but we all know what opinions are like....

That and Twyman has some real nice frames in his book, and the limo in 302-303 looks exactly the same while the background is blurred in 302 and sharp in 303

So I dont think Twyman was wrong

No opinions deano....

Twyman and deano say the limo is sharp in 302-303...really?

Twyman and deano say the background is sharp in 303...really?

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson's post provides further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false! He even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETTION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre?

snip the bs....

My Fetzer, the fear is really getting to you! This perhaps the very best example of "FETZERING"yet! As you have often stated, give the amount of your protests I must be getting way too close to the truth! Again thanks so much for the compliment!

BTW, given your desire to embrace the opinions of your "experts" as fact, without verification and your so called "search" for the truth, how can you continue to pimp the proven false "opinion" of Costella?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Gotta love empirical testing. Really cuts to the chase.

And the timing of Fetzer's rant concerning the use of "expert" opinion could not have been better!

Photo expert gives WRONG opinion

And Fetzer tell us to just "trust us"...roflmao!

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson is so out of touch with reality that he does not even seem to understand that he poses as "an expert" and that he has earned skepticism about anything he claims on this forum, because he has embraced a solipsistic and even schizophrenic methodology. I have adduced the case against him in my previous post--but notice that he has said nothing in response, because he has nothing to say! Of course experts can be wrong, but those I have cited are not only expert but serious in their research, as you are not. Your relentless endeavor to discredit everyone except yourself on the grounds that they engage in observation and interpretation while you do not is simply absurd and a glaring manifestation of your semi-demented state of mind. Even this mistake by "an expert" is one that you direct at everyone else--as though you were were an exception!--which thus discredits you all by itself! There is more to the world than your mind allows, including the interrelated and mutually reinforcing research of teams of experts, whose work you refuse to study in a warped attempt to preserve the isolation of your own demented mind-set. That is not the practice of a rational mind. We all know the score with you, Lamson. By your own admission, you are not reading INSIDE THE ARRB or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which includes the most important work on the central focus of your avowed research. What could be more bizarre? You continue to discredit yourself with virtually every post. It isn't a pretty sight!

Lamson's post provides further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false! He even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETTION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre?

snip the bs....

My Fetzer, the fear is really getting to you! This perhaps the very best example of "FETZERING"yet! As you have often stated, give the amount of your protestes I must be getting way too close to the truth! Again thanks so much for the compliment!

BTW, given your desire to embrace the opinions of your "experts" as fact, without verification and your so called "search" for the truth, how can you continue to pimp the proven false "opinion" of Costella?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Gotta love empirical testing. Really cuts to the chase.

And the timing of Fetzer's rant concerning the use of "expert" opinion could not have been better!

Photo expert gives WRONG opinion

And Fetzer tell us to just "trust us"...roflmao!

Edited December 28, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Well thats your opinion Craig, but we all know what opinions are like....

That and Twyman has some real nice frames in his book, and the limo in 302-303 looks exactly the same while the background is blurred in 302 and sharp in 303

So I dont think Twyman was wrong

No opinions deano....

Twyman and deano say the limo is sharp in 302-303...really?

Twyman and deano say the background is sharp in 303...really?

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Edited December 28, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

Lamson's post provides further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false! He even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETTION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre?

Consider his dismissal of Horne's work in this passage: Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview?" That Doug, like me, is not an expert on photographs and films--much less on X-rays and autopsies--would disqualify us from having opinions on any of these matters, even when they are substantiated by the work of content-domain experts! No one who actually reads what Horne has written would confound Horne's observations with those of Hollywood experts. So what is going on here?

He writes here as though he were describing his own solipsistic methodology of rejecting anything anyone has ever done in relation to the study of JFK that he (Lamson) does not accept or has never studied, which includes most aspects of the case (by his own admission). After all, Doug sought out experts on film because he is not one of them himself! What could be more rational? Just as I solicited the assistance of David Mantik, John Constella, Jack White, David Healy and David Lifton in arranging a conference on Zapruder film deception--because each of them knows far more about photographs and films than do I! But Lamson dismisses any work by anyone who has not done it all on their own, which is an abnormal--and extremely bizarre!--mind set.

Read what Horne has done. He has consulted with experts on film restoration. They adopted a procedure that was virtually guaranteed to produce results by creating digital versions of the film with 6k pixels per frame, which could be projected on a large screen for their inspection. Of course, they would be using their powers of observation, a process that Lamson would reject--unless it were he himself making the observations!--but which is obviously what is required in this context. And what did these film restoration experts discover? That the film has been faked--and in a very crude fashion--where the blow out to the back of the head has been painted over and the "blob" painted in! Just read what Doug has written about his experience with these experts in conducting this experiment with the film:

"When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009." (INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, page 1361)

Doug followed the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who had consulted with Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. Now he has gone further by creating a 6k version of the film and enlisting the expert judgment of film restoration specialists, who not only know more about film that Doug Horne but know more about film than Lamson! So what is Lamson's response: "Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful."

But Horne is not reporting his findings: he is reporting those of film restoration experts! And his background as an historian makes his reports all the more appropriate and credible. Indeed, at this point in time, the number of domain experts who have concluded the film is a fake has grown to at least seven or, counting Ryan, eight! And when Dean Hagerman suggests--appropriately--that Lamson really ought to obtain Horne's book and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER HOAX (2003) to study, Lamson's response is equally bizarre: he won't read them because he already knows they have nothing of value to contribute!

"Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it.

TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult."

We all have to appreciate that excluding available relevant information from his mind is an essential stage in the defense of his own personal worldview. If he were to access evidence contrary to his system of beliefs, that might cause him some form of emotional discomfort. So Lamson is displaying an extreme form of cognitive dissonance, which could only be expected of someone who is zealously protecting his own personal beliefs or who is seriously mentally deranged. It is simply not normal for any of us to discount the sober and detailed presentation of studies by domain experts on the subject of greatest interest to us--the authenticity of the film! And yet that is what we have from Lamson, over and over again, as a crucial element of his solipsistic methodology.

Consider, too, what he did in relation to the previous post in which I exposed him as a fraud. Here is what I wrote, which he virtually completely ignored:

Today, 06:01 AM

Post #279

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 308

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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.

And here what he had to say--and this is the complete post he published as his reply--in response to my analysis of his strikingly bizarre modus operandi:

Today, 06:36 AM

Post #282

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 2955

Joined: 15-November 04

Member No.: 1913

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 28 2009, 06:01 AM) *

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.

Of course, all knowledge is a form of belief, since "knowledge" is defined as warranted, true belief. Since we have no direct access to truth, we have to depend upon the evidence that is available and relevant in any given case, where reliance upon domain experts is indispensable. We can't all have Ph.D.s in physics, be M.D.s who are board-certified in radiation oncology, have gained the Kennedy family's permission to study the autopsy materials and have visited the National Archives (now some nine times); or be world authorities on the human brain who are also experts on wound ballistics and have supervised an emergency medical center for the treatment of injured Japanese prisoners of war and injured Okinawans during the Battle of Okinawa, for example. Yet Lamson would have us discount their expert opinions!

This is a form of madness--unless, of course, it is being adopted as a guise to conceal covert effort to undermine some of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination! All beliefs are forms of opinion, but not all opinion are on a par! Those of the quality that I was citing are unimpeachable--unless, of course, you want to pretend that you have to have a Ph.D. or an M.D. and be board-certified in radiation oncology or be a world authority on the human brain to be entitled to have an opinion! That is especially absurd when your opinion is based upon the research of others whose credentials go beyond your own because they are Ph.D.s, M.D.s, and world authorities!

And notice the bifurcation between Lamson's privileged access to the truth and the limitations that he claims are confronted by others but not by him:

"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."

But all we have are our opinions. How can Lamson's views not be "opinions" in turn? The answer, of course, is that they cannot, but in his bizarre state of mind, his work qualifies as knowledge that is opinion and interpretation-free! This, of course, is a logical impossibility, since knowledge is a special kind of opinion. Moreover, nothing that Lamson has ever had to say has caused me the least concern. Even if John Costella, Doug Horne, Jack White, David Lifton or David Mantik occasionally offers an opinion that happens to wrong, that is of no significance. Their work is typically of the highest standard. Science has the self-correcting capacity of adjusting conclusions based upon the acquisition of new evidence. We all make minor mistakes along the way. But few make the major contributions of scholars of their stature!

Lamson, however, is not really interested in truth, only in discrediting the best people who are doing the best work in advancing our understanding of the assassination and the cover-up. He talks about appeals to authority, but does not seem to understand that there are non-fallacious as well as fallacious appeals. Appealing to Einstein on phsics is non-fallacious, since he is an authority in that domain. Appealing to him about baseball card collecting, however, which is not an area of his competence would be fallacious. The appeals that I have been making are obviously non-fallacious, because the experts are qualified within their own domains--and that even extends to each of our own powers of observation in relation to the blow out which is visible in Zapruder frame 374! Apart from those with faulty vision, we are all competent to make ordinary observations of obvious phenomena within our range of personal experience! Who would want to deny that?

So what is going on here? If there are expert conclusions from bona fide authorities--on X-rays, human brains, or photographs and films--that you do not like because they undermine your objective (of obfuscating serious work on the assassination of JFK)--then dismiss it all as a matter of opinion dependent upon interpretation, as though any of your own research were some kind of exception! Espouse a solipsistic--even schizophrenic--methodology, according to which everyone has to be a domain expert to draw warranted conclusions about any of these things. Disregard the ordinary human dependence upon the work of experts and deny them credit for anything they have found, unless it fits into your own preconceived worldview! And be vile and abusive toward anyone who has the courage to confront your apparently insane, but deviously self-serving, methodology as a form of corruption of the search for truth--and hope that no one will notice!

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

Perfect post Jim, I agree 100%

I am glad that Doug is backing the alteration position with his extensive background with the ARRB, Vol 4 is amazing

How can Craig and Len simply refuse to buy or even accept Dougs work?

Craig I suggest you read TGZFH again, I think you must have missed pages 1-496

2010 will be a great year, im proud to back up and have the same views as Jim Fetzer, Jack White, David Healy, Doug Horne, David Lifton, Rich DellaRosa, Bernice Moore, David Mantik, Noel Twyman and others

Why should we "accept" Horne's work? As usual my comments apply only the z film work. Regardless of his position at hte ARRB, Hone has zero qualifications tyo make his opinions and conclusions about the z-film meaningful. Infact, his gross incompetence inthe matter of the sign edge shows quite clearly he is out of his depth. So why should his work be accepted, other than you are a sheep, unable to thinnk and reason for yourself and this fits neatly into your worldview?

Buy the book? again why? The material is not new, and Hornes conclusions are not made from a position of expertise. The major arguments will be parroted on the web by the cultists for years, sop why buy, unless, like you, the cult demands it.

TGZFH. Re-reading will not change the material in the book, nor will some magical process turn it to fact. Its clear fact does not matter to you, so I guess I understand why you so love the book, and the cult.

Jim that sums up Craig very well

I think Craig is at a point where he knows he and his crew will be put down for the count and Z-film alteration will be accepted by all researchers

Either he will admit his errors and join our fight for the truth, or he will quit posting forever

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson is so out of touch with reality that he does not even seem to understand that he poses as "an expert" and that he has earned skepticism about anything he claims on this forum, because he had embraced a solipsistic and even schizophrenic methodology. I have adduced the case against him in my previous post--but notice that he has said nothing in response, because he has nothing to say! Of course experts can be wrong, but those I have cited are not only expert but serious in their research, as you are not. Your relentless endeavor to discredit everyone except yourself on the grounds that they engage in observation and interpretation while you do not is simply absurd and a glaring manifestation of your semi-demented state of mind. Even this mistake by "an expert" is one that you direct at everyone else--as though you were were an exception!--which thus discredits you all by itself! There is more to the world than your mind allows, including the interrelated and mutually reinforcing research of teams of experts, whose work you refuse to study in a warped attempt to preserve the isolation of your own demented mind-set. That is not the practice of a rational mind. We all know the score with you, Lamson. By your own admission, you are not reading INSIDE THE ARRB or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which includes the most important work on the central focus of your avowed research. What could be more bizarre? You continue to discredit yourself with virtually every post. It isn't a pretty sight!

Lamson's post provides further substantiation of my diagnosis of his mental defect in adopting a solipsistic attitude toward the world: if it is not part of his system of beliefs, it is non-existent or false! He even denigrates reliance upon observation because, he claims, it entails interpretation! Yet he poses as an expert on photographs and films, which cannot possibly be subjected to analysis without dependence upon observation and interpretation! So by Lamson's standards, we should dismiss his work on photographs and films BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETTION! This is a nice example of the absurdity of his position, which reduces the scope of available knowledge to the contents of his own mind! Could anything be more bizarre?

snip the bs....

My Fetzer, the fear is really getting to you! This perhaps the very best example of "FETZERING"yet! As you have often stated, give the amount of your protestes I must be getting way too close to the truth! Again thanks so much for the compliment!

BTW, given your desire to embrace the opinions of your "experts" as fact, without verification and your so called "search" for the truth, how can you continue to pimp the proven false "opinion" of Costella?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Gotta love empirical testing. Really cuts to the chase.

And the timing of Fetzer's rant concerning the use of "expert" opinion could not have been better!

Photo expert gives WRONG opinion

And Fetzer tell us to just "trust us"...roflmao!

Well Fetzer, if you want to discredit me, you will need to discredit the unimpeachable emperical evidence I present, and challange everyone to produce for themselves. Unlike you and your band of misfits I don't want anyone to BELIEVE anything I say. I want them to confirm it for themself.

BTW, Your continued 'armchair" psycho babble is one more perfect example of why "expert" opinions are so dangerous.

Learn to read. As I stated more than once, I read TGZFH before it was published. Sheesh you can't even get minor points correct.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Jim that sums up Craig very well

I think Craig is at a point where he knows he and his crew will be put down for the count and Z-film alteration will be accepted by all researchers

Either he will admit his errors and join our fight for the truth, or he will quit posting forever

Gotta give you some credit, facts be damned, you do love fantasy and you dream big.

[Craig Lamson]

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point.

Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways.

DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim.

Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano.

Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you?

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point.

Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways.

DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim.

Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano.

Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you?

Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303

The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all)

Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying

The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do

But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda

[Craig Lamson]

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point.

Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways.

DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim.

Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano.

Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you?

Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303

The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all)

Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying

The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do

But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda

You are the one twisting words deano, which is not suprising, but strange given you claim to have read this book over and over.

Twyman says:

"I showed him frames 302 and 303 and I pointed out the blur int he stationary background figures as opposed to the sharp focus of the limousine in 302, and how the blur of the background figures suddenly disappeared in 303 while the limousine remains in sharp focus."

Note he claims SHARP FOCUS for the limo in both 302 and 303. Not 'kind of in focus", or "just a little out of focus" or even just "in focus". He was very specfic. He used the term "sharp focus".

Once again you come up on the short end of the stick.

As for the sharpness of 302 and 303, why don't you measure the length of the blur on the roll bar highlights along with the length of the blur in 306 and then tell us if your testing shows that 302 and 303 are in SHARP Focus.

Then see if the blur is larger in 302 than in 303 by subtracting the blur meausrement form 303 from the blur measurement from 303. If you are correct when you state; "The limo stays the same in 302-303" then your answer will be zero, If the number is ANYTHING but zero you are wrong once again.

BTW, please show us the images you used as well as your results of the measurements.

[Len Colby]

I suggest that the person who called me a SENILE OLD MAN be put on permanent moderation.

Jack

I suggest that the person who:

-Accused several members of this forum of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination

-Accused several members of this forum of being CIA disinfo agents

-Repeatedly made false accusations against members of this forum and refused to recant let alone apologize when shown to be wrong

-Said two members of this forum should be "hung by their thumbs"

...be expelled from the forum along with his buddy who repeatedly called people Nazis simply for disagreeing with his views.

For those of you who have been here a while, I ask you to imagine what this Forum would be like [and what interests would be served] if Mr. Colby had his druthers as to who was allowed to remain on the Forum and who not - according to his twisted criteria.

Quite hypocritical coming from someone who has made it quite clear their preferred forum is one which excludes those with differing views and who repeatedly levels personal attacks, including accusations of being Nazis, against those who have temerity to hold contrary views here. Unlike you I’m not an intellectual fascist and have no problem with opposing views. Any forum I ran would welcome people of all viewpoints though bigotry and personal attacks would not be allowed. If you behaved there the way you do here Belvaquia and you would be on moderation Jack and Craig probably wouldn’t but would have high warning levels, no one else I can think of not even Fetzer or Hogan would have much trouble.

I believe even one senior Administrator might be on his 'hit' list.

Just what are rambling on about? Are you referring to yourself? I plead guilty,I've never hidden that I think you being a mod disgraces the forum.

From a post to Craig:

The Forum members who can not see what the moderators see might be interested to know that those who are as 'natural' here as persons who hate golf on a golf Forum are the MOST active to complaining to the moderators 'based on the "rules"' - that would include you, Craig (and Len) at the forefront of that ignoble line.

You of course are divulging privileged information once again reveling your unfitness as a moderator, what you omit is that you are (just about) the only person I complain about. Am I correct that you are one of the 2 or 3 most complained about members?

But my biggest complaint is your clever way to divert or make nonsense out of threads. This one is about Horne - and if you or others try to derail it further you might well find your post made invisible.

All this is in response to one of Jack’s posts which in turn was in response to one of Bernice’s posts which was in response to Evan asking people not to use the word ‘xxxx’ which was in response to Jack using the word a clear violation of forum rules. So neither Craig nor I are diverting anything. You not only saw that post but replied to it approvingly once again demonstrating your unfitness as a moderator.

[William Kelly]

Members might be interested in Doug Horne's new Blog on the assassination of JFK.

"Inside the ARRB," a book 13 years in the making, should be available for sale next month. Over 2000 pages in five volumes.

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

May I suggest that anything other than the topic of this thread Doug Horne, be relegated elsewhere, and those who want to carry on private discussions or insults do it privately.

Thanks,

BK

[William Kelly]

And is it reasonable to infer that Josiah

Thompson is unaware that his efforts to defend Zapruder authenticity

makes him an accessory after the fact to the cover up in the death

of our 35th president? These are questions all of us have to ponder.

<snip>

The modus operandi is familiar and I've told Doug what to expect, where

the names of Lamson and Colby and Thompson--and, I surmise, at

this juncture--MacRae are going to become very familiar to him. We

shall see how it plays out, but there's no room for doubt that it's begun

ANYONE who disagrees with Fetzer is someone to be looked on suspiciously, and that is ridiculous. Instead of debating with them, they are to be looked out for.

Aside from some of the far out statements in the alteration camp, there is a more obvious problem--their spokesmodel.

That is why folks are raving about Doug Horne, and are considering what he has written--he at least is more of a gentleman.

[Dean Hagerman]

Why use black and white prints that are enlarged to the point of becoming fuzzy, and also I said the limo looks the same in 302-303, not that it is needle sharp

I guess im going to have to scan the frames from "Bloody Treason"

But the one frame you posted did a good job of showing the white shoes that neither Mary nor Jean were wearing that day

Why not b/w? If you think it skews the measurements offer some empirical proof that proves your point.

Twyman said it was sharp in both 302 and 303 and you have stated you will always back Twyman. Can't have it both ways.

DO you somehow think enlargement has changed the size relationship of the highlights on top of the roll bar between 302, 303, and 306? If so please offer some empirical proof to back your claim.

Oh goodie. You complain about enlargements and now you want to scan and post images from a book that will contain a halftone screen. That's pretty stupid of you deano.

Shoes...you do love bunnies in the clouds don't you?

Of course I will always back Twyman, Twyman never said the limo was the sharpest possible in 302-303

The limo stays the same in 302-303 and the backgrounds change from blurry to sharp (not needle sharp as you like to throw into the mix for no reason at all)

Thats the bottom line and its what Twyman is saying

The funny thing is that I know your smart, but you play dumb when it comes to reading what people write, you know damn well what Twyman and I myself are saying in regards to 302-303, I know you do

But you love to twist words around and make up your own fairy tales to fit your perfect assassination photographic agenda

You are the one twisting words deano, which is not suprising, but strange given you claim to have read this book over and over.

Twyman says:

"I showed him frames 302 and 303 and I pointed out the blur int he stationary background figures as opposed to the sharp focus of the limousine in 302, and how the blur of the background figures suddenly disappeared in 303 while the limousine remains in sharp focus."

Note he claims SHARP FOCUS for the limo in both 302 and 303. Not 'kind of in focus", or "just a little out of focus" or even just "in focus". He was very specfic. He used the term "sharp focus".

Once again you come up on the short end of the stick.

As for the sharpness of 302 and 303, why don't you measure the length of the blur on the roll bar highlights along with the length of the blur in 306 and then tell us if your testing shows that 302 and 303 are in SHARP Focus.

Then see if the blur is larger in 302 than in 303 by subtracting the blur meausrement form 303 from the blur measurement from 303. If you are correct when you state; "The limo stays the same in 302-303" then your answer will be zero, If the number is ANYTHING but zero you are wrong once again.

BTW, please show us the images you used as well as your results of the measurements.

Craig you know when Twyman says sharp focus he is talking about the focus compared to the background in frames 302-303

I have already tried to explain this to you but you refuse to back down when you know what Twyman/myself are trying to say

I will post some frames and give you MY rundown on what I see

Is that ok with you?