Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Jim, I've enjoyed reading your posts. I'm glad you decided to join and participate. Thanks Michael. We all owe a good deal of gratitude to John Hunt for this. I could not have written that which you quoted without him. Why in the world have you not gone to the archives and read this report for yourself? Scholarly? I think not! Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 agree for example that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner? Have you actually TESTED this? I neither agree nor disagree. That almost every motorcade photo shows some bunching is obvious. So having a distinct data point for a proven jacket fold at Betzner is of no use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) 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? Craig, you can do as much damage control, or CYA as you want. You have been exposed, speared buddy. Go over to McAdams will you. He will tolerate a "photo expert" who never even heard of the EIsendrath Report. How have I been EXPOSED? Have YOU read this so called "important" report you pimp? Oh Wait..you DID read the COVER! And you have not answered the simple question you quoted above. Now WHO has been EXPOSED jimmy? Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 So having a distinct data point for a proven jacket fold at Betzner is of no use? None whatsoever. All that matters is where the bullet holes were in the body - which is where the autopsy report, photos, X-rays and testimonies come in. Ok..good for you. We can all see where 40+ years of trying to decipher those have moved this forward [/sacrasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) You Craig. And now you are in denial like a real fanatic. Please, if you don't go over to McAdams, and keep on calling me a sexual slur, you are probably going to be put on moderation.. Again, all these unanswered questions and you still pimping something you have not even read. (note: pimp - to exploit) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pimp http://www.slate.com/id/2184211 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimping Now my work is available for everyone to see. Refute it if you can. BTW, where are the direct quotes to back up the claims you have made about me? Cat got your tongue? Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Dean Hagerman wrote : I have forgot more about the assassination then you will ever know L O L, really ! By the way, I'm French, but I still have to correct you : you should have written "I have forgotten". Remember : to forget, I forgot, forgotten. Never mind, I don't blame you. Now, if you really have forgotten the little you knew, I'm sorry for you. One thing is sure : you definitely forgot to use common sense. Otherwise, you wouldn't for a minute believe in such silliness as an altered Zapruder film. /F.C./ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Ok..good for you. We can all see where 40+ years of trying to decipher those have moved this forward [/sacrasm] And examining JFK's shiftable clothing in photographs when no one knows exactly when JFK was hit in the back will???? ROTFLMAO It adds a PROVEN data point. Hey (or is that Hay)use it or ignore it, no skin from my back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 It adds a PROVEN data point. Hey (or is that Hay)use it or ignore it, no skin from my back. Nope. It adds your "expert" opinion. Which I'm happy to ignore. It appears you can't qualify opinion from hard, proven fact. How sad for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) I'm French Game over Im like Lindbergh and your like Nungesser and Coli Edited July 31, 2010 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) That is the epitaph for Lamson. LOL! Please refute any of my works...if you have the skillset. BTW, where are your answers to the questions that you have been asked in this thread? Were are the direct quotes that support the claims you have made about me? Is there a VALID reason WHY you can't supply these? Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) And it appears you don't understand basic scientific principles that require replication and verification. Until you provide proof that you can correctly analyze and interpret and until you provide independent verification of your analysis then it will remain just an opinion, however "qualified." But your ego prevents you from understanding that. How sad for you. I've asked many times for ANYONE to try and replicate my work. Thats why I go to great lengths to try and describe the testing fully. However, in the case of Betzner, the properties of light are not subject to opinion. How it functions is set in stone. I'll be happy to see your replication of the situation, or any that you can provide. In fact I more that welcome it. Until that time the work continues to stand unimpeached. Too bad you cannot understand the simplicity of this. If ego were the problem you think it is, WHY would I challenge everyone to try the testing for themself? Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 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? Craig, Yes it would. However, from Z's position in relation to the objects, they appear on film to be pretty much parallel to each other. This allows us to see the gain in speed from one object to the next. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 What about cross checking with Nix? At 313 the Limo was about directly between them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Craig is right. Replication is necessary in such studies. The notion that a verbal stouch proves anything (well it does but not the matter at hand) is in any way advancing the discussion is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Craig, Yes it would. However, from Z's position in relation to the objects, they appear on film to be pretty much parallel to each other. This allows us to see the gain in speed from one object to the next. chris Lets review the concept.... The only thing that has changed is the viewing angle... 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