Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) LOL You're so damn funny Craig I think I might be starting to like you. I bet I'm the first person ever to say that to you. No, lots of people like me. JFK and Apollo CTS don't but I can understand that. Reality gets them everytime. Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 mmmmm, yup., I wonder who killed JFK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No, lots of people like me. JFK and Apollo CTS don't but I can understand that. Reality gets them everytime. I kinda made two remarks there; one about you being funny the other about liking you. Funny how you jumped to defend the latter... Why, I know I'm a funny guy...why talk about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 mmmmm, yup., I wonder who killed JFK? John, no one will ever agree on that. Why even bother? He's still gonna be dead regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Craig, (imo) the search for the answer can help, in many ways, to understand the world we live in. Through answers we may avoid repeating history. It's like the old saying about those who forget their history are bound to repeat it (actually looking at Gracchus(sic?) and his brother shows this to be so). Perhaps one day it will be different.. I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Craig, (imo) the search for the answer can help, in many ways, to understand the world we live in. Through answers we may avoid repeating history. It's like the old saying about those who forget their history are bound to repeat it (actually looking at Gracchus(sic?) and his brother shows this to be so). Perhaps one day it will be different.. I hope so. Don't get me wrong John I do enjoy the search in my little corner, its an entertainment, educational and really helps me understand my craft. I just don't hold any illusions that there will ever be any consensus on who or why. Edited July 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I understand, Craig. I certainly agree with the gaining of knowledge in whatever area one is interested in, one we share is photographic. On the other issue I can't help but my nature is optimistic, certainly with a dash of realism (stirred, but not shaken) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Harris Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 As Doug Horne notes in Volume IV of Inside the ARRB, the fact that the ARRB failed to test the actual Bell & Howell camera alleged to have been used by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963, is inexcusable. In 2006, Kodak announced that it will no longer process color Kodachrome film beyond December of 2010. Kodak still owns exclusivity to that process and it is not "for sale" nor is it something that can be reverse engineered (even if legal). So, unless the actual camera can be used in Dealey Plaza this November (highly unlikely/impossible) and the film processed at literally the last remaining facility capable of doing it, there will never be another opportunity to definitively establish certain "camera specific" features that remain in question. Although Ektachrome will still be available it will never be accepted by either side of the debate, as it's not the same, even if the camera was ever tested using it (highly unlikely). A pity. Well then, time is running out for the alterationists to do what they've never done before. Using the same model camera that Zapruder used, film a car driving down Elm street and then proceed to modify it they way they claim it was modified in 1963. It would be a bitch of job using 2010 technology. I would like to see somebody do it using purely 1963 technology. Maybe Mr. Fetzer or Mr. White would like to accept the challenge?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 1, 2010 Author Share Posted August 1, 2010 Well then, time is running out for the alterationists to do what they've never done before. Using the same model camera that Zapruder used, film a car driving down Elm street and then proceed to modify it they way they claim it was modified in 1963. It would be a bitch of job using 2010 technology. I would like to see somebody do it using purely 1963 technology. Maybe Mr. Fetzer or Mr. White would like to accept the challenge?? Have you lost your mind? Are you so incapable of independent thought that you have failed to grasp the significance of this thread? Did you mis-read the OBVIOUS? Are you so congnitively impaired that the point was completely and utterly lost on you? Do you realize that 1963 technology has already been far and away proved adequate to the task? Even the "non-classified" technology (DISNEY) was capable of what you dismiss. Are you really NEWBIE or just masquerading as one? Have you been studying this case beyond this weekend? Or did you just start? Or are you like GRODEN et al, who have invested so much of their lives into the "ZAPRUDER FILM is a holy cow" belief? You are so out of your depth, beyond your scope, perhaps out of your mind... You waste time with idiotic challenges of which only fools would entertain your mindless suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Have you lost your mind? Are you so incapable of independent thought that you have failed to grasp the significance of this thread? Did you mis-read the OBVIOUS? Are you so congnitively impaired that the point was completely and utterly lost on you? Do you realize that 1963 technology has already been far and away proved adequate to the task? Even the "non-classified" technology (DISNEY) was capable of what you dismiss. Are you really NEWBIE or just masquerading as one? Have you been studying this case beyond this weekend? Or did you just start? Or are you like GRODEN et al, who have invested so much of their lives into the "ZAPRUDER FILM is a holy cow" belief? You are so out of your depth, beyond your scope, perhaps out of your mind... You waste time with idiotic challenges of which only fools would entertain your mindless suppositions. Greg, I think you're being a little unfair. There was absolutely nothing "idiotic" about Robert's "challenge." At all. If 1963 technology has already been proven adequate to the task of creating the highly sophisticated fruad you claim the Zapruder film is, then you should have no problems posting the proof here, right? Martin Go watch "Mary Poppins" from 1964 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 The ''forgery'' of Mary Poppins are obvious when frames are studied. It is not a good example. Superficially perhaps, but if that is the best example ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Go watch "Mary Poppins" from 1964 Some time ago, Bill MIller posted a number of frames from Mary Poppins, complete with visable matte lines, sections of image areas cut off my poor artwork, etc. The long and short is Mary Poppins does not enhance your position...it destroys it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Dean, I think we've all seen Mary Poppins and surely we can all agree that there's nothing in that movie that looks as realistic as the Zapruder film which shows absolutely no obvious signs of fakery. I think Robert Harris made a pretty sensible suggestion. Why not make a fake film with 1963 equipment and then see if it compares to the Zapruder film? If it works surely this will only strengthen your position? Watch it Martin, you keep this up and I might be forced to like you too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Go watch "Mary Poppins" from 1964 Some time ago, Bill MIller posted a number of frames from Mary Poppins, complete with visable matte lines, sections of image areas cut off my poor artwork, etc. The long and short is Mary Poppins does not enhance your position...it destroys it. Here is the "amazing" Bill Miller study that Craig is pimping The funny thing is that Craig refuses to admit that we see some of the same kinds of anomalies in the Z-film Where is old Bill Miller anyways? I miss him about as much as I miss Craig when he ducks out for a week or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Here is the "amazing" Bill Miller study that Craig is pimping The funny thing is that Craig refuses to admit that we see some of the same kinds of anomalies in the Z-film Where is old Bill Miller anyways? I miss him about as much as I miss Craig when he ducks out for a week or so Show us.... 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