Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 dean how did you figure the full was only an inch How many suits do you own Craig? I own two, and no matter how much moving around I do 3+ inches of bunching or folding never happens Just by looking at Towner and Croft you can clearly see that its a small amount of bunching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 jacket collar is 1.25 inches times 2 equals 2.5 inches Add a half an inch for top and bottom of fold... 3+inches.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 jacket collar is 1.25 inches times 2 equals 2.5 inches Add a half an inch for top and bottom of fold... 3+inches.. No way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 yes way that's how math works of course you can try and show why I am wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 jacket collar is 1.25 inches times 2 equals 2.5 inches Add a half an inch for top and bottom of fold... 3+inches.. That's about it but I think the error margin to consider should shift it more to say 2.8 +/- .4. How long was Kennedys ear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence. Francis Coli Do you know what evidence is? I dont think you do Send me 9 more emails and I will tell you what evidence is Dean Don't antagonise the guy, Maybe he can get us Elvis tickets? Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 yes, I think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 jacket collar is 1.25 inches times 2 equals 2.5 inches Add a half an inch for top and bottom of fold... 3+inches.. That's about it but I think the error margin to consider should shift it more to say 2.8 +/- .4. How long was Kennedys ear? This photo was recently sold on Ebay. Maybe it'll help:(credit and kudos to Robin Unger for the scan) Can anyone explain to me why the case for conspiracy comes down to how far the suitcoat jacket is bunched or not? Thanks, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Can anyone explain to me why the case for conspiracy comes down to how far the suitcoat jacket is bunched or not? Thanks, BK What makes you think it does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 AFA I am concerned this issue is merely an endorsement of Craigs position. It imo does not negate a conspiracy at all. (afa the actual assassination goes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Can anyone explain to me why the case for conspiracy comes down to how far the suitcoat jacket is bunched or not? Thanks, BK What makes you think it does? Then what's the issue again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Then what's the issue again? Really Bill, if you have to ask after all this time, perhaps its best if you find another thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Harris Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)... Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip... Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY: That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations. Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Wrong! Proof.... 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