Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[Mike Rago]

Craig,

I have some perspective questions that I would like to ask you. They involve the Betzner camera and one of the Betzner photos. Are you open to these questions?

You really should not waste your time debating Josephs on this issue. You should wait for John Costella to enter the debate. I think a debate between you and John Costella on the parallax issues would be very important to the entire research community. I hope that John will enter this debate. I would like to hear John's counter arguments to yours.

If you would not be so confrontational in your remarks to John Costella I think he might be persuaded to enter a debate. I am sure that he is most interested in the truth.

I am confident that we will find that there are some issues that he is correct and some issues that you are correct.

But you have to get to the point where the debate can occur.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.

Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.

I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.

Six simple questions for Costella..

1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?

2. How did it move?

3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?

4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?

5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?

6. Where are these photos?

Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6.

You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet?

You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH?

You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing...

and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination,

and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>...

You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home....

David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you,

Edited November 17, 2012 by Evan Burton
Disrespecting a fellow member

[Craig Lamson]

I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.

Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.

I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.

Six simple questions for Costella..

1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?

2. How did it move?

3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?

4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?

5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?

6. Where are these photos?

Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6.

You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet?

You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH?

You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing...

and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination,

and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>...

You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home....

David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you,

You can't even get his occupation correct. Hers a PHYSICS PROFESSOR? ROFLMAO!

This is a very simple question. ANYONE can solve it.

NO need for detailed discussions about optics, Zapruder did not need that to take his images.

No need for Costella's unproven theory, unproven because he can't even be bothered to take a few photos to prove his claim...he just posts an appeal to authority.

Nope, any joe blow can test this by simple taking photos, just like Zapruder did.

If there is parallax caused by the lens changing positions, Costella has been proven wrong. You can even test this by simply moving around a leaning lamp post and watching the angles change in relation to the background. This is NOT rocket science and Costella knows it. That's why he avoids it like the plague. If he addresses this he KNOWS he will lose and that is a reputation killer for a guy like him. A PhD in Physics who can't even get parallax correct! Imagine that.

Simple test to first determine if panning by turning the head or even turning the body can cause parallax. You say it will not.

Simply prove it.

Take your camera and set up a parallax experiment. Two poles some distance apart. Make the first one 10-15 feet from the camera. Make he second another 10 or 15 feet. This will make any changes very easy to see. Take your first shot so they are directly in line with each other. Then pan by turning your head and lets compare your images. If you are correct, there will be no change in the alignment of the poles.

Costella can try to make this far more complicated than it is, but its just a few simple pictures, just like Zapruder did.

[Mike Rago]

If there is parallax caused by the lens changing positions, Costella has been proven wrong. You can even test this by simply moving around a leaning lamp post and watching the angles change in relation to the background. This is NOT rocket science and Costella knows it. That's why he avoids it like the plague. If he addresses this he KNOWS he will lose and that is a reputation killer for a guy like him. A PhD in Physics who can't even get parallax correct! Imagine that.

I assure you that you will not be destroying John Costella's reputation. John Costella has done something way more significant to the ultimate solution of this case than his mistake with the lampost parallax. I will not bore you with the details now.

I asked you question regarding the Betzner photo. Are you going to answer it? This is the third time I have asked.

Your debate with Josephs is over. You won that debate. It does not help you to debate someone like Josephs on a subject like this. You have to debate the strong not the weak.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Craig Lamson]

If there is parallax caused by the lens changing positions, Costella has been proven wrong. You can even test this by simply moving around a leaning lamp post and watching the angles change in relation to the background. This is NOT rocket science and Costella knows it. That's why he avoids it like the plague. If he addresses this he KNOWS he will lose and that is a reputation killer for a guy like him. A PhD in Physics who can't even get parallax correct! Imagine that.

I assure you that you will not be destroying John Costella's reputation. John Costella has done something way more significant to the ultimate solution of this case than his mistake with the lampost parallax. I will not bore you with the details now.

I asked you question regarding the Betzner photo. Are you going to answer it? This is the third time I have asked.

Your debate with Josephs is over. You won that debate. It does not help you to debate someone like Josephs on a subject like this. You have to debate the strong not the weak.

Ask your question, If I'm interested I'll respond.

[Mike Rago]

What effect does the retaining wall have on the perceived height of an object behind the retaining wall if the camera elevation is 1) below the retaining wall (as in the Moorman photo) and 2)if the camera elevation is above the retaining wall(as in the Betzner photo)?

I think Hugh Betzner's elevation was 100' and he was 6' tall. I think Mary Moormans elevation was about 89' and she was 5' tall. The height of the top of the retaining wall is 100'.

Hugh Betzner was approximatel 233' from the corner of the retaining wall. If his camera was 6' above the top of the retaining wall and he was 233' from the corner of the retaining wall that implies the angle is 1.47°.

Picture of Hugh Betzner taking his number 3 picture.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Craig Lamson]

What effect does the retaining wall have on the perceived height of an object behind the retaining wall if the camera elevation is 1) below the retaining wall (as in the Moorman photo) and 2)if the camera elevation is above the retaining wall(as in the Betzner photo)?

I think Hugh Betzner's elevation was 100' and he was 6' tall. I think Mary Moormans elevation was about 89' and she was 5' tall. The height of the top of the retaining wall is 100'.

Picture of Hugh Betzner taking his number 3 picture.

I'm not interested in chasing "things" behind the retaining wall...

[Craig Lamson]

What effect does the retaining wall have on the perceived height of an object behind the retaining wall if the camera elevation is 1) below the retaining wall (as in the Moorman photo) and 2)if the camera elevation is above the retaining wall(as in the Betzner photo)?

I think Hugh Betzner's elevation was 100' and he was 6' tall. I think Mary Moormans elevation was about 89' and she was 5' tall. The height of the top of the retaining wall is 100'.

Picture of Hugh Betzner taking his number 3 picture.

I'm not interested in chasing "things" behind the retaining wall...

Draw your self a scaled diagram and plot the LOS's...

[Mike Rago]

The "thing" I am interested in is the right angle in the retaining wall. We are seeing the inside of the retaining wall, correct?

Here is a better view of the right angle in the retaining wall.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Mike Rago]

Draw your self a scaled diagram and plot the LOS's...

That is the problem. It is trying to figure out how much of the inside(backside) of that retaining wall we should be able to see given the known elevation of Betzner's camera and location from the retaining wall.

I know the Lancer Conference is going on this weekend in Dallas. If someone at that conference reads this post would you please recreate the Betzner photo?

And if you have one of those Level Apps for your iphone would you please go over to the retaining wall and put a level on the top of the retaining wall?

I am wondering if the elevation or slope of the top of the retaining wall today is different from what it was in 1963. Was there any renovation to the retaining wall?

Edited November 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Greg Burnham]

Craig, please clarify how your posted demonstration pertains to the problem of the shifting angle

of the sign posts as observed by John Costella?

Can you provide us with some good working estimates of:

1) how much the camera shifted as Zapruder panned and

2) the distance from Zapruder to the sign and

3) the height of the body of the sign

[David Josephs]

I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.

Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.

I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.

Six simple questions for Costella..

1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?

2. How did it move?

3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?

4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?

5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?

6. Where are these photos?

Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6.

You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet?

You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH?

You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing...

and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination,

and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>...

You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home....

David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you,

So I can use "make pretend" words like CL does and it's okay....

Here's the definition... what would YOU call it?

In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, please clarify how your posted demonstration pertains to the problem of the shifting angle

of the sign posts as observed by John Costella?

Can you provide us with some good working estimates of:

1) how much the camera shifted as Zapruder panned and

2) the distance from Zapruder to the sign and

3) the height of the body of the sign

How is it relevent?

Simple.

Costella sez that the posts CANNOT change angle as the camera moves IN ANY DIRECTION He says this is true because PHYSICS demands it.

To that end he said this.

'Moving the camera around' obviously changes the objects in the image, and in particular which objects are obscured by others. Shifting the camera left-right or up-down (or any combination of the two) by small amounts shifts image objects, depending on their distance from the camera. This is called 'parallax' and Lamson can read about it in optics or graphics text.

A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realize that if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held horizontal, either left-right or up-down. "

Pretty clear cut. He says if you move the camera the vertical pole always stays vertical.

So I simply tested his claim. It matters not a whit if it is the same as the Stemmons sign (and rest assured I have THAT test as well and the results match THIS test, but that's for yet another day) or hat the distances match. All we need to do to see if Costella has it correct is simply move the camera, and I did.

If the angle of a "vertical' changes when the cameras moves he loses. Simple as that. And of course the BEAUTY of doing the test by shifting the lens is that NONE of Costella's 'transformation" gyrations need to be done.

And what are the results...He got it wrong.

I'll ask you this Greg, have you EVER seen any actual empirical photos by Costella that proves he is right and I am wrong? Or even a rebuttal from him?

I'll not ask you to blindly believe me. Just try the test yourself.

Find a leaning lamp post and stand in the proper viewing angle so the post APPEARS true vertical. There will only be two places this will occur. One when the lean is directly towards you and one when it is directly away from you.

Now change position in relation to the post. Does the angle of the "lean" change? The correct answer is YES. But you can check it for yourself. And when you find that is does you too will have proven Costella wrong as well.

So exactly what does all of this mean in relation to Costella's claim about the Stemmons sign? it means he got it wrong when it said it CANNOT be parallax basked on his flawed understanding of how parallax really works.

But again do not take my word for it or even Costella's. Test it yourself.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Too easy, Craig.

First off, in what direction do the Stemmons signposts lean and to what degree(s)? Better yet, in what direction do the posts lean from Zappy's LOS in your opinion? I understand that

the answer will necessarily be a "moving target" (no pun intended), but accounted for it needs to be. Please provide a range of spatial locations (for the signposts) and relative times

(corresponding frame #'s should do nicely for these purposes).

I will need that information in order to test whether or not the amount of anomaly to be measured in the film is consistent with the angle of lean you are alleging existed. While it is true

that there may well have been a lean in some direction, the directional vector, degree of angle, and trajectory from the source (Zappy) to the target (JFK) by-passing the target of your

study, namely, the Stemmons Fwy Signpost is fascinatingly critical. Also, the distances from the lens to the image of the Stemmons signpost(s) is important in order to truly MEASURE

what is going on here. I think it will involve photogrammetry from a few sophisticated individuals. I know just the crew.

[David G. Healy]

Too easy, Craig.

...

I see Indiana's flash-in-the-pan is selling *bending of light* again.... LMAO!