JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake is Costella's!

[Craig Lamson]

Healy ignorantly says:

"Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same"

Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO!

The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David?

So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks

You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy?

And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the entire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhange in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed.

Well whats the resolution of the Z-film, photog? Dazzle us with brilliance -- you need a formula?

I suspect when the need for a guard dog arises, the guard dog will present itself -- as for the moment, you or any other "photo expert" hereabouts, with no trackable photo record, don't make that necessary... as they say in Indy, buzz off Conroy.

No trackable photo record...I like that one...coming from David, I've no samples, Healy.

The Z film resolution canard was all your baby Healy...so hop to it and build the rest of your strawman.

Now go lay back down at the feet of your master like a good doggie.

[Bill Miller]

dgh01: Bill: so even you can understand: post right here: [ ] where have I said Jack White is wrong 100% of the time? -- Who do you think your dealing with -- btw, where's YOUR forum bio it was not available a few minutes ago?

David, I was hoping that you'd try and play dumb on this one for it seems to be a common these these days with some of you. Let me make this so simple that even you should be able to follow it ...

Jack has made countless claims concerning what he believed to be evidence that the photographical record surrounding JFK's assassination is altered. You have read and heard each one of those claims over the years and after having done so - you made the statement on this forum that you have not seen any proof of alteration. That means 0% - that is the opposite of Jack's position, thus if you have not seen proof of alteration after seeing all Jack's claims, then you have said in so many words that you disagree with each of Jack's alteration claims and that they had not convinced you that anything had been altered.

Bill

[Josiah Thompson]

I love it when one member of Tink's little gang (Lamson) compliments another (Cobly). Something I don't understand about Sherry's discussion is that, during a Lancer Conference which I co-chaired, she explained how her work supported the position that the shots had come from the front, not the back. Perhaps she has changed her position or could otherwise elaborate upon it, because I am left in a state of uncertaintly as to where she stands. Perhaps John will have a chance to respond directly to Sherry's line of argument. The book itself, of course, presents more than a dozen proofs of alteration, including Homer McMahon's report of having observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions, Secret Service reports of agents having been nauseated by the brains and blood debris across the trunk, and witness reports of having watched a more complete version of the film that includes an abrupt limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. I understand why there is a desperate search for at least some sliver of error in the research that leads to the conclusion that the film has been recreated, an undertaking that involved reshooting most of the frames (lest the sprocket hole images give the game away), because--in spite of the gang's best efforts--the evidence has proven to be remarkably robust. (Anyone who wants to learn more should go to http://www.assassinationscience.com and review John Costella's introduction to Zapruder film alteration, which is under discussion here, but also the "Zapruder Film Hoax Debate", where the gang does its best to refute our work, which we--principally John--patiently rebut, one by one.) I never tire of observing how many critics never bother to read the book and therefore never cite the specifics of the arguments presented there. But of course John's video is "fair game", so I am certainly not objecting to its discussion here, even if, as I have observed here on more than one occasion, it might be instructive for members of this forum to actually study the arguments presented there. One of the more amusing of recently attempts to "disprove" alteration comes from Tink himself and reflects his gross misunderstanding of his own favorite issue:

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:15:27 -0800

From: David Mantik

Reply-To: David Mantik

Subject: RE: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Jim,

Of course, your description of our experiment and of the significance of

our numbers is completely correct. To go further, I would have to dig

through my old files for the data. They are now in storage.

As I recall, however, my last detailed study of this issue (some years ago),

including margin of error analysis (partly based on simple experiments I did),

was still consistent with Mary in the street. This data and analysis was shared

with Tink.

To the best of my memory, we discussed this briefly, but I don't recall any

significant quantitative refutation from him re. this particular

data set. If he has something new, I have not seen it.

David Mantik

-----Original Message-----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:25 PM

To: David Mantik

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

David,

This silly man (aka TT) has popped up on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com,

which is moderated by one Barbara Junk (who implies that you and she

are great friends, having stayed at your home or you at hers at some

point in the distant past). I was drawn onto the site by an abusive

remark from Shackelford in response to the suggestion by a reasonable

fellow, Greywolf, who suggested that, relative to ULTIMATE SACRIFICE,

it might be worth the members' time to listen to a critique that I'd

given on black op radio. So Martin said something like "Fetzer on a

book is like Bozo the Clown on foreign affairs"! (As Len Osanic, who

hosts blackopradio.com, said to me, "Jim denies he has ever worn those

big shoes!") Anyway, Junk piled on, saying something like, "She had

met me and I suckled paranoia!", which I thought was a bit much for

the moderator of a forum, who is supposed to be neutral and impartial.

Anyway, she said that Greywolf could not post on my behalf and if I

wanted to reply, then I had to join the forum. So I did. And what

you or I or anyone who knew anything at all would predict, who pops

up but the man himself! Incredible as it may seem, he resurrected

the Moorman all over again in relation to the question of Zapruder

film alteration. I explained that it was complex, convoluted, and

not easy to understand, but he insisted that it is actually a very

simple situation. So far as I can tell, he does not even understand

the difference between verification and falsification, and seems to

believe that, if this specific line of attack on the authenticity of

the film is unsuccessful, then the film has been proven to be authen-

tic! Unbelievable that this guy actually has Ph.D. in philosophy

from Yale, but that's the story. He has been recycying every argu-

ent he ever made, most recently claiming that your notes about our

measurements prove that we committed major blunders in our research!

He had suggested that we had made the mistake of measuring heights

relative to the grass, which is soft and mushy and therefore not a

suitable base of reference. I explained that we used the mid-point

of the curb (between the street and the grass), which for some odd

reason he did not understand until I drew a diagram, explaining it

would be "monumental stupidity" to have used the grass (meaning of

course as the basis for our experiment, since we needed a reference

point that was solid and relatively immobile, which the mid-point

on the curb supplied). So I thought I had settled this (again),

but today, in a mood of triumph, he posted copies of notes that

you had lent him, which included the following kinds of notation:

.......on grass (distance......elevation of

............from curb).................LOS

...............3 ft.........................3'3"

...............2 ft.........................3'5"

...............1 ft.........................3'8"

.............1 1/2 ft...................3'6 3/4"

..........(not measured but interpolated)

What you are not going to believe is that he thinks this shows

we were measuring on the grass and therefore vindicates his

claim that we committed a blunder! Can you believe how stupid

that is? I mean, this is supposed to be his strongest attack

upon our work, and he doesn't even understand the difference

between (a) having a firm base on the curb as the foundation

for establishing the line of sight and ( using that line of

sign to determine its elevation above the grass if the photo

had been taken somewhere on the grass rather than somewhere

in the street! Of course, we would not have completed our

work if we hand done (a) but not (! He appears to have

forgotten that we are looking for evidence as to where Mary

must have been, when Mary was 5"2" tall (actually, 5'1 1/2"

in her bare feet). So if she was holding her camera up to

her eye level, or about 4" below the top of her head, the

line of sight should have been about 4" below 5'2", which

is 62", leaving the LOS at about 58", far too high to be

on the grass at any point, given your measurements on the

grass! Tink seems to have completely lost his marbles on

this one. I think there are signs of mental deterioration.

Unless Mary was a midger, she cannot have been on the LOS

we determined anywhere on the grass but has to have been

in the street. I have suggested that the members of this

forum actually read Jack's chapter, "Was Mary Standing in

the Street?", in HOAX, but so far as I can see, no one has

done that. They seem to think that Tink can lead them to

the promised land, but he has gone bonkers and thinks the

line of argument I have sketched here PROVES THAT WE WERE

WRONG! It's an interesting tag-team performance around

here, moreover, where Martin pipes off whenever he feels

like it and other shady characters are lurking just off

stage. Junk interevenes every now and them to support

Tink by implying that his questions and arguments are so

clear and obvious, whilel my explanations are convoluted

and complex! Really fascinating! Well, I just wanted to

let you know what's happening and ask you to write back

confirming everything I am saying here about your numbers

in relation to their significance within the context of

our experiment. I have the feeling that, when the men

in white coats finally come to take him away to a home

for the mentally bewildered, he will still be muttering

under his breath, "Moorman! Fetzer! Goddamn him!" but

no one will understand him and no one will even care.

Jim

P.S. Don't rush back with a reply. In the meanwhile,

Tink will be boasting about how he ran me off the

forum with a devastating argument! (Just for an

example of how bizarre this gets, one morning I

awakened to discover that, since my last post,

Martin had put up exactly thirty-two (32) replies!

----- Forwarded message from josiah@direcway.com -----

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:27:25 -0000

From: gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>

Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jfk-research] PHOTOS POSTED UNDER "FILES" SECTION

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

The "Photos" section has been useless to me. Instead, I went to

the "Files" section. I set up a folder under "Moorman Photo" and

then added the following photos:

(1) Mantik's Notes.

(2) Moorman Segment.

(3) Perfect line-up with location in Z-film (53.75")

(4) Red lines and without.

(5) Zapruder frame 303 showing Moorman and Hill.

I'm sorry I couldn't figure this out earlier, everyone. But there

you are, Len. Mantik's notes in living color and all the rest!

I ask you, Len. How the heck is Fetzer going to get out of this one?

Josiah Thompson

-- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lenbrasil@y...> wrote:

>

> Tink - I'd like to see those (Mantik's)notes although I'm not sure

> Fetzer does! I'd also like to see you LOS photo. I remember you

> attaching something to a previous post but attachments don't go

> through on Yahoo groups. The best thing to do would be to upload the

> images to this group's `Photos' section .

>

> Jim - You think your publisher would pop for a professional surveyor

> to verify the LOS? Even if they don't you might want to consider

> paying out of your own pocket. If you are so sure of the result it

> would worth it to humiliate your nemesis. Of course if his findings

> agree with Tink's you might not want to show your face in public for a

> while. Not afraid of the results I hope!

>

> If anybody from the 6th Floor or Conspiracy Museums is reading this

> maybe you might want to pay the surveyor.

>

The problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts"

Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing.

Once again when experts voice there opions the contradict the fantasies of Fetzer's "hand wavers"

Two down....

With all due respect, Professor Fetzer, do you really want to argue here in front of all these people that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street and not from the position she is shown to be in in the Zapruder film? Are you willing to argue this? Or are you just blow-harding around as usual? If you are serious in wanting to argue this point, all you have to do is give your reasons. Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?

If you are not serious about this, then spare us the irrelevant correspondence with David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. which proves exactly nothing.

[Sherry Gutierrez]

Sherry: I stated the pattern in the Zapruder film was consistent with what I had professionally observed and that blood was documented as being in the vehicle and on other persons. I was specific about what page and statements I was addressing.

David: Then again here's that old; "consistent with", so I ask consistent with WHAT?

Sherry: Consistent with blood spatter patterns created as a result of high velocity impact, that I have personally witnessed and documented through still and video photography. Consistent in overall shape, direction of travel, speed of dissipation and in visual appearance.

David: Does the film show blood dissipation correctly?

Sherry: Yes it does.

Thanks David, for your continuing interest in this subject.

Sherry

[David G. Healy]

JThompson wrote:

With all due respect, Professor Fetzer, do you really want to argue here in front of all these people that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street and not from the position she is shown to be in in the Zapruder film? Are you willing to argue this? Or are you just blow-harding around as usual? If you are serious in wanting to argue this point, all you have to do is give your reasons. Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?

How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo?

Then again it doesn't take a deep understanding of rocket science to conclude how the WCR deals with "eyewitness testimony"

If you are not serious about this, then spare us the irrelevant correspondence with David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. which proves exactly nothing.

*************************************

'Craig Lamson' blubbered

No trackable photo record...I like that one...coming from David, I've no samples, Healy.

Now why praytell would I post samples? There's absolutely no one on this board that's shown any understanding of film compositing -- that includes those that make pictures of trailers, buses, and boats.... dry goods... honest work, somewhat short in creative department though...

The Z film resolution canard was all your baby Healy...so hop to it and build the rest of your strawman.

I await your response, if you don't know resolution admit it! Its a very confusing issue - We're here to help Craigster....

Now go lay back down at the feet of your master like a good doggie.

Master? Doggies? Now don't tell me your into that kinda internet stuff.....

Edited February 21, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

Josiah writes: Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?

David responds: How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo?

David - you just did what Jack attempted to do when he said Jean Hill claimed she stepped into the street, as well. The problem for you guys is he timing in which it occurred. Jack leaves out Jean saying she stepped back out of the street before the first shot sounded. Now you are implying something while leaving out some important facts, as well. Mary Moorman did step into the street to take a photo, but it was the photo of Officer McBride that she did this. How do we know this to be the case? We can look at the McBride photo and see the people along the north side of Elm Street through his windshield and not from over the top of it as in Moorman's #5 Polaroid. A simple rule of physics and an understanding of perspective says it all for a 54" view from in the street will be looking through a 58" tall windshield. For a 54" view to be looking over the top of a 58" tall cycle's windshield means that Moorman had to be over the curb and in the grass as she claims she was and no misrepresenting the facts will change any of this!

Bill

Edited February 21, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

I see you are still playing those silly raindeer...er David games. What a phoney you are Healy. You have posted no samples because you have no film composition samples...simple as that. I on the other hand do have samples of composites I created on film, but of course you can't deal with someone who has actuallly made a film based composite. Hell you can't even do a decent job of digital compositing a single frame....what a phoney!

As for creativity...your company's not putting much on the plate there bud...unless you think licence plates, realtor brocures and cowbow vids are creative stuff.

Talk about bruised egos! Yours must be a real mess.

As for the total resolution possible for the zapruder camera/film as shot by zapruder... I understand how it works..do you? AGAIN its your claim...give us the details there cowboy shooter in lp/mm and please specify the contrast range. How about FOR ONCE YOU ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN RUN YOUR MOUTH!

Bow wow!

Edited February 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

David Healy first quoted my question: "Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?" and then wrote, "How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo?"

Well David Healy, how about that? Moorman said she stepped into the street to take a photo and she actually did! Only the photo she took when she stepped into the street was not her famous photo. It was a photo taken almost forty seconds earlier of Officer McBride cruising by on his bike. And how do we know this is the case? Because the photo of McBride itself shows Moorman was standing in the street when she took it... looking UP at the 58 inch high top of his windscreen. All of this was worked out years ago by Bill Miller who went so far as to track down a motorcycle used in the motorcade and get measurements of the height of its windscreen. That is what real research is about. Getting the facts right... not popping off in a half-baked fashion.

And Professor Fetzer... Where is Professor Fetzer? After offering a few insults and incomprehensible verbiage, he leaves. Does Professor Fetzer or David Healy believe that Mary Moorman was standing in the street when she took her famous photo? Neither one will say.

JThompson wrote:

With all due respect, Professor Fetzer, do you really want to argue here in front of all these people that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street and not from the position she is shown to be in in the Zapruder film? Are you willing to argue this? Or are you just blow-harding around as usual? If you are serious in wanting to argue this point, all you have to do is give your reasons. Why do you think Mary Moorman was standing in the street and not on the grass when she took her famous photo?

How about; she said she stepped into the street and took a photo?

Then again it doesn't take a deep understanding of rocket science to conclude how the WCR deals with "eyewitness testimony"

If you are not serious about this, then spare us the irrelevant correspondence with David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. which proves exactly nothing.

*************************************

'Craig Lamson' blubbered

No trackable photo record...I like that one...coming from David, I've no samples, Healy.

Now why praytell would I post samples? There's absolutely no one on this board that's shown any understanding of film compositing -- that includes those that make pictures of trailers, buses, and boats.... dry goods... honest work, somewhat short in creative department though...

The Z film resolution canard was all your baby Healy...so hop to it and build the rest of your strawman.

I await your response, if you don't know resolution admit it! Its a very confusing issue - We're here to help Craigster....

Now go lay back down at the feet of your master like a good doggie.

Master? Doggies? Now don't tell me your into that kinda internet stuff.....

[David G. Healy]

'Josiah Thompson' wrote:

[...]

Well David Healy, how about that? Moorman said she stepped into the street to take a photo and she actually did! Only the photo she took when she stepped into the street was not her famous photo. It was a photo taken almost forty seconds earlier of Officer McBride cruising by on his bike. And how do we know this is the case? Because the photo of McBride itself shows Moorman was standing in the street when she took it... looking UP at the 58 inch high top of his windscreen. All of this was worked out years ago by Bill Miller who went so far as to track down a motorcycle used in the motorcade and get measurements of the height of its windscreen. That is what real research is about. Getting the facts right... not popping off in a half-baked fashion.

dgh01: Well Josiah Thompson, how 'bout THAT! Where there's doubt.... what can I say? Let's just say, the waters are murky as ever....

hmm, measuring the height of a motorcycle windscreen, 40 years AFTER the fact?

Great research! Were the tires flat? I'll keep that 'real research' in mind, thanks!

[...]

Edited February 22, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

'Craig Lamson'

I see you are still playing those silly raindeer...er David games.

somebody buy this poor soul a drink.....

What a phoney you are Healy. You have posted no samples because you have no film composition samples...simple as that.

Lamson you've not posted one image to the web in 5 years that I know of -- who are you trying to bullxxxx? Read HOAX, get off your lazy ass

I on the other hand do have samples of composites I created on film, but of course you can't deal with someone who has actuallly made a film based composite.

let me make it real easy for you champ, post a frame from 5 of your 'alledged' composites we'll take a look see -- but of course you WON't! Why You can't stand the pain of professional/artistic criticism -- especially from those that you've made a career out of L A M P O O N I N G ---- you've no standing craigster, NONE! Get the protfolio tpogether maybe we can help you out

Hell you can't even do a decent job of digital compositing a single frame....what a phoney!

right here guy..... let's see your stuff, I've been asked why I bother with you? Simple, sooner or later this alledged photog has to deliver. What he'll deliver no one knows! Well, of course Tink knows- -- but he ain't telling

As for creativity...your company's not putting much on the plate there bud...unless you think licence plates, realtor brocures and cowbow vids are creative stuff.

hey dufus, you ever design a license plate -- my daughter-in-law has two, how many you have, again -- and that's my son's company chump, I'm choosey about consulting clients .... -- Shall I tell him to be aware of harrassing trailer photographers from the midwest with to much time on his hands....?

Talk about bruised egos! Yours must be a real mess.

get out the Brownie mother, Craig Lamson is comin for suppah!

As for the total resolution possible for the zapruder camera/film as shot by zapruder... I understand how it works..do you? AGAIN its your claim...give us the details there cowboy shooter in lp/mm and please specify the contrast range. How about FOR ONCE YOU ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN RUN YOUR MOUTH!

keep you girdle on -- gett'in aintsy back there in skeeter land?

Bow wow!

here kitty-kitty,

Oh, you got a website? Something you're kids are proud of? -- that's what I thought ROFLMAO

Edited February 22, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

Craig (with all due respect) and David this whole "whose dick is bigger that whose I'm a better photographer than you" stick got old a long time ago.

But Healy it's time for you to put up or shut up post some links to or examples of your work if you are going to claim expertise

[Craig Lamson]

'Craig Lamson'

I see you are still playing those silly raindeer...er David games.

somebody buy this poor soul a drink.....

What a phoney you are Healy. You have posted no samples because you have no film composition samples...simple as that.

Lamson you've not posted one image to the web in 5 years that I know of -- who are you trying to bullxxxx? Read HOAX, get off your lazy ass

I on the other hand do have samples of composites I created on film, but of course you can't deal with someone who has actuallly made a film based composite.

let me make it real easy for you champ, post a frame from 5 of your 'alledged' composites we'll take a look see -- but of course you WON't! Why You can't stand the pain of professional/artistic criticism -- especially from those that you've made a career out of L A M P O O N I N G ---- you've no standing craigster, NONE! Get the protfolio tpogether maybe we can help you out

Hell you can't even do a decent job of digital compositing a single frame....what a phoney!

right here guy..... let's see your stuff, I've been asked why I bother with you? Simple, sooner or later this alledged photog has to deliver. What he'll deliver no one knows! Well, of course Tink knows- -- but he ain't telling

As for creativity...your company's not putting much on the plate there bud...unless you think licence plates, realtor brocures and cowbow vids are creative stuff.

hey dufus, you ever design a license plate -- my daughter-in-law has two, how many you have, again -- and that's my son's company chump, I'm choosey about consulting clients .... -- Shall I tell him to be aware of harrassing trailer photographers from the midwest with to much time on his hands....?

Talk about bruised egos! Yours must be a real mess.

get out the Brownie mother, Craig Lamson is comin for suppah!

As for the total resolution possible for the zapruder camera/film as shot by zapruder... I understand how it works..do you? AGAIN its your claim...give us the details there cowboy shooter in lp/mm and please specify the contrast range. How about FOR ONCE YOU ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN RUN YOUR MOUTH!

keep you girdle on -- gett'in aintsy back there in skeeter land?

Bow wow!

here kitty-kitty,

Oh, you got a website? Something you're kids are proud of? -- that's what I thought ROFLMAO

Final post to you David.

You are a pathetic. My images all over the web, since 01..images YOU have made comments about. I've also posted a number of ORIGINAL works as it related to both JFK and Apollo...real emperical tests...tests that blew White out to the water. Ask him about the shadow on the Oswald Minsk photo he says has to be retouched because its "impossible" to do photographiclly...and ask him how I did it in just a few miniutes...

Links to my professional images in the web.

http://www.infocusinc.net

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/infocusinc/a...m/ph//my_photos

The gallerys are full of composites, some with the ps work by the agency and some by me. In fact almost every image I do these days is a composite...

Composite created ON FILM by me:

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596424

You want more I can did them out.

Read Hoax? Is your memory THAT bad? Laughed my a-- off reading the MANUSCRIPT!

Yea Licence plates are SOOO creative...

And yea I'm proud of my website...where's yours?

Now its time for you to put up or shut up David. You want us all to think you have the credentials to discuss film compositing and yet you offer no proof you have EVER even created a composite on film. We know you have created a couple on the computer that were beginner level work or worse. But on film? Hell we don't even have any proof you actually have done any video OR film work other than your word. Why not post that work you did for Apple? What was it some b level corporate training gig? You did it direct for Apple right? Not for their agency? Yep b level or c level to be sure. Hell the guy that mows the law andor cleans the toilets in Cupertino can claim they work for Apple! ROFLMAO

Times up Dick. Whip it out or get out of dodge....

Edited February 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Frank Agbat]

Craig,

You've done some some very nice photographic work. I enjoyed looking at both sites.

/sarcasm on

Well, since I'm not qualified to even have an opinion, I really can't say what I just said, can I?

Now, on the other hand, if I thought that 25+ years of photographic and imaging experience actually sufficed to allow me to have an opinion, I'd say something like, "You've done some very nice photographic work."

/sarcasm off

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

You've done some some very nice photographic work. I enjoyed looking at both sites.

/sarcasm on

Well, since I'm not qualified to even have an opinion, I really can't say what I just said, can I?

Now, on the other hand, if I thought that 25+ years of photographic and imaging experience actually sufficed to allow me to have an opinion, I'd say something like, "You've done some very nice photographic work."

/sarcasm off

I'd like to say thanks but it seems I've no standing...

But thanks anyways.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

'Len Colby' wrote:

Craig (with all due respect) and David this whole "whose dick is bigger that whose I'm a better photographer than you" stick got old a long time ago.

But Healy it's time for you to put up or shut up post some links to or examples of your work if you are going to claim expertise

Seeing you're in the email loop -- I'll respond! First, G R O W U P ! Second, Expertise in WHAT? Despite your "with all due respect" clap-trap.... What you fail to realize Len, I'm a Technical Director/Senior Editor for 40 years and Camerman/Line Producer for 30+ years -- so if you want to rate whose **** is bigger than whose, best find someone Lamson can handle -- As for compositing; more ways to skin a cat when compositing and Dean Fielding is well aware of that --- just NO money being a 'still' photog, Len! Those photogs' that do well, DON'T spend day in and day out posting to internet forums... I hire the guy's!

Let me makes this clear enough so you and Lampoon understand ...

My career work is not the subject, nor is Lampoons trailer photos -- you guy's need someones work to bash, head for the other internet boards.... your demands are recoginized and discarded as distraction and nuisance -- I'm not involved in a judgment contest....

As for your need to read/view something, you might get caught up on Zapruder film topics, optical film printing and a few SMPTE '63-'64periodicals -- if the need arises and Roland Zavada or Dean Fielding request my credit sheet it will be provided to THEM and THEM alone.

Try'in to get me all riled up, Len? Lurker's are smarter than that!

Edited February 22, 2006 by David G. Healy