Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?

[Craig Lamson]

I suppose I can definitely understand that you would interpret my words as not liking your posts but honestly, I say, post what you feel, I have no problem with that. I have simply been curious to see what technical and knowledgable responses you would give in return and I do see bits here and there, generally you just seem irritated or impatient with "explaining yourself" at least thats the idea I seem to get from time to time.

You say you "tell it like it is" and that is fine but thats exactly it, what it "is" could be evidence out there to flatly refute ZFA (z-film alteration for the record) and you don't articulate any opposing viewpoints or arguments (well to be fair, none that I notice in general).

The use in responding in kind (watch a william lane craig debate to get an idea) you may believe someone's view to be a fantasy, but is it too much to provide an argument that that is so? For example (this is purely hypothetical Chris lol) Chris could say to you Lamson "hey, there is absolutely no such thing as truth" now you could brush him off and take him for a fool or a fantasy induced zombie or you could simply ask him is that statement or claim he has made is "true" for himself and use a logical argument with sufficient evidence to prove (in the classical meaning of proofs) that objective truth is more plausible than its negation. My point? Well you seem to have arguments (I assume?) that can probably show Chris or any 'alterationists' views to be fallacious on scientific and evidential grounds, I'd like to read and study them, thats all. Please, post what you will but as I read your posts here and there, I get the feeling you are more capable than simply "GIGO, fantasy land, get out, etc".

Search is your friend. I have posted MANY technical and documented (meaning TESTED) replies. I'm not really interested in doing then over and over again.

In Chris's case the documentation of his error is spelled out quite clearly. He misread the data. He mistook DISTANCE to the rifle in the window for measurements at street level to the BASE of the TSBD. Clearly he got it wrong yet he persists and ignores reality. I've pointed out this error more than once.

This is simply entertainment. No one's mind is going to be changed here. Too many CT's fully vested in the fantasy of choice to ever really change paths. Reality is of little concern when a long held theory is at stake.

You can show, technically, that something is wrong and still have alterationists clinging to fantasy instead.

Case in point.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm.

And the fantasy...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16192&st=0

Notice the strawmen, and downright ignorance of the alterationists in a failed attempt to salvage Costella's very BEST proof of alteration, the on he says can't be refuted.

Ooops...

And you wonder why i post like I do?

[B. A. Copeland]

Firstly thanks alot for the directory assistance. I appreciate it and will be spending careful time going through that topic. So then am I to correctly assume that you believe the official u.s government position as established by firstly the warren commission?

Well lol.....its just not everyday you see an adult post with such......I don't know what to call it lol.

[Craig Lamson]

Firstly thanks alot for the directory assistance. I appreciate it and will be spending careful time going through that topic. So then am I to correctly assume that you believe the official u.s government position as established by firstly the warren commission?

Well lol.....its just not everyday you see an adult post with such......I don't know what to call it lol.

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

Why JFK? Why not. I started into the JFK photo material because I was arguing faked Apollo photo nonsense with Jack White on Dellarosa 's forum and was told I had to do JFK if I wanted to continue to post.

Its entertainment, pure and simple.

[Chris Davidson]

Referring back to the "Refresher" graphic:

Z161 = Station# 3+29.2 That would be 129.2ft from Station 2+00

Station "C" to Z161 = 94.7ft

129.2ft - 94.7ft = 34.5ft = Station# 2+34.5= Station "C"

2+34.5 (Station C) + 44ft(see CE886 in Refresher graphic)= 2+78.5= Position "A"

chris

Exactly correct.

Now WHERE does your fantasy 15.5 feet come in again?

Oh wait it does not. ROFLMAO.

You just can't read and comprehend. DISTANCE TO THE RIFLE IN WINDOW

Where from? The chalk mark on the stand in's back.

How do we know? The surveyed elevation of this mark (for position A) is ABOVE the base of the TSBD.

You don't have the first clue.

Welcome to reality. GIGO...Chris Davidson.

Craig,

Relationship between Station# 2+50 (snipers nest street parallel) and Station "C" 2+34.5, a street difference of 15.5ft.

One side of the right triangle should start from Station 2+50.

You have two of the distances for Z161 on CE884, what's the missing sides height.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Relationship between Station# 2+50 (snipers nest street parallel) and Station "C" 2+34.5, a street difference of 15.5ft.

One side of the right triangle should start from Station 2+50.

You have two of the distances for Z161 on CE884, what's the missing sides height.

chris

2+50 is NOT the street level snipers window, you silly boy. Get this through your fantasy filled brain. The West plat has the face of the TSBD drawn incorrectly. Don't believe me? Ask Martin Hinrichs.

Martin's CAD drawing

And NOTHING starts at 2+50 Chris....NOTHING when it comes the the data the WC published. That's YOUR imaginary concoction.

The data for 161 gives us the distance from station c, the distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand in ( at 429.25 elevation above the street.) to the rifle in the window.

Opps they only gave you ONE leg of the triangle (hint its no longer a right triangle). So what are the rest? One is the distance from the base of the TSBD to UP to the rifle in the window. West shows us 60.9' but we don't know WHERE that mark stops. Finally we have the distance from the chalkmark to the base of the TSBD UNDER the rifle location.

You don't have the first clue what you are even calculating.

Once again you offer gigo, and you continue to look silly. Imagine that.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Chris Davidson]

Craig,

You might want to start with a correctly scaled plat from Martin.

I do believe the street corners should be parallel with each other, something Martin needs to fix.

Then you can scale (54%) what I use, to Martin's, and they will align like this.

Snipers nest inline with Station# 2+50.

http://www.mejuba.co...9/show/original

chris

Edited April 18, 2013 by Chris Davidson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

You might want to start with a correctly scaled plat from Martin.

I do believe the street corners should be parallel with each other, something Martin needs to fix.

Then you can scale (54%) what I use, to Martin's, and they will align like this.

Snipers nest inline with Station# 2+50.

http://www.mejuba.co...9/show/original

chris

You really don't have the first clue. It's NOT the curb that's the problem. It's the FACE of the TSBD that West got wrong. He has the entrance in the wrong location.

Need more proof to see you live in a fantasy world? Just look at photos of the TSBD.

[/url]

Oh wait, reality scares you. Earth to Chris.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Chris Davidson]

The snipers nest is not above the entrance.

So, as you said about the curbs, who cares about the entrance.

The snipers nest window aligns in all of them and Station# 2+50 runs through the snipers window. (Green Lines)

chris

[Craig Lamson]

The snipers nest is not above the entrance.

So, as you said about the curbs, who cares about the entrance.

chris

Can you be any more silly.

Your green lines put one of the windows OVER the right side columns of the entrance ...on the incorrect WEST drawing. Oh yea, silly Chris says the position of the entrance does not matter!

Then you said

"The snipers nest window aligns in all of them and Station# 2+50 runs through the snipers window. (Green Lines)"

Aligns WHERE? Center of the window? Right side? Left side? Why does the position of the entrance matter? It LOCATES the center of the sniper windows. You need to relocate the 2+50 position by a few feet to make it work with the correct windows compared to the crap you posted on the incorrect WEST drawing.

Oh yea this is yet another example of the great Chris Davidison GIGO...just make up any new position that fits his fantasy. and move it around to at will...really precise stuff.

But thanks for this wonderful exercise. We can full see you are clearly lacking any actual idea of what you are doing. and you are sorely lacking in the truthful intellectual discourse department

Of course this is all fluff. 2+50 is meaningless. It has zero to do with the data the WC presented and you still have no data to support your claim they moved the measurements by 15.5 feet in this area. In fact it has been fully established that you don't even UNDERSTAND their measurements.

Once again you are back in the garbage can.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Craig Lamson]

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?

Edited April 19, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?

the controversy isn't WHO murdered JFK, it's: did a CONSPIRACY murder JFK? Hence the question!

You're artfully dodging the question,again. Further, I can't recall you taking a side, no. Not any more than one could say I (meaning me) believe LHO was the sole gunman in Dealey Plaza.

Is it within your realm of possibility that LHO was part of a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States, whether wittingly or UN-wittingly?

[Craig Lamson]

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?

the controversy isn't WHO murdered JFK, it's: did a CONSPIRACY murder JFK? Hence the question!

You're artfully dodging the question,again. Further, I can't recall you taking a side, no. Not any more than one could say I (meaning me) believe LHO was the sole gunman in Dealey Plaza.

Is it within your realm of possibility that LHO was part of a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States, whether wittingly or UN-wittingly?

Don't care about THAT either ( and its really the same thing) davie boy. Its the photos...Got it? Oh wait you never will, not in your worldview.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.

...

10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.

Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?

the controversy isn't WHO murdered JFK, it's: did a CONSPIRACY murder JFK? Hence the question!

You're artfully dodging the question,again. Further, I can't recall you taking a side, no. Not any more than one could say I (meaning me) believe LHO was the sole gunman in Dealey Plaza.

Is it within your realm of possibility that LHO was part of a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States, whether wittingly or UN-wittingly?

Don't care about THAT either ( and its really the same thing) davie boy. Its the photos...Got it? Oh wait you never will, not in your worldview.

of course you care, who are you kidding... case photo's are subjective, no one, NO ONE will be putting the photo-film originals (if, in fact they can be proven to be originals) under the microscope for forensic testing, there will be NO forensic testing... so, all you've been doing here is fanning speculation, which does nothing more than reinforce WCR disinfo. There is no other purpose for you being here, unless you care of course, which you've told us you don't..... LMAO!

[Craig Lamson]

of course you care, who are you kidding... case photo's are subjective, no one, NO ONE will be putting the photo-film originals (if, in fact they can be proven to be originals) under the microscope for forensic testing, there will be NO forensic testing... so, all you've been doing here is fanning speculation, which does nothing more than reinforce WCR disinfo. There is no other purpose for you being here, unless you care of course, which you've told us you don't..... LMAO!

My my davie your fear really runs deep. What's the problem? Getting too hot for you? Must be since you mostly only post to try and defuse a CT getting trashed. And here you are trying to save poor Chris. Well keep it up, it speaks volumes.

And Forensics? Really? ROFLMAO! SIlly CTs have been making alteration claims for decades. and you want to tell me that we need forensics to show they got things like parallax, properties of light and shadow, perspective, or even ...like in this instance...simple reading and comprehension correct? LMAO!

When davie speaks the laughter begins. Keep up the good works davie. The entertainment value is priceless.

Now back to business. Tell us davie, does Chris have the work in question correct? Come davie, get in the game, put your sorry fanny on the line. You got it in you?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Craig Lamson