Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 That's not how it works, Craig. Until your work is verified it remains unproven. Too bad you choose not to accept the simplicity of this. (that's your ego getting in the way again) No it remains proven until you or someone else can PROVE otherwise. Too bad you can't accept the simplicity of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 What about cross checking with Nix? At 313 the Limo was about directly between them? John, Here's Nix. About 7 megs. Might take a minute to load. Once again, the few frames before 313. The cycles close on the limo. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) That's it Chris. Now which cycle is it that is seen in Z ghost image. I think it's the third from Nix and second from Z, and on Z it is showing the location in the previous frame*, ? Which corresponds to? Can't remember, the Synch topic we did some time ago would have the table I think. Frank had it down pretty close I think. (Missing Nix Frames topic). edit:correction Edited July 31, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Craig, you are so out there politically and psychologically on this case that you don't even understand your own lacunae. I am not a photo guy. Never claimed to be. You are. Then why on earth are you making photographic claims? Now, the Eisendrath Report is a very important document IN YOUR FIELD. Understand. IN YOUR FIELD. Why is it important to the task at hand? We are discussing the CT claims that the Backyard photos are fake. More to the point were discussing the Farid work and your silly links. Is THIS discussed in the Eisendrath report? ( oh wait, how would you know, you have not read this report you pimp.) Since the HSCA work has no direct bearing in the context of this discussion, bringing up Eisendrath is simply a strawman, and a sure sign YOU are losing the argument. Clearly, you never knew it existed. Then when I mentioned it in my Huffpo piece, you were exposed to it for the first time. You ignored it. Very important indicator of your thoroughness, conscientiousness, and academic rigor. Or lack of all three. You are correct I did not know it existed, and that was not a problem considering I was not discussing the work of the HSCA. So I looked into your claim and found that there is not a single actual extract from the document available on the web. Then I found out YOU had not even read this report which you pimp like the second coming. So lets review. The report exists but is meaningless in the actual context of the current discussion. jimmy d pimps said document WITHOUT EVEN READING IT and then claims MY failure to read said document is a " Very important indicator of your thoroughness, conscientiousness, and academic rigor" despite the fact that it has no bearing on the discussion. In summation jimmy d the pot meets kettle once again. I then indicated its importance. On this forum. You still ignored it. Then others indicated its importance to you on other forums. Same thing. Whats to ignore? Can you point us to a link that contains the actual document? Of course not. If this document was as important as you continually claim, why have you not READ it? However its NOT IMPORTANT unless the discussion CENTERS on the HSCA. Otherwise it's just a silly strawman. I then indicate where information about the report is located, furnished by Armstrong and John Hunt. You still do nothing. And yet despite of your continued pimping of said document and the importance YOU place on it in your silly arguement. YOU STILL HAVE NOT READ IT! This would be a " Very important indicator of your thoroughness, conscientiousness, and academic rigor"! Except go after me and others for not having secured it! Lammy boy, as I wrote above: this is your field! Got that. Secured it...hell you have not even READ IT! You make it a large part of your lame argument and you don't know for sure the contents? What a dolt! When I read a book on Garrison by Bill Davy, I expect him to have read all the important literature, pro and con, about the man. And he has. If we were having a converstion about the work of the HSCA then it might have some bearing DEPENDING on the content. We were NOT discussing the HSCA. You ignore that standard and go after people who are not specialists because they did not do your job! Read that one twice Lammy. Then you will understand why you have so few people who listen to you today. Any person who was really interested in his field would have been on the trail of John Hunt first and NARA second to find the Eisendrath Report. YOU NEVER DID! AGAIN...WHY??? Did Eisendrath discuss Farid? Did Eisendrath discuss White? Did Eisendrath discuss that lame guys cutting and pasting newspaper images? That's why your strawman simply wont hunt jimmy. The question then becomes why? Do you know how to get in contact with them? There is such a thing as Google. Are you aware of it? You are busted jimmy... your strawman arguement is as silly as they come. And the best part is you really don't have a clue about the contents of the of your star exhibit ...the Eisendrath report... because you have never even read it. What a scholar you are! But still to camouflage your failings in this regard, you assail others about it. So in addition to McAdams, you are a follower of George Orwell also. The failings are all yours jimmy. You can't refute Farid, You point readers to the discredited works of White and cut and paste guy. You push a strawman report you have never read. Your failing is monumental! Absolutely bizarre. And the fact you don't comprehend it, or it does not matter to you makes it even more bizarre. Yes, your work here is totally bizarre. Which is why I am wiping my hands of you. And encourage you to go to the McAdams forum. Please. Maybe we can take up a collection to do so. Yea, right. Running away is more like it. Must really suck for you to make such a big deal of something and to be shown to have not even read it. Your embarassment must be amazing. Your running away is clearly understandable. 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) [ No it remains proven until you or someone else can PROVE otherwise. Too bad you can't accept the simplicity of this. LOL Yeah that's how science works, Craig. Dear oh dear... The work stands, until proven otherwise. THATS the way it works. So given your concept, fire was just an opinion until the second guy made one? Dear oh dear is right. 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 Craig, until you get the Eisendrath Report as far as I am concerned whatever you say is nothing but Blah Blah Blah and more blah. Truth is simply beyond you jimmy.... WHEN YOU GET GET THE REPORT AND READ IT...get back to us. BTW, I'm having a great time re-reading yout huffpo piece. Like the way you said this: "In 1971, Epstein showed he was an equal opportunity pimp". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Craig: THat is just exactly like you. To extract one sentence and therefore deprive it of its meaning. Epstein was in league with FBi at the time you chose. Can you please show the comparison with me? If not, you are just agent baiting. Are you allowed to do that here? No jimmy, just showing the depth of your hypocrisy.... But we can show such a parallel with your buddy Mr. Farid. Or did you forget. There you go again with the strawmen. CAN YOU ACTUALLY REFUTE FARID's WORK? Of course not so you attempt the old strawman of "he's FBI so his work can't be trusted". Here is a NEWS FLASH for you jimmbo. A fact is a fact regardless of the source. Faridsw work still stands unimpeached. So much for jimmy's lame strawman. Keep on putting your foot in your mouth Lammy. You are becoming a real pro at that. The only one suffering from foot in mouth is old jimmy( no I've not read it) d... Like I said, you simply can't tell the truth... "Which is why I am wiping my hands of you" jimmy d 7/31/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 You're comparing your analysis of Betzner to the discovery of fire?!!!!! ROFLMAO AT YOU!!!!!! Jim is frickin right: Blah blah blah You're a legend in your own lunchtime, Craig. Mail pouch cutting of the blood to your brain today Martin? Dear oh Dear is right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Craig: THat is just exactly like you. To extract one sentence and therefore deprive it of its meaning. Epstein was in league with FBi at the time you chose. Can you please show the comparison with me? If not, you are just agent baiting. Are you allowed to do that here? ... The Craigster Lamson has always gotten away with nonsense hereabouts -- The lone nut shills need him here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Does anyone hear the rattle of an empty can?... Yes, just look for the Martin Hay byline.... 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 The Craigster Lamson has always gotten away with nonsense hereabouts -- The lone nut shills need him here! davie, I knew you would chime in. No sage words again I see. Just the normal davie bs... so TYPICAL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Yes, just look for the Martin Hay byline.... What's the matter, craig? You weren't satisfied with your original "snappy response"? I like this one. But both fit just fine.... Martin...fire was only an opinion until the second guy lit one...Hay 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 I like this one. But both fit just fine.... Glad to see you're puting thought into something... Too bad that real thought blows directly over your head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 @#$ #$&*&% ^(*U&* & %Ê (*% %^& && **()($ !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 @#$ #$&*&% ^(*U&* & %Ê (*% %^& && **()($ !!! Frustrated John? Me too. 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