Greg Burnham

Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

211 posts in this topic

What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films?

Thanks\DJ

So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101....

:rolleyes:

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?

:box

I've posted my work and PROVED I'm right. You are simply too incompetent to understand, and thus your straw man and very childish arguments.

As for the rest, there is simply not enough data to reconstruct the scene accurately. Welcome to reality. Oh wait, you don't DO reality...my bad.

(gotta ROFLMA over you posting AGAIN...this your last one before your last one? LMAO!)

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-7272-0-64635700-1464737545_thumb.jpg

I have recently enquired on another forum about refuting John Costello's findings on the Stemmons sign and received the article linked at the beginning of this thread from Mr Lamson. It included this example of parallax that showed tilting of the foreground object.
It appears the only reason the tilting occurs here is because that vertical shaft(The xacto knife handle) is leaning forward about 18 degrees straight at the camera. I have tested it and this fully accounts for the perceived tilting. The 18 degree forward tilt can be seen and measured at the top of that shaft. The roundness of the top can be measured to determine the angle off the camera. When compared with the angle off the top of the can below it there is about a 20 degree difference and the can should show more of its top than the shaft, but the opposite is happening here. You can probably already see the big difference between the top of the can which is oval and the top of the shaft which is almost round.
The shaft also appears 4% wider than the top because it is closer. (already checked Xacto knife shafts, they are straight.).

I am impressed with the fact that after 6 years there is no solid evidence to refute theses claims by Mr Costello. You would think if it was flawed the work would have been shredded by the JFK community years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying whether it was intentional but the leaning of objects does not happen with parallax. It does happen because of vanishing point perspective. The photo implies that parallax creates that leaning of the foreground object but i think it has already been pointed out that it is not consistent with known optical theory. It is easy to test. Put a couple of drinking glasses on a table and separate them by a couple of feet, then just make your viewpoint level with the table(match your eyes to the height of the table) then shift a foot or so to each side and note the parallax between the glasses. Anyone can verify in a few minutes that the leaning does not happen. If you stick something under the front glass and cause it to lean forward about 20 degrees directly toward the camera you will see how the leaning effect was created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more note. Leaning the shaft forward, as he stated he did earlier in this thread, creates a lean that goes to the same side as costello's signpost which appears correct, Camera moves left, image leans right and visa versa. But the Stemmons sign leaned away from Zapruder, not towards him as the shaft does. Reverse that and you reverse the direction it leans, Camera left, image leans left and visa versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summarizing: Intentionally flawed or not, Lamson's example is not an adequate representation of the "leaning" Stemmons sign post. The "leaning" sign post cannot be explained by parallax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the technology or methodology that would make the lamp pole seem to lean or not. But

watching that gif I saw a change in the pole's slant. If you move the video down so only the top of the lamp

is present, you can see its "movement" (for lack of a better word).

Dems my 2 cents.

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re the .gif above: quickly, is this camera on a tripod mount? If not, it appears the camera is rotating a bit around the z^. Meaning the cameraman if facing towards the intersection, camera on right shoulder. As he pans left to right he's not twisting his body towards the right. The tendency for the cameraperson leaning a bit to the left to maintain balance as you pan right to left, while raising the right shoulder a bit thus starting a lens rotation around the z^ axis. (make a downhill shot look like its going uphill).

If its tripod based footage, then find out who the adobe after effects compositing software tech is who is associated with same footage. The effect would be much greater the further down Elm street the camera pan continued. :)

Ahhhh, Lapoon Lamie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris and Kathleen, it looks like several things are happening in that panorama. Parallax is causing the lamp post to change its left/right position relative to the background. The lamp post also changes its lean but unlike the Stemmons sign and xacto knife the background changes its tilt right along with the lamp post. In other words the lamp post and its background are consistent, unlike the pincushion corrected zapruder film and the xacto knife which develops a lean relative to the background. I think the tilting is related to vanishing point changes as you rotate to face an object that was off to the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris and Kathleen, it looks like several things are happening in that panorama. Parallax is causing the lamp post to change its left/right position relative to the background. The lamp post also changes its lean but unlike the Stemmons sign and xacto knife the background changes its tilt right along with the lamp post. In other words the lamp post and its background are consistent, unlike the pincushion corrected zapruder film and the xacto knife which develops a lean relative to the background. I think the tilting is related to vanishing point changes as you rotate to face an object that was off to the side.

Does it matter that Elm St. was heading slightly downward?

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re the .gif above: quickly, is this camera on a tripod mount? If not, it appears the camera is rotating a bit around the z^. Meaning the cameraman if facing towards the intersection, camera on right shoulder. As he pans left to right he's not twisting his body towards the right. The tendency for the cameraperson leaning a bit to the left to maintain balance as you pan right to left, while raising the right shoulder a bit thus starting a lens rotation around the z^ axis. (make a downhill shot look like its going uphill).

If its tripod based footage, then find out who the adobe after effects compositing software tech is who is associated with same footage. The effect would be much greater the further down Elm street the camera pan continued. :)

Ahhhh, Lapoon Lamie.

​David,

I filmed that back in 2005. Handheld B/H 414

You're pretty accurate as I tried to keep my feet planted and rotate my upper torso while filming, if I remember correctly.

My brother took a few photos of me filming.

IMG_0779.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris and Kathleen, it looks like several things are happening in that panorama. Parallax is causing the lamp post to change its left/right position relative to the background. The lamp post also changes its lean but unlike the Stemmons sign and xacto knife the background changes its tilt right along with the lamp post. In other words the lamp post and its background are consistent, unlike the pincushion corrected zapruder film and the xacto knife which develops a lean relative to the background. I think the tilting is related to vanishing point changes as you rotate to face an object that was off to the side.

Chris,

You are welcome.

I'll reverse that old adage by saying "once you've eliminated the possible, the only thing left is the impossible" or something to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kathy, i guess it would. The angle of the road changes relative to the frame. Even if you keep the frame level you still you have to start looking downward which would change the perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stemmons sign leaning sideways

Credit: to original poster

Cancellare / Peter Lemkin image.

PeterLemkin.jpg

Click on image to view full size:

Stemmons_sign_leaning_sideways2.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now