Say bye bye to the paper bag size claims.....

[Martin Hinrichs]

I said it today in a PM to a nice person.

To deal with Craig is like to clean the toilet. It's ugly, but sometimes you have to do it.

You got that backwards...the correct statement is:

To deal with CT's totally IGNORANT of the process called photography is like cleaning a toilet! Sometimes you just have to wash the poo stains away...

I've ZERO interest in collaboration with CT's. Much better to just expose the poo and wash it away.

As it is with Speers, and Hinrichs silly claims.

You LOST Hinrichs, it's TIME for you to own up to that fact....

After all you confess you are a Ln'er finally? Yes or no?

It's not that hard. C'mon, do it.

It's not a problem to be a LN'er. I respect many. It's just a problem when someone as you, states he don't care after years online and just come forward when it goes to debunk CT'er theories.

[Martin Hinrichs]

This is funny,

When Lammy is wrong he is still right.

Martin, Lammy was exposed long ago with the backyard photos as being a diehard WC sycophant.

He did not care how much evidence there was to show that the MC rifle could not have been in Oswald's possession at the time of the photos.

He did not even care if Marina said that she never saw a scoped rifle until after the assassination.

None of that mattered to him one iota. Farid was still right.

Yep, even if the rifle was not there.

Craig adores Hany Farids phony work. That tells a lot. The BY photos are sheer phony.

You should mention Lammy in one of your next talks on Black Op Radio, Jim.

Farid escapes quickly after i've asked a few questions via email.......

I'am also not allowed to publish our conversation.

Enough?

best

Martin

[Craig Lamson]

This is funny,

When Lammy is wrong he is still right.

Martin, Lammy was exposed long ago with the backyard photos as being a diehard WC sycophant.

He did not care how much evidence there was to show that the MC rifle could not have been in Oswald's possession at the time of the photos.

He did not even care if Marina said that she never saw a scoped rifle until after the assassination.

None of that mattered to him one iota. Farid was still right.

Yep, even if the rifle was not there.

How was I "exposed" Jim? Because I showed that all the evidence that you claim supports the BY photos being fake is bogus?

And yes, thanks to Martin, and his silly dvd "experiment" I found the exact Allen location. And yes, I failed to check Sppers work and just accepted it. MY bad. When I CORRECTED it I found he was wrong and I was CORRECT, when I dumped his faulty claims.

Funny how that works out sometimes. And yes Farid got the shadows correct, the place where Martin failed. SIlly , but someting as simple as the backyard photos NOT being a fake simply ruins your best laid speculations....

[Craig Lamson]

Looks like Martin just figured out his claim of a 35mm lens being used will not work....time to for him ot try a DIFFERENT line of attack...

You Lolly, your work is based upon of an uncropped Allen photo. Clear?

It does stands and falls with it.

No, it's not. In fact if you look closely you will see one of my studies even uses a cropped Allen.

Your theory is phony when the Allen photo is a crop. Understand?

Have you ever seen a negative contact sheet from the Allen photos, Liarson?

Liarson? Really SKIRTING the rules Martin. Should I hit the report button?

You REALLY are being silly now. I worked this problem ...with a camera for many hours. I've tried many different combos that work. Why? Because no one can ever do a an exact "recreation". Its beyond silly to even try. I offered up a "proof of concept" demonstration, to show HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. I published the EASY one that people can do THEMSELF. If you notice I have a perfectly flat "simulated bag". Thats not what we see in Allen. But is something even someone like you can shoot to test the principle that is in action....PROVE THE CONCEPT. You are just being SILLY Martin if you think this work is tied to a uncropped Allen. It just shows how desperate you have now become...and that makes me smile. You don't even understand the concept.

Rework your overhead disaster and come back.

Why, its just fine as it is, after all you can't refute it, all you can do is blow smoke. When you produce your OWN work, we can see how well your theory will play out. I've already done it and I KNOW how badly it works for you. No wonder you don't want to show your work....

[/color]

Edited December 21, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

This is funny,

When Lammy is wrong he is still right.

Martin, Lammy was exposed long ago with the backyard photos as being a diehard WC sycophant.

He did not care how much evidence there was to show that the MC rifle could not have been in Oswald's possession at the time of the photos.

He did not even care if Marina said that she never saw a scoped rifle until after the assassination.

None of that mattered to him one iota. Farid was still right.

Yep, even if the rifle was not there.

Craig adores Hany Farids phony work. That tells a lot. The BY photos are sheer phony.

You should mention Lammy in one of your next talks on Black Op Radio, Jim.

Farid escapes quickly after i've asked a few questions via email.......

I'am also not allowed to publish our conversation.

Enough?

best

Martin

Well to make the claim Farids work is phony, you have to PROVE your case. Here we are and and about a YEAR has passed since you said you were going to fix your flawed BY 3d presentation. And you STILL don't have it. So how can you say Farid's work is phony? You have NO proof....

Nor does Jim, the best he can do is scream...CIA...FBI...

[Craig Lamson]

After all you confess you are a Ln'er finally? Yes or no?

It's not that hard. C'mon, do it.

It's not a problem to be a LN'er. I respect many. It's just a problem when someone as you, states he don't care after years online and just come forward when it goes to debunk CT'er theories.

I don't care who killed JFK, it's old and now unimportant news. I like busting silly photo claims. CT's like you generate LOTS of them. You guys are..in general...uninformed and a target rich environment. I find great entertainment value in watching your heads explode...pun intended. You guys will grasp at any straw no matter how silly to try and maintain your crazy claims. It's a lot of fun chopping them off at the knees.

LN? Not me.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Looks like Martin just figured out his claim of a 35mm lens being used will not work....time to for him ot try a DIFFERENT line of attack...

You Lolly, your work is based upon of an uncropped Allen photo. Clear?

It does stands and falls with it.

No, it's not. In fact if you look closely you will see one of my studies even uses a cropped Allen.

Your theory is phony when the Allen photo is a crop. Understand?

Have you ever seen a negative contact sheet from the Allen photos, Liarson?

Liarson? Really SKIRTING the rules Martin. Should I hit the report button?

You REALLY are being silly now. I worked this problem ...with a camera for many hours. I've tried many different combos that work. Why? Because no one can ever do a an exact "recreation". Its beyond silly to even try. I offered up a "proof of concept" demonstration, to show HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. I published the EASY one that people can do THEMSELF. If you notice I have a perfectly flat "simulated bag". Thats not what we see in Allen. But is something even someone like you can shoot to test the principle that is in action....PROVE THE CONCEPT. You are just being SILLY Martin if you think this work is tied to a uncropped Allen. It just shows how desperate you have now become...and that makes me smile. You don't even understand the concept.

Rework your overhead disaster and come back.

Why, its just fine as it is, after all you can't refute it, all you can do is blow smoke. When you produce your OWN work, we can see how well your theory will play out. I've already done it and I KNOW how badly it works for you. No wonder you don't want to show your work....

How can anybody divide beetween my words and your blabber when you ink all in red, you Vollfosten?

I found zero of value to respond to.

[Craig Lamson]

What's telling is that a man who has been consistently prone to writing some of the most disgusing abuse I've ever seen written on moderated JFK assassination boards is threatening to hit the report button. Very funny.

The hypocrisy of the man knows no bounds. He claims EVERYONE is ignorant when it comes to photography, when he is ignorant of the FACTS of the case. He operates in a vacuum. Mostly between his ears.

Craig Lamson is a living, breathing Monty Python sketch...

...one of the less memorable ones.

Sorry Lee but the hypocrisy is that you have no problem with Hinrichs REALLY skirting the rules...

I'll take whatever is dished out for my actions, I just demand equal application. It seems YOU don't.

Yeas I don;t care a bit about the "facts" you guys toss around. I don;t care who is correct and who is not when it comes to the killer of JFK. Sorry thats a problem for you.

I'll choose to deal in things that can be PROVEN thank you very much. It's not my problem that these things gore your ox....

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson is a living, breathing Monty Python sketch...

...one of the less memorable ones.

I must disagree, Lee. The Monty Python bit that best distills Lamson is memorable indeed.

"It's just a flesh wound!"

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson is a living, breathing Monty Python sketch...

...one of the less memorable ones.

I must disagree, Lee. The Monty Python bit that best distills Lamson is memorable indeed.

"It's just a flesh wound!"

I thought it was too obvious, Cliff. But now you mention it, it does sum the man up:

BLACK KNIGHT LAMSON: Come 'ere!

KING PAT: What are you going to do, bleed on me?

BLACK KNIGHT LAMSON: I'm invincible!

KING PAT: You're a loony.

BLACK KNIGHT LAMSON: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.

[whop]

[KING PAT chops the BLACK KNIGHT LAMSON'S other leg off]

BLACK KNIGHT LAMSON: All right; we'll call it a draw.

KING PAT: Come, Martin.

BLACK KNIGHT LAMSON: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

It's really QUITE funny to see people who argue TECHNICAL questions by simply waving their hands, wildly yucking it up.

I mean, Farley...what actual WORK have you ever done to prove ANY photographic point as it pertains to the BY photos other than wave your hands?

Varnell? Now thats a laugh, he argues AGAINST the establishd science of how ight and shadow works...all done by wildly flapping his arms.

Pretty much par for the course. Even Speer is gulity.

I'm wrong from time to time, I'm human. When I'm wrong I'll take my lumps and the new found knowlege and move on, modifying my positon based on the new data.

You just have to actually PROVE oyur point with hard data, not a wave of your hands.

I don't really care for Martin, but at least he is actually DOING the work ( or so he says) to try and prove his point.

Thats a heck of a lot more than can be said for a big portion of this forum, at least when it comes to photographic claims....