Craig Lamson Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 So, you didn't take any measurements, did you? A simple yes or no will do. Did you take any measurements? So you can't read can you? And what exactly do measurements have to do with the principle of parallax? I'll take that as a "no." You took no measurements. Thank you for your admission. Measurements of WHAT Greg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 I would like to thank Craig Lamson for his honesty. This thread has been here for over two years. We now find out that Craig never measured anything within the Zapruder film. Nothing. No distances. No angles. Not a thing. (Or he just refuses to tell). John Costella measured EVERYTHING. It is impossible to test Lamson's "work" because he cannot provide the RAW DATA that would have been required for him to reach any scientific conclusions, let alone refute the scientific conclusions of someone else. Lamson's cry of "Costella was wrong" is weak and irrelevant. What exactly was Costella wrong about? Perhaps he overstated a point. Big deal. It is, at worst, a short-cut. However, this does not have any bearing on the specifics of the subject. For the specifics, we need measurements. And what did Lamson measure? Nothing. Not one thing. He has no argument. He has rebutted himself by omission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) I would like to thank Craig Lamson for his honesty. This thread has been here for over two years. We now find out that Craig never measured anything within the Zapruder film. Nothing. No distances. No angles. Not a thing. (Or he just refuses to tell). John Costella measured EVERYTHING. It is impossible to test Lamson's "work" because he cannot provide the RAW DATA that would have been required for him to reach any scientific conclusions, let alone refute the scientific conclusions of someone else. Lamson's cry of "Costella was wrong" is weak and irrelevant. What exactly was Costella wrong about? Perhaps he overstated a point. Big deal. It is, at worst, a short-cut. However, this does not have any bearing on the specifics of the subject. For the specifics, we need measurements. And what did Lamson measure? Nothing. Not one thing. He has no argument. He has rebutted himself by omission. LOL! What a very weak attempt to cover for the complete and abject failure of John Costella. Costella himself is afraid to come here and try so he sends this weak stick Burnham to try and redirect Costellas failure as MINE? LMAO! Burnham sez" Perhaps he (Costella) has "overstated a point" Is a direct falsehood a "overstatement" Lets review Costella's statement: "If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery." Thai statement was not the result of careful measurements of calculations. it was not made by means other than Costella's inaccurate understanding of how parallax works. it was nothing more than a failed appeal to authority. I challenge Burnham to post the measurements and calculations Costella has published to support his claim that the angles cannot change based on Parallax. Burnham sez this: "John Costella measured EVERYTHING." Then PROVE IT by showing us his published works with his measurements and calculations supporting his claim that: "If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery." This is really simple. Costella waved his hands and WRONGLY told the world that something was impossible when it clearly is. I offered a very simple test that proves Costella has this wrong. ANYONE can do the test for them self. There is not need for complex measurements or calculation, you don't even need a camera, even though that provides graphic proof. The principle works EVERY TIME. All you need is a leaning post and a good eye. One thing this thread has established is just how meaningless Greg Burnham's words really are. He has revealed it all. He is simply a shill. Talk about not having a argument... Edited November 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 No measurements. A pity. I was going to go to bat for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 No measurements. A pity. I was going to go to bat for you. Yep you have no data to support your claim. What a shock. You should have stayed on the sidelines. You made your self look impotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Expertly done Greg.... Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated... CL is, and has always been just one of the rest of the uninformed masses... Not interested in the actual assassiantion, history, context or evidence... Just another puffed up ego needing a release... so he vomits all over this forum, repeatedly. Just like the little schoolground bully he likes to believe he is... look him in his beady little eyes and ask for PROOF.... and you get EVERYTHING BUT.... Once again Greg... EXPERTLY DONE and thank you for exposing, yet again, this person for what and who he pretends to be.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Expertly done Greg.... Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated... CL is, and has always been just one of the rest of the uninformed masses... Not interested in the actual assassiantion, history, context or evidence... Just another puffed up ego needing a release... so he vomits all over this forum, repeatedly. Just like the little schoolground bully he likes to believe he is... look him in his beady little eyes and ask for PROOF.... and you get EVERYTHING BUT.... Once again Greg... EXPERTLY DONE and thank you for exposing, yet again, this person for what and who he pretends to be.... So what exactly has the shill Burnham exposed besides he can't read? And this: ROFLMAO! "Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated..." The only hand waver who CAN'T authenticate his evidence here is John Costella. See you can't even get that part correct. Lets review again what you and he can't seem to understand. Costella sez parallax cannot make a 'vertical change angles when the camera moves. This in fact proves in an unimpeachable manner that it can. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm. Burnham nor davie here can even come close to refuting it. The best Burnham can do is call it an "overstatement" and a "shortcut" by the so called 'scientist' who holds his finger in front of his face and sez...look... He calls for measurements and yet his so called expert has absolutely none published in regards to the parallax issue. Can you say hypocrite? In fact davie has even shown he can't even UNDERSTAND the argument nor the principle of parallax. Given the amount of material presented, this is just plain ignorance on his part. It is really instructive to watch those you claim such a huge desire for the finding of truth, ignore it when it is their ox being gored. There is no interest in the truth only supporting their own warped worldview. Davie is a sterling example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Thanks Craig.... We all get it - you just can't do it.... no harm in admitting you're WAY out of your league on this and any other JFK forum... You simply do not have the chops to be able to apply your little experiments to the reality of the evidence... You've been reduced, yet again, to the parents from the Peanuts cartoons... "Waa-wa wa waaaa, waa-wa-wa...." The 2 guests here you are trying to convince can have you... and of course you have Rago... both on equal footing when it comes to understanding the event.... Thank for playing old man.... and PROVING you're simply all talk. It's time for your nap and meds so the grownups can have a real discussion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Thanks Craig.... We all get it - you just can't do it.... no harm in admitting you're WAY out of your league on this and any other JFK forum... You simply do not have the chops to be able to apply your little experiments to the reality of the evidence... You've been reduced, yet again, to the parents from the Peanuts cartoons... "Waa-wa wa waaaa, waa-wa-wa...." The 2 guests here you are trying to convince can have you... and of course you have Rago... both on equal footing when it comes to understanding the event.... Thank for playing old man.... and PROVING you're simply all talk. It's time for your nap and meds so the grownups can have a real discussion.... LOL! This from the guy who FAILED in his own experiment attempting to show no parallax...that actually SHOWED parallax! Lets review daives little 'mistake" and review how "out of his league' he really is: http://s1233.beta.photobucket.com/user/dhjosephs/media/Video0029.mp4.html You can't have an intelligent discussion here because you simply DON'T understand the material despite the massive efforts to educate you. The facts remain, even though it is way beyond your ken. Even Burnham knows I have it correct and Costella got it wrong, as witnessed by his very transparent attempt to change the subject and call the blatant error from the "PhD" in physics who got the physics wrong an "overstatement". I get hundreds of hits a month on the Costella links. Lots of comments but never a single one saying it was wrong. Even YOU can't show it is wrong despite days of trying a a mountain of worthless words. Welcome to the real world davie. Reality must suck for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yes indeed old man... reality sucks.... Another excellent and articulate argument in support of your lack of knowledge related to the JFK Assassination. HUNDREDS of hits! wow, ain't you the big man on campus.... even though all you've ever offered on your own is your three little inches...? and THAT was proven wrong too... You're a critic... and a poor one at that.... You offer nothing of your own.... as you don't understand the event... but you're the first to chime in when OTHERS DO THE WORK... and when asked to show your work... off you scuttle, back under your rock.... spitting and frothing all the way home... So since you MUST have the last word old man... have at it... show the 2 people reading this thread your BIG BRAIN... stroke your ginormous ego... and then you ought to nap... your old heart can only take so much... See ya around old man... I for one have had enough of your foolishness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 See ya around old man... I for one have had enough of your foolishness... Yea, that is in fact your very best option given just how bad you look now that you have failed in every endeavor trying to refute the irrefutable. Running away from your errors is clearly the only option you have left. Actually admitting that have it wrong just won't fit your warped worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I wonder what planet David's on. I hope it's not this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 If the photographic record was altered' date=' then it must have been altered in its entirety. Otherwise inconsistencies would prove interference. How then was the entire photographic record of the assassination screened and altered where neccessary? It's absolutely ridiculous to suppose that would even be possible. [/quote'] It's the LNer CREED... "If we can't understand it and don't get an answer to WHY HOW WHO WHERE WHEN... then we LNers must be right..." That YOU can't fathom something occurring does not make it impossible - NEWS ALERT right? So tell us Paul... what is your experience with understanding the details of CIA wet operations? Military operations designed to kill? False flag, red herring counter intelligence and propaganda... Tell us you are qualified and experienced to explain WHY it is impossible.... other than just opinion Then tell us which images/films YOU THINK would need alteration... I am NOT a proponent of alteration of the photographic images from DP... Altgens 7 does not look like his other photos... why? Altgens 6... Doorman... has already been proven to be a farce (yet remember that Carolyn Arnold in her FBI unsigned statement says she thought she saw Oswald in the lobby around 12:25... maybe he DID walk out those doors, IDK) Willis, Betzner, Powell, Dillard... I see no signs of alteration Moorman, Cancellare, McIntyre, ditto Which photos do YOU think we are talking about here? On the other hand, the films are a very different story. Look a little more carefully at the films/photos that actually needed any sort of changing... There are only THREE films of the actual assassination Z, Nix, Muchmore... Z has lost the turn onto Elm and Towner somehow does not show the wide turn as witnessed Repeatedly the math shows how the Zfilm is not physically possible... the movement from place to place in the frames provided create speed variation that are NOT PHYSCIALLY POSSIBLE... Nix's assassiantion sequence begins WHEN in concert with Zap? about z300? Where is the original NIX film? The Nix film was obtained as a result of a notice that the FBI gave to film processing plants in the Dallas area, that the FBI would be interested in obtaining or knowing about any film they processed relating to the assassination. When Nix heard about this from his processor, he delivered the film to the FBI office in Dallas on December 1, 1963. It was returned to him three days later. United Press International purchased the copyright for $5,000 and took possession of the original film from Nix on December 6, 1963. UPI distributed frame enlargements to its news subscribers the following day. The original was examined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. When UPI returned the copyright and all its copies to the Nix family in 1992, the original film was missing. "MOST EVERYONE BELIEVE IT CAME FROM BEHIND THE FENCE BETWEEN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY AND THE RR TRACK" That you cannot tell from this enhancement that JFK's head goes backward as a puff of BRAIN from a frontal shot flies up... is simply a result of the LNer rose colored glasses y'all wear. I guess. Muchmore STARTS at z272... What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films? Thanks\DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films? Thanks\DJ So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films? Thanks\DJ So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101.... So you've finally figured out how much Z's camera has to SHIFT to produce the result we see supposedly caused by parallax? Post your work and PROVE something rather than just telling everyone how RIGHT you are... Or is that, like everything else... too far over your head to even attempt? 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