Dean Hagerman Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 BTW jimbo, I already took you , Costella, Mantik, Lifton, Healy and White out and down for the count with this one. LMFAO The day that you take Fetzer, Lifton, Healy and White to town on anything related to the assassination is the day I will walk straight into a Combine that is plowing a field in your Indiana hometown Good job Jim and Jim, I enjoyed that read Poor Dean, that Combine is REALLY gonna hurt. Read them again, kiss your wife and kids goodbye. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm They all tried and failed to salvage Costella from his ignorant signpost blunder. They actually took themself down by BELIEVING, instead of knowing. Just like deano. BTW exactly how do you KNOW the Fetzer and Marrs morass was good? You claim no real study of the backyard phtoos, yet here you are doing some sheep like backslappin. lordy lordy, deano BELIEVES! And hey where are those three best Jack White studies that you say you have researched and validated? Cat got your tongue? Or is the combine closing in on your azz? I never mentioned Costellas name And dont worry about my studies, I told you I would post them and I will Im just letting you sweat a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 So Dean, does your offer apply to me too? If I “take Fetzer, Lifton, Healy [or] White to town on anything related to the assassination” will you “walk straight into a Combine that is plowing a field in [Craig’s] Indiana hometown”? Actually I can think of something less painful and distant, if you loose, and if Tink is up to it, you dress up like Ethel Merman, hop a bus to Bolinas and let him film you singing her hits. Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 BTW jimbo, I already took you , Costella, Mantik, Lifton, Healy and White out and down for the count with this one. LMFAO The day that you take Fetzer, Lifton, Healy and White to town on anything related to the assassination is the day I will walk straight into a Combine that is plowing a field in your Indiana hometown Good job Jim and Jim, I enjoyed that read Poor Dean, that Combine is REALLY gonna hurt. Read them again, kiss your wife and kids goodbye. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm They all tried and failed to salvage Costella from his ignorant signpost blunder. They actually took themself down by BELIEVING, instead of knowing. Just like deano. BTW exactly how do you KNOW the Fetzer and Marrs morass was good? You claim no real study of the backyard phtoos, yet here you are doing some sheep like backslappin. lordy lordy, deano BELIEVES! And hey where are those three best Jack White studies that you say you have researched and validated? Cat got your tongue? Or is the combine closing in on your azz? I never mentioned Costellas name And dont worry about my studies, I told you I would post them and I will Im just letting you sweat a little The flunkies you listed did their BEST to defend Costella's mistake and failed. They "believed" They pimped Costella's work as correct. It's assassination related. They got taken down. Dean, meet combine. Believe me you are not raising a sweat deano. You are in over your head, I've no worries at all. You on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about) And I have stated before, I dont use his combined edit of the Z-film because I have the MPI for the sprocket area and Grodens Z-film for every frame Thats all, nothing sinister Edited November 20, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about) And I have stated before, I dont use his combined edit of the Z-film because I have the MPI for the sprocket area and Grodens Z-film for every frame Thats all, nothing sinister Curious, has the "dear leader"Jack White denounced that paranoia or does he embrace it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about) And I have stated before, I dont use his combined edit of the Z-film because I have the MPI for the sprocket area and Grodens Z-film for every frame Thats all, nothing sinister Curious, has the "dear leader"Jack White denounced that paranoia or does he embrace it? Jack didnt write that part of TGZFH, if he agrees with Costella on it then thats fine with me, I dont think Costella should have included page 222-238 at all, thats just my opinion Jack was attacked in his home and seriously injured, so I think he has reason to be a little more suspicious then most other people And Craig I dont know how many times I have to tell you I dont agree with everything Jack has done, I dont agree with everything in TGZFH You think because I agree with any part in a book or any part of someones research that I believe EVERYTHING in that book or what that researcher has done I have my own theory I have my own research Yes lots of my theory has to do with alteration, but that is one part of my theory In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory I would love to give you my theory Craig, you would be very suprised to see how much I disagree with other alterationists (on certain aspects) But I feel it would be a waste of time because you dont care about the assassination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about) And I have stated before, I dont use his combined edit of the Z-film because I have the MPI for the sprocket area and Grodens Z-film for every frame Thats all, nothing sinister Curious, has the "dear leader"Jack White denounced that paranoia or does he embrace it? Jack didnt write that part of TGZFH, if he agrees with Costella on it then thats fine with me, I dont think Costella should have included page 222-238 at all, thats just my opinion Jack was attacked in his home and seriously injured, so I think he has reason to be a little more suspicious then most other people And Craig I dont know how many times I have to tell you I dont agree with everything Jack has done, I dont agree with everything in TGZFH You think because I agree with any part in a book or any part of someones research that I believe EVERYTHING in that book or what that researcher has done I have my own theory I have my own research Yes lots of my theory has to do with alteration, but that is one part of my theory In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory I would love to give you my theory Craig, you would be very suprised to see how much I disagree with other alterationists (on certain aspects) But I feel it would be a waste of time because you dont care about the assassination Lets see how deano does here. Len asks: "Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" deano: "Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about)" deano dumps all of Costella's work because he thinks he is wrong on a SINGLE item he presents. The deano tells us: "In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point." So which is it deano? Or do you just believe??? deano says: "In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory" You see its not about agree or disagree deano, it about correct or incorrect. Intellectual honestry and intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing with making an error and maning up and admitting it. Thats intellectual honesty. Making a claim, having it proven wrong by unimpeachable, experiment emprical evidence, and then continuing to claim you are still correct, that is intellectual dishonesty. If you do not admit your error, more so if you claim expert status, everything you will ever produce is tainted. You are an intellectualy dishonest actor. Also if you you are not the creator of the work that has been proven wrong, but you continue to promote it, knowing it is wrong ( and remember we are not talking about opinions here but articles that can be tested and proven) you too are intellectual dishonest and everything you say is tainted. Bunnies in the clouds coulds opinion. Stating, based on physics, a tilted pole cannot change angle when you move the camera is not opinion. It can be tested and shown correct or incorrect. And thats the point deano. You judge the credibility of a person by thier body of work and their intellectual honesty or lack thereof. It does not matter which "side" someone is on, what matters is that that deliver honest information. You won't find many JFK cts who actually work like this. Too many slaves to a warped worldview to ever let the truth ruin their 'belief" We don't know about you just yet. You say you don't just believe and then you turn around and tell us you THINK Jack is correct "most of the time" Time is gonna tell on that score, when we see your work, if that ever happens. I'm not holding my breath. Don't bother with your assassination "theory". They are like assshats, everyone has one and they all stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about) And I have stated before, I dont use his combined edit of the Z-film because I have the MPI for the sprocket area and Grodens Z-film for every frame Thats all, nothing sinister Curious, has the "dear leader"Jack White denounced that paranoia or does he embrace it? Jack didnt write that part of TGZFH, if he agrees with Costella on it then thats fine with me, I dont think Costella should have included page 222-238 at all, thats just my opinion Jack was attacked in his home and seriously injured, so I think he has reason to be a little more suspicious then most other people And Craig I dont know how many times I have to tell you I dont agree with everything Jack has done, I dont agree with everything in TGZFH You think because I agree with any part in a book or any part of someones research that I believe EVERYTHING in that book or what that researcher has done I have my own theory I have my own research Yes lots of my theory has to do with alteration, but that is one part of my theory In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory I would love to give you my theory Craig, you would be very suprised to see how much I disagree with other alterationists (on certain aspects) But I feel it would be a waste of time because you dont care about the assassination Lets see how deano does here. Len asks: "Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" deano: "Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about)" deano dumps all of Costella's work because he thinks he is wrong on a SINGLE item he presents. The deano tells us: "In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point." So which is it deano? Or do you just believe??? deano says: "In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory" You see its not about agree or disagree deano, it about correct or incorrect. Intellectual honestry and intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing with making an error and maning up and admitting it. Thats intellectual honesty. Making a claim, having it proven wrong by unimpeachable, experiment emprical evidence, and then continuing to claim you are still correct, that is intellectual dishonesty. If you do not admit your error, more so if you claim expert status, everything you will ever produce is tainted. You are an intellectualy dishonest actor. Also if you you are not the creator of the work that has been proven wrong, but you continue to promote it, knowing it is wrong ( and remember we are not talking about opinions here but articles that can be tested and proven) you too are intellectual dishonest and everything you say is tainted. Bunnies in the clouds coulds opinion. Stating, based on physics, a tilted pole cannot change angle when you move the camera is not opinion. It can be tested and shown correct or incorrect. And thats the point deano. You judge the credibility of a person by thier body of work and their intellectual honesty or lack thereof. It does not matter which "side" someone is on, what matters is that that deliver honest information. You won't find many JFK cts who actually work like this. Too many slaves to a warped worldview to ever let the truth ruin their 'belief" We don't know about you just yet. You say you don't just believe and then you turn around and tell us you THINK Jack is correct "most of the time" Time is gonna tell on that score, when we see your work, if that ever happens. I'm not holding my breath. Don't bother with your assassination "theory". They are like assshats, everyone has one and they all stink. Craig you are the master BSer Its almost like taking peoples words and mixing them around to your likeness is an art to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about) And I have stated before, I dont use his combined edit of the Z-film because I have the MPI for the sprocket area and Grodens Z-film for every frame Thats all, nothing sinister Curious, has the "dear leader"Jack White denounced that paranoia or does he embrace it? Jack didnt write that part of TGZFH, if he agrees with Costella on it then thats fine with me, I dont think Costella should have included page 222-238 at all, thats just my opinion Jack was attacked in his home and seriously injured, so I think he has reason to be a little more suspicious then most other people And Craig I dont know how many times I have to tell you I dont agree with everything Jack has done, I dont agree with everything in TGZFH You think because I agree with any part in a book or any part of someones research that I believe EVERYTHING in that book or what that researcher has done I have my own theory I have my own research Yes lots of my theory has to do with alteration, but that is one part of my theory In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory I would love to give you my theory Craig, you would be very suprised to see how much I disagree with other alterationists (on certain aspects) But I feel it would be a waste of time because you dont care about the assassination Lets see how deano does here. Len asks: "Just curious though why aren’t you willing to go to the thresher for the person Fetzer claimed was "the leading technical expert on the film" deano: "Because in TGZFH I found a certain part of Costellas chapter appendix to be a little much in the paranoia department (Im sure you know what im talking about)" deano dumps all of Costella's work because he thinks he is wrong on a SINGLE item he presents. The deano tells us: "In the real world you are allowed to agree with someone on one point, but then disagree with that same person on another point." So which is it deano? Or do you just believe??? deano says: "In Craigsters world if you agree with a researcher on one point then what ever that researcher says for the rest of his life no matter what it is you are linked to him and every theory" You see its not about agree or disagree deano, it about correct or incorrect. Intellectual honestry and intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing with making an error and maning up and admitting it. Thats intellectual honesty. Making a claim, having it proven wrong by unimpeachable, experiment emprical evidence, and then continuing to claim you are still correct, that is intellectual dishonesty. If you do not admit your error, more so if you claim expert status, everything you will ever produce is tainted. You are an intellectualy dishonest actor. Also if you you are not the creator of the work that has been proven wrong, but you continue to promote it, knowing it is wrong ( and remember we are not talking about opinions here but articles that can be tested and proven) you too are intellectual dishonest and everything you say is tainted. Bunnies in the clouds coulds opinion. Stating, based on physics, a tilted pole cannot change angle when you move the camera is not opinion. It can be tested and shown correct or incorrect. And thats the point deano. You judge the credibility of a person by thier body of work and their intellectual honesty or lack thereof. It does not matter which "side" someone is on, what matters is that that deliver honest information. You won't find many JFK cts who actually work like this. Too many slaves to a warped worldview to ever let the truth ruin their 'belief" We don't know about you just yet. You say you don't just believe and then you turn around and tell us you THINK Jack is correct "most of the time" Time is gonna tell on that score, when we see your work, if that ever happens. I'm not holding my breath. Don't bother with your assassination "theory". They are like assshats, everyone has one and they all stink. Craig you are the master BSer Its almost like taking peoples words and mixing them around to your likeness is an art to you I quoted you verbatim. If you don't mean something, don't say it. If you say it and you are not consistant, expect to be called on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now