Doug Horne

[Craig Lamson]

In regular English, NUTS is the correct terminology.

Jack

Yes Jack you are.

[Dean Hagerman]

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

[Bernice Moore]

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.

thanks Evan for your comments i understand what you have said to a point..and i also realize the difficulties that mods have like a narrow wire they walk many times..it simply appears to me when the let's call them smaller insults re name calling are allowed they then if allowed to continue.. appears to encourage worse and they only get more direct and ruder, and then of course they begin to cause similar replies that only makes to harbor ill feelings to the point where all soon become unmanageable and a broo haw suddenly erupts having seen this occur many times,i know it does happen...and soon becomes out of control and no one i believe wants such to happen..thinking of an ounce of prevention..b..

Edited December 28, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

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.

thanks Evan for your comments i understand what you have said to a point..and i also realize the difficulties that mods have like a narrow wire they walk many times..it simply appears to me when the let's call them smaller insults re name calling are allowed they then if allowed to continue.. appears to encourage worse and they only get more direct and ruder, and then of course they begin to cause similar replies that only makes to harbor ill feelings to the point where all soon become unmanageable and a broo haw suddenly erupts having seen this occur many times,i know it does happen...and soon becomes out of control and no one i believe wants such to happen..thinking of an ounce of prevention..b..

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

Jack

[Len Colby]

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?

I've read the parts of vol. IV available through Amazon, nothing in them is really new or especially compelling, I understand how a true believer like you would find that hard to believe.

[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.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

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.

Fetzer and Horne conflate unsubstantial decades old recollections after with established fact. I guess because it fits their theory better they’ve decided McMahon and Hunter received a copy of the film Sunday night as per Hunter’s version even though McMahon said it was Friday, but when it suits their purposes they decide McMahon’s memory is more reliable and tell us there’s no doubt the film was delivered to them by an agent calling himself Bill Smith who said it had been processed at Hawkeye Works even though Hunter had no recollection of this even after discussing it with McMahon.

They choose to ignore the obvious:

- the name ‘Hawkeye’ has been associated with Kodak since around 1908 and more specifically the name ‘Hawkeye Works’, an equipment division at the Rochester HQ, since about 1920 so the claim Hawkeye Works is/was a super secret codeword for a Kodak lab at the Rochester HQ makes absolutely no sense.

- We know that different federal agencies had more than one copy of the Z-film in their possession with in a day or two so there is nothing especially odd about 2 making it to the NPIC.

- Memories even for young people recalling recent events are fallible so the uncorroborated recollections of (sometimes elderly) men decades (34 – 46 years) after the fact are of questionable evidentiary value especially when those recollections are contradicted by others who were present

But they chose to ignore these obvious points because it contradicts what they already decided to be true.

As for the supposed Hollywood experts my guess is that once we actually hear from them their conclusions and or credentials won't be as solid as Fetzer and Horne make out.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

thanks Evan for your comments i understand what you have said to a point..and i also realize the difficulties that mods have like a narrow wire they walk many times..it simply appears to me when the let's call them smaller insults re name calling are allowed they then if allowed to continue.. appears to encourage worse and they only get more direct and ruder, and then of course they begin to cause similar replies that only makes to harbor ill feelings to the point where all soon become unmanageable and a broo haw suddenly erupts having seen this occur many times,i know it does happen...and soon becomes out of control and no one i believe wants such to happen..thinking of an ounce of prevention..b..

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

Jack

Yet another childish whiner. Feel better now.

[Craig Lamson]

double...self deleted

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[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.

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 Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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. I believe even one senior Administrator might be on his 'hit' list. Try a positive post - not a negative one - I believe it would be a first for you Mr. Colby.

That was a positive post Lemkin. He is positive that other members, including you, made the above comments.

Pot>Kettle Lemkin.

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

So im a sheep that cant think for myself?

How is it that I believed in alteration back in 1997 before any of Fetzers books came out?

TGZFH solidified my theories on alteration

You seem to forget even though I have told you plenty of times that I have my own theories and agree with the work of some non-alterationists like your leader Tink Thompson for example

So because I agree with the likes of those that I listed I am a sheep that belongs to a cult?

[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.

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.

So im a sheep that cant think for myself?

How is it that I believed in alteration back in 1997 before any of Fetzers books came out?

TGZFH solidified my theories on alteration

You seem to forget even though I have told you plenty of times that I have my own theories and agree with the work of some non-alterationists like your leader Tink Thompson for example

So because I agree with the likes of those that I listed I am a sheep that belongs to a cult?

You sure appear to be a sheep who can't think for yourself. If you were not a cultist, you would have tested all of these silly claims for yourself instead of just being a parrot.

You can't even bring yourself to admit Twyman was wrong about 302-303 let alone deal honestly with the failings of Horne, White, Fetzer and others.

Given all of that, how can say you think for yourself and are not just another cultist?

[Craig Lamson]

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. I believe even one senior Administrator might be on his 'hit' list. Try a positive post - not a negative one - I believe it would be a first for you Mr. Colby.

That was a positive post Lemkin. He is positive that other members, including you, made the above comments.

Pot>Kettle Lemkin.

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. Interesting isn't it. How are those Haliburton stocks doing, Craig? Sorry you can't get shares in Xe? [Always good money in death and destruction, hatred, isn't it?] What do you love and what do you respect?! Your religion, IMO is the religion of Americanism = a very dangerous religion - dangerous to America and the Planet. Other than the love I saw on you website toward your father I have seen nothing but negativity and even enmity on your part on this Forum, sadly....but that would fit in with my conception of your interpretation what what 'Amerika' ought to be and how those who would want it to be a real democracy - based on truth and morality and ecological sustainability would be problematic to you and those who think like you. Sorry your neo-fascist Bush is not in power now, and we are saddled with the neo-neo-fascist pro-Oligarchic CIA-trained Obama. Tough times for us all, n'est ce pas?

What's the matter Peter, you don't like it when "your side " is held to the same rules you so like to foist. Again Pot>Kettle.

BTW, yet another nice paranoid Lemkin rant. Just more of your standard fare. Can you say "wackjob"?

Edited December 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

So im a sheep that cant think for myself?

How is it that I believed in alteration back in 1997 before any of Fetzers books came out?

TGZFH solidified my theories on alteration

You seem to forget even though I have told you plenty of times that I have my own theories and agree with the work of some non-alterationists like your leader Tink Thompson for example

So because I agree with the likes of those that I listed I am a sheep that belongs to a cult?

You sure appear to be a sheep who can't think for yourself. If you were not a cultist, you would have tested all of these silly claims for yourself instead of just being a parrot.

You can't even bring yourself to admit Twyman was wrong about 302-303 let alone deal honestly with the failings of Horne, White, Fetzer and others.

Given all of that, how can say you think for yourself and are not just another cultist?

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