David Josephs Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally. Not if you don't let them. David, I see you have been a Forum member for six years, but it seems you have been much more active posting in the last year or so. You're well-versed, well-spoken, and a very good critical thinker. The good points you often make speak to that. Although it sounds like I am singling you out, I am really directing these remarks to some of the members that "that think and post rationally," as referenced you above. Why would anyone that knows and still cares about President Kennedy's murder 47 long years after it occurred, and still has the fires of curiosity and understanding burning, want to spend their time debating someone who brags about knowing little (and by their own admission, could care less) about the assassination of an American president? Some members design their posts to infuriate others. To become infuriated is playing the game on their terms. (I'm just coining a phrase; I realize that studying President Kennedy's assassination is not a game, but in the vacuum of this Forum it sometimes seems that way.) Switching gears David, what do you know about Maggie Field? Michael - Thanks for the kind words... been on vacation at the beaches in Atlantic City and other than reading "Brothers" have taken a break from reading and dealing with the likes of the Lamson's out here. For years I read and posted on Lancer as well as read/lurked here but had some problems with my sign on and they were not accepting new members so I was in a Catch-22. Thru discussions with Larry Hancock who was gracious enough to contact John for me - I was able to get back to contributing what I can where I can. I have not read each post on this thread since my break yet can see from the following posts just on this page Craig remains himself thru and thru. He has no answers, only arguments - baseless at that - so I do indeed heed your advice and warning to the other posters and not bother with him any longer. Mike Williams and I started out that way, and I have no problem being disagreed with as long as the arguments make sense and are presented without personal attack, neither of which Craig seems capable of doing. JFK and the Unspeakable is next on my must read list - I am interested in how this and "Brothers" interrelates, contradicts and supports each other. Maybe instead of discussing folds he can explain why the Commission had such a hard time with how a frontal shot was accomplished from Oswald's supposed location. That is if he's read the executive session transcripts - yet given they are a factual record of what these men thought in what they supposed was "private".... I amsure he will dismiss their concerns as easily as he does all the other "facts" of the case. sincerely DJ ps... I am not familiar with Maggie Field... but will be by the end of the day, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Good to know that rational thinking is beyond mr josephs. Ignorance seems to be bliss for him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Hey there Craig GREAT to hear from you. Keep up the GREAT work. You are truly an inspiration to us all. thanks DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Hey there Craig GREAT to hear from you. Keep up the GREAT work. You are truly an inspiration to us all. thanks DJ As are you, ignorance and all.... [sarcasm]Keep up the great work [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I for one am so sick of this that I want to make a plea for it to stop. Why does this have to discussed in so many threads that it is not a part of? Watching two adults urinate on each other, making the same repetetive points is boring as heck. Why? Next step, go to the mods. Why not just prove the point one way or the other jim? You pushed Dolva for an answer on aother thread and yet questions were asked of you and you ignore them. This is simple. Just show us a fabric arrangement that can produce the betzner artifactthat is not a 3+ inch horizontal fold...and works in the correct lighting as seen in Betzner and that arguement is over. How more simple can that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 How long has this been going on Craig? Answer me that one. On how many threads? Answer that one. For what end? You are a dyed in the wool WC upholder in every aspect who has never been able to show one instance where you went the other way. Varnell is convinced he is right and you both talk past each other. Which would be ok if it was on one thread. Its not. Why don't the mods dedicate one thread to this? Seems easy to me. Then everyone would now where to go and not to go. This is embarrassing and cumbersome for everyone else. Except you two, who never get tired of playing in the sandbox. I haven't posted on this thread in 12 days. I started two other ones for the discussion, which as far as I'm concerned is over until I hear from John Dolva, but I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 How long has this been going on Craig? Answer me that one. On how many threads? Answer that one. For what end? You are a dyed in the wool WC upholder in every aspect who has never been able to show one instance where you went the other way. Varnell is convinced he is right and you both talk past each other. Which would be ok if it was on one thread. Its not. Why don't the mods dedicate one thread to this? Seems easy to me. Then everyone would know where to go and not to go. This is embarrassing and cumbersome for everyone else. Except you two, who never get tired of playing in the sandbox. Varnell can be as convinced as he wants but the hard facts simply blow him out of the water. This is really simple Jim and you can ask Varnell to end it once and for all... Just show us a fabric arrangement that can produce the betzner artifact that is not a 3+ inch horizontal fold...and works in the correct lighting as seen in Betzner and that arguement is over. How more simple can that be? So WHY are YOU not pushing your PAL Varnell to simply prove his position works. It's not hard Jim. Why not lean on him to actually prove me wrong or him right. BTW, try not to be a hypocrite...it just makes you look more foolish.... Simple proof of concept photos will do the trick. So snap to it Jim. Instead of complaining why not actully DO somehting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 How long has this been going on Craig? Answer me that one. On how many threads? Answer that one. For what end? You are a dyed in the wool WC upholder in every aspect who has never been able to show one instance where you went the other way. Varnell is convinced he is right and you both talk past each other. Which would be ok if it was on one thread. Its not. Why don't the mods dedicate one thread to this? Seems easy to me. Then everyone would know where to go and not to go. This is embarrassing and cumbersome for everyone else. Except you two, who never get tired of playing in the sandbox. Varnell can be as convinced as he wants but the hard facts simply blow him out of the water. This is really simple Jim and you can ask Varnell to end it once and for all... Just show us a fabric arrangement that can produce the betzner artifact that is not a 3+ inch horizontal fold...and works in the correct lighting as seen in Betzner and that arguement is over. How more simple can that be? So WHY are YOU not pushing your PAL Varnell to simply prove his position works. It's not hard Jim. Why not lean on him to actually prove me wrong or him right. BTW, try not to be a hypocrite...it just makes you look more foolish.... Simple proof of concept photos will do the trick. So snap to it Jim. Instead of complaining why not actully DO somehting? As I tend to focus on the images more than Jim and Varnell let me take a stab at it A few illustrations and a request for a real answer from Mr. Lamson This is F5 with the shirt hole, jacket hole and scapula added. For the sake of this discussion, we will accept the F5 photo and the identification of the bullet hole on the body as being correct – okay? The holes in the Jacket and Shirt line up with the hole in his back as well as to each other. Craig seems to assert that BOTH the Jacket and Shirt have ridden up 3+ inches or 7.62+ centimeters. This suggests either 1)that the holes we have in the Jacket and Shirt should line up to be 3+ inches LOWER than the hole in his back; or 2)the hole in his back must be 3+ inches higher than the holes in the clothing. If Craig could please tell us which of the three arrows in Croft represents the entry (since the fold is the SAME in each photo per Craig) that best lines up with the holes in the Jacket, Shirt and Body maybe we’d be in a position to actually discuss something of value. If the Pink line, based on the Ryberg illustration, then the folded jacket has no bearing as this is above the fold. If the Yellow line then we should have 3 holes in both the Jacket and Shirt as this is directly thru the fold If the Green line, is the angle steep enough to extend back to the 6th floor and why do we not see the holes in the jacket and shirt 3+ inches lower than the hole in the body? At this point I am NOT disputing the 3+ inch fold - accepting that as truth for a moment Craig, you need to take the next step and explain how that translates to the physical evidence and autopsy photo as shown in the top composite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) How long has this been going on Craig? Answer me that one. On how many threads? Answer that one. For what end? You are a dyed in the wool WC upholder in every aspect who has never been able to show one instance where you went the other way. Varnell is convinced he is right and you both talk past each other. Which would be ok if it was on one thread. Its not. Why don't the mods dedicate one thread to this? Seems easy to me. Then everyone would know where to go and not to go. This is embarrassing and cumbersome for everyone else. Except you two, who never get tired of playing in the sandbox. Varnell can be as convinced as he wants but the hard facts simply blow him out of the water. This is really simple Jim and you can ask Varnell to end it once and for all... Just show us a fabric arrangement that can produce the betzner artifact that is not a 3+ inch horizontal fold...and works in the correct lighting as seen in Betzner and that arguement is over. How more simple can that be? So WHY are YOU not pushing your PAL Varnell to simply prove his position works. It's not hard Jim. Why not lean on him to actually prove me wrong or him right. BTW, try not to be a hypocrite...it just makes you look more foolish.... Simple proof of concept photos will do the trick. So snap to it Jim. Instead of complaining why not actully DO somehting? As I tend to focus on the images more than Jim and Varnell let me take a stab at it A few illustrations and a request for a real answer from Mr. Lamson This is F5 with the shirt hole, jacket hole and scapula added. For the sake of this discussion, we will accept the F5 photo and the identification of the bullet hole on the body as being correct okay? The holes in the Jacket and Shirt line up with the hole in his back as well as to each other. Craig seems to assert that BOTH the Jacket and Shirt have ridden up 3+ inches or 7.62+ centimeters. This suggests either 1)that the holes we have in the Jacket and Shirt should line up to be 3+ inches LOWER than the hole in his back; or 2)the hole in his back must be 3+ inches higher than the holes in the clothing. If Craig could please tell us which of the three arrows in Croft represents the entry (since the fold is the SAME in each photo per Craig) that best lines up with the holes in the Jacket, Shirt and Body maybe wed be in a position to actually discuss something of value. If the Pink line, based on the Ryberg illustration, then the folded jacket has no bearing as this is above the fold. If the Yellow line then we should have 3 holes in both the Jacket and Shirt as this is directly thru the fold If the Green line, is the angle steep enough to extend back to the 6th floor and why do we not see the holes in the jacket and shirt 3+ inches lower than the hole in the body? At this point I am NOT disputing the 3+ inch fold - accepting that as truth for a moment Craig, you need to take the next step and explain how that translates to the physical evidence and autopsy photo as shown in the top composite. No, I don't need to "take the next step" . I make ZERO claims about the entry wound nor will I. I have stated that quite clearly. IF YOU want to speculate, by all means be my guest. I'll decline. I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. Edited July 29, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. It's a fact that JFK's jacket was grossly asymmetrical, under the top of the shirt collar on the left side, up around the jawline on the right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. It's a fact that JFK's jacket was grossly asymmetrical, under the top of the shirt collar on the left side, up around the jawline on the right? Cliffy? This is simply beyond your ken. THIS is fact. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Ok, can we now put this to bed? Why? Has Varnell admitited his error yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 No, I don't need to "take the next step" . I make ZERO claims about the entry wound nor will I. I have stated that quite clearly. IF YOU want to speculate, by all means be my guest. I'll decline. I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. Craig, you make very specific claims about the entry wound by promoting the FACT (in your opnion) that the jacket and shirt were 3+ inches out of alignment with the entry would in the back - otherwise why make the claim to begin with? Laying the jacket/shirt flat directly implies an entry location that is 3+ inches higher than the autopsy photos and description - again, otherwise why bring it up... just for the sake of arguing? Do you believe a bullet created the holes in the jacket and shirt? Do you believe a bullet caused the wound in JFK's back? did you honestly spend 20 pages simply arguing that there was a fold at the top of JFK's jacket? and that this assertion carried no claim with it?? If that is really what all this has been about you're an even greater waste of time than orignally believed. When you're ready to actually make a claim based on these FACTS of yours, start a thread so you can be picked apart like you try to do to others. You're simply a critic Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- criticize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) No, I don't need to "take the next step" . I make ZERO claims about the entry wound nor will I. I have stated that quite clearly. IF YOU want to speculate, by all means be my guest. I'll decline. I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. Craig, you make very specific claims about the entry wound by promoting the FACT (in your opnion) that the jacket and shirt were 3+ inches out of alignment with the entry would in the back - otherwise why make the claim to begin with? Laying the jacket/shirt flat directly implies an entry location that is 3+ inches higher than the autopsy photos and description - again, otherwise why bring it up... just for the sake of arguing? Do you believe a bullet created the holes in the jacket and shirt? Do you believe a bullet caused the wound in JFK's back? did you honestly spend 20 pages simply arguing that there was a fold at the top of JFK's jacket? and that this assertion carried no claim with it?? If that is really what all this has been about you're an even greater waste of time than orignally believed. When you're ready to actually make a claim based on these FACTS of yours, start a thread so you can be picked apart like you try to do to others. You're simply a critic Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- criticize. Can you read and REASON? The fact is very simple. There was a 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. How hard is that for you to understand. This is not opinon and it is not my "FACT"...it is A FACT. How people deal with it is their business. Now unless you want to speculate that JFK was struck in the back at Betzner, THERE IS NO CLAIM about any entry wound. Clearly you want to assume something based on the fact that the 3+ inch fold exists in Betzner. Be my guest. I'll pass. I can only PROVE what happened to JFK's jacket up until the Betzner photo. I can't prove a thing beyond it. Of course neither can any of you. I get a kick out of people like you who spend so much time speculating that reality simply passes you by. The fact that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner stands unimpeached. Some of us actually prove things, others like you can only speculate... Edited July 29, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Facts without perspective and context are meaningless... Wow, are you a waste of time. 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