History Lost: Test of Zapruder fakery doomed

[Craig Lamson]

He's doing exactly the same thing here that he did on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum nearly a decade ago before we permanently banned him, namely: disrupting discussions with venomous ad hominem fallacious bloviations.

Ah yes JFK Research...that walled garden of delights.

You could not handle hard facts there anymore than you can handle it here.

Tell you what. My works is pretty simple and well described.

Simply prove me wrong.

How hard can that be, if you are correct?

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Really, what is it that I "believe"?

That anybody gives a suff about your "expert" opinions.

RIght, this is the "expert" who didn't even know who David EIsendrath was or about his report.

Right, well why don't you link us to that report jimmy? Don't have a link? Why not?

In the meantime, instead of blowing the smoke that flows from your behind, why not simply prove me wrong?

My work is well defined. Prove it wrong.

That would be a real treat. jimmy d actually doing some emprical work to PROVE something instead of speculating and calling it fact.....

[Craig Lamson]

Don't flatter yourself, Craig. Your being here doesn't "trouble" me at all. I just don't like your abrasive, confrontational, acerbic manner.

You try to bully people, Craig. And I don't like bullies.

Then WHY are you reading and RESPONDINING to my posts?

Someone have a GUN to your head?

The real BULLY is fact..cold hard empirical fact.

Very few people here can deal honestly with them. They upset long held fantasy....

[Dean Hagerman]

Citing people such as Dean Hagerman (who is a nobody, and would believe anything idiotic)

I have forgot more about the assassination then you will ever know

Why dont you send me a copy of your book, I think I have some room in my basement for it

[Craig Lamson]

Why am I reading your posts? On the off chance you might have something of substance to offer. So far, no joy.

Why am I responding? Just thought you should know that at least one person on the forum knows what you're all about, Craig.

How would you know if what I say has substance? Have you ACTUALLY checked it to see if it is correct or not? If you have failed to do this your opinion is worthless.

ANYONE whow cares to read knows EXACLTY what I am about. I've been VERY clear on this point time and time again. I've nothing to hide, nothing to regret and my work stands on it's merits.

You can try and prove me wrong....you just can't SPECULATE....

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

[

Right, well why don't you link us to that report jimmy? Don't have a link? Why not?

In the meantime, instead of blowing the smoke

Below is the link to the cover of the Eisendrath report that John Hunt found and read at NARA. I told Lamson about this, and where it was. He never even looked for it.

http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/user_files/15651.jpg

You should really STOP your speculation jimmy..it just makes you look silly.

So..YOU have never read the report? You don't have it posted online?

You make such a big deal about this report and use it as BIG part of your speculation but you have not ACTUALLY READ IT?

You have not been to the archives and investigated this work you rely on so heavily?

What shoddy work! And you call yourself a scholar! You complain about others and you don't practice what you preach!

pot2 meet kettle2.....

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Right, well why don't you link us to that report jimmy? Don't have a link? Why not?

In the meantime, instead of blowing the smoke

Below is the summary of what Hunt read in the report. I told Lamson where this was at JFK Lancer. ALl he had to do was go there and do a simpel "search". He did not.

Debra,

David Eisendrath headed HSCA PEP Fake Photo panel who's job it was to re-create fake BYPs using three different methods. Long story short, the panel was fooled by a set of photos taken by Eisebnrath. They were fake, but the panel members cited the wrong elements as having evidenced forgery. David Eisendrath fooled his compatriots. Each member wrote a report detailing how their three respective series of fakes were created. Then each had critiqued the others' fakes on a standar forme without knowing what the deal was. When all was said and done, the shared the faking methods.

Then...Eisendrath wrote a final report where he spelled out how the others were fooled. Not a peep about the fake photo panel's very existence appears in the HSCA report or volumes. But for the JFK act, we would still be in the dark. Nor will you find a peep about Eisendrath's report, the panel's efforts, results and conclusions in the report or volumes. The HSCA got honest results that wen againt the grain and then buried the whole affair. Sad...sad...sad...

John Hunt

So have YOU read this report jimmy? Or are you just being a parrot once again?

Having created "fake' images for years in both film and digital (still do it EVERYDAY), and understanding that there are many ways to get to the same point...its not suprising people might have found different ways to the same point. Nor that some might get fooled.

Of course jimmy can't really tell us anything about this because he has zero clue what is actually contained within this report. He has not read it.

You are not very scholarly...

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Below is the May 5, 1988 NYT obituary for Eisendrath. Lamson actually compared his credentials with this guy.

Please provide us with the complete quotation jimmy. I'm sure the readers will love to see if you are correct.

[Craig Lamson]

What exactly have you contibuted to JFK research that needs disproving?

So then you agree for example that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner? Have you actually TESTED this?

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

LOL. Oh really.

Did Hunt fake the scan?

Its the COVER jimmy. Have YOU read the contents?

Did Armstrong fake the memo?

Never made that claim at all...

Did Hunt fake reading the report?

Did YOU read the report jimmy? Can you tell us EXACTLY what YOU read?

You really are a CTer then aren't you? Stop blowing smoke Lamson.

HAVE YOU READ the report jimmy?

I told you all about all this weeks ago. Even though its your field you did NOTHING to investigate it. Why?

Excuse me? Now you claim to know what I did or did not do? What a joke you have become!

Because of your psychological and political disposition, one can conclude that maybe its because it undermines your position on the BYP?

So show us the contents of the report and extract the exact passages you claim support the positon that the backyard photos are indeed fakes? You can do that ...right? or are YOU just blowing smoke?

You jump all over that government asset Farid's study. But this you don't even look at.

Whats to look at? Can you post us the link to the exact document you have read? Farid answered some direct questions raised about the BY photo. You STILL can't refute this work. Eisendraths report...whatever it might say... cannot change the fact that the proofs of alteration ( at least those based on somthing other than bunnies in the clouds) offered by the ct's simply don't hold water.

Mr. expert. yeah sure.

You can attempt to prove ANY of my work incorrect...anytime you please.

[Craig Lamson]

Looking at the date on Eisendrath's report is interesting.

Its November of 1978.

If I recall, the HSCA will close down the next month. And this report will now disappear for well over 15 years.

Further, since December is holiday month one can assume nothing much went on.

So my question is this: If you were going to test your experts acuity for finding fake photography, why would you wait until the end?

Doesn't it make more sense to do it at the beginning of the process in order to screen them?

But the true depth of Blakey's worthlessness is that he then classified this report. Just so there would be no question about the HSCA analysis of the BYP.

In large part the HSCA was a joke. The stuff they hid was much more interesting and relevant than what they printed.

How do you KNOW what ...if anything was hidden? Have YOU read the report you pimp? Do you KNOW if the final HSCA report was altered in any to deal directly with whatever was contained within the Eisendrath report (which you have NOT read)?

Or, as is your speciality, are you just adding even MORE speculation to the mix?

[Craig Lamson]

Francois,

There are still legitimate reasons for believing the film has been altered.

For instance:

In the upper ghost image, does the limo slow down before the 313 head shot?

Notice the relationship between the white motorcycle fender and limo.

chris

Putting aside for a moment the question speed of both the MC and the LIMO...

Just a quick question.

Would it or would it not be normal for the positon of an object nearer the camera to change visual position relative to on object farther away from the camera as the viewing angle changes?

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Michael Hogan]

Jim, I notice you also wrote this:

Something else one will not find in the HSCA volumes is a study called "Report on Fake Photography Project" by a man named David Eisendrath. Eisendrath was a consultant to the HSCA. His report was submitted to the committee in November of 1978, right before Blakey and Billings released everyone and started on the final report. Eisendrath was a photographer and lecturer "known for his understanding of photographic principles and techniques." (NY Times, 5/5/88) He worked in the field for over 50 years. His columns appeared in several photographic magazines and he was "admired for conveying often abstruse subject matter understandably." (ibid) He was a member of the American Society of Magazine Photographers, the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers, and he was a fellow of the Photographic Society of America.

In 1978, Eisendrath wrote a letter to Mickey Goldsmith, counsel for the HSCA. Referring to his report, he said: "I have already written to you about the photogrammetry of the backyard pictures and after several re-readings still feel that this should be re-edited, re-calculated or destroyed. It's a bombshell and should not be published in its present form." It was not destroyed. But why was Eisendrath so worried about the report being published? Because according to John Hunt, Eisendrath's job was to prepare fake versions of the backyard photos using three different methods. Knowing they were fakes, the panel issued detailed reports on how they were forged. Guess what? They gave the wrong reasons for detecting forgery. Eisendrath's report spelled out how they were fooled.

If not for the ARRB, this report would be unknown today. Because Blakey knew it rendered futile and pretentious the whole methodology of how the HSCA proclaimed the backyard photos of Oswald as genuine. This internal exercise proved that the HSCA panel could not properly detect photographic forgery. Eisendrath understood that. He also understood the culture of the HSCA-that the American public had to be protected from the truth – and he was playing the good patriot. Blakey did his best to bury the report for fifty years. If not for the ARRB, it would have worked.

This declassified report reveals a cover-up inside a cover-up. That's a real story for Huffpo. Hold your breath until they run it.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/huffpo.html

Jim, I've enjoyed reading your posts. I'm glad you decided to join and participate.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Craig Lamson]

Lammy:

Keep on blowing smoke Craig, you are a veritable smoke machine.

Smoke your domain jimmy. Mine is photographic fact. And YOU can't refute a bit of it.

All meant to deny the fact that this report existed for well over a decade at the NARA.

I don't care if the report exists. Nothin in it can change the fact that the CT's claims of the BY photo being fake can't withstand proper inspection. They still fail.

Its right up your alley and you didn't even know it was there.

And it's still meaningless to the currect debate.

And now that you do know its there you try and discount it to cover your own failures in knowing what is supposed to be your field

Where have I tried to discount it? You have not read it and don't know the specfics, nor do I.

LOL

Who cares about your work?

It appears YOU do since you spend so much time trying so very hard to discredit it.

Its so biased and agenda driven it has no value. That latest go round with WIlliams shows it. You ignore the two key matters in the whole debate. You are the McAdams of the photo field. With about as much credibility as he has.

How sunlight works is biased? How photographic parallax works is biased? How shadows are formed is biased? The properties of perspective are biased? The characterist curve of a film stock is biased?

Fact is fact REGARDLESS of the source.

Clearly YOU need some remedial education.

And now you actually try and imply that you did read the Eisendrath report, or at least investigated it. When Craig? How? The reality is you did not know it existed. ANd you won't even call John Hunt and ask him about it.

Where did I ever imply such a thing jimmy. We now have two distinct instances in this thread alone where jimmy has been caught with hand in the untruth jar. Lucky for you I can't via forum rules for stating in no uncertain terms exactLY WHAT YOU ARE.

You are too busy running around JFK sites and arguing about how JFK's custom Italian sewn shirts rode up three inches in the Betzner "artifact".

Well lets make that THREE untruths for jimmy in this thread. Please show me my EXACT words where I make any claim about the position of the shirt back fabric having riddenup three inches in Betzner? You can post that quote along with the Eisendrath one...or did you think I would let that one slide too?

Why don't you go where you belong? Namely altconspriacy jfk. Over there you can compare your creds to EIsendrath's also. And everyone will agree with you.

Why would I want to go someplace like that? All the entertainment value and the comedy is HERE!

btw.. jimmy sez " Over there you can compare your creds to EIsendrath's also" Direct quote please...

[Craig Lamson]

Expanding on my point above.

During the first phase of the HSCA, that is Sprague, Groden said he did have to pass a test detecting fake photography. And after he did, he was hired.

If the date on Eisendrath's report is timely, i.e. if it was submitted to Goldsmith then, it would appear that the vetting process under Blakey was the reverse of what it was under Sprague.

Which, if you look at the medical panel, is kind of consistent. Did Blakey know the psychological make up of the photography panel beforehand? As he appears to have known what would happen with the medical panel and Baden?

Another revealing fact is what Eisendrath wrote to Goldsmith. He was willing to have his report destroyed to keep intact the HSCA analysis.

In other words, professionally he was honest enough to reveal that his experiment had exposed the panel as not being able to properly detect forgery.

But when it came to public consumption, he was ready to dispose of this for what can be surmised to be "patriotic" purposes.

That might partly answer my question.

So, Please tell us how the HSCA report on the backyard photos has ANY bearing on the claims of fakery being foisted by the ct community?

Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson