Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[Craig Lamson]

First, the above question was asked years ago on this very forum, so no, I'm not pimping. Second, John won't waste his time on you. Third, you appear to know lenses well, but not optics. Fourth, I'm no expert in this field, but it doesn't take an expert to sense when a question is being avoided.

Great then why don't you give us the link to the question so we can see the actual thread and not your quoting ...perhaps out of context.

And why not answer the question asked by me for more detail about what circumstances are suggested by the question. As it stands its a rather open ended attempt at a "gotya" with no real relevance to the problem at hand.Please tell us how this applies to the subject of photographic parallax and the sign.

Are lenses optics????

If you are no expert in the field than how can you have the first clue WHY this question of dr johns you are pimping has any meaning when it comes to his failure to understand photographic parallax?

Finally it appears Costella prefers to hide away to save face. I can only imagine his embarassment at being a PHD in Physics, claiming that something is against the laws of physics ( and somehting so simple even a child could test it) and then being proven to be totally ignorant of how it actually works in real life.

Understandable since this happened to him before with his stupidity on this issue...

www,craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Still... quite cowardly of him. And the best is yet to come! The next web page in the Costella's Folly series will bury this guy and his "expertise". It's going to be a hoot!

Now that we have come full circle, can YOU, or anyone refute these, which make mince meat of Costella's sign claims? Which also begs the question do you even UNDERSTAND why his claims are false? Heck do you even understand his CLAIMS? Inquiring minds really want to know.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

And coming soon to an internet near you craiglamson.com/costella3.htm!

Edited July 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Lampsoon does not even understand the question, much less the solution.

It has nothing to do with parallax or other pseudo-scientific jargon.

It has to do with OPTICAL CONSISTENCY.

An old addage says "all ships rise with the tide."

Therefore all portions of an image made with a lens which has pincushion distortion

must show that distortion throughout the image...not selectively. The "tide" of the

pincushion is uniform.

Costella plainly shows the straight line of the concrete wall CURVES. The straight

line of the Stemmons sign DOES NOT CURVE. It has nothing to do with parallax.

It has to do with the optics of the lens. Pincushion distortion can be measured

and graphed, and predictions made how straight lines will react. The straight

lines of the sign should curve. They do not.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Lampsoon does not even understand the question, much less the solution.

It has nothing to do with parallax or other pseudo-scientific jargon.

It has to do with OPTICAL CONSISTENCY.

An old addage says "all ships rise with the tide."

Therefore all portions of an image made with a lens which has pincushion distortion

must show that distortion throughout the image...not selectively. The "tide" of the

pincushion is uniform.

Costella plainly shows the straight line of the concrete wall CURVES. The straight

line of the Stemmons sign DOES NOT CURVE. It has nothing to do with parallax.

It has to do with the optics of the lens. Pincushion distortion can be measured

and graphed, and predictions made how straight lines will react. The straight

lines of the sign should curve. They do not.

Jack

Seems the "tide" washed away Jack Whites knowlege of how pincushion distortion works.( if he ever had any at all.)

Pincushion is uniform? Now thats funny!

The lines of the sign should curve? Really? And by how much?

Why don't we just look directly.

This graphic is a representation of the Zapruder camera's images circle. It had a graph of straight lines overlaid and then more straight lines to indicate the approximate location of the sign in frames 195 and 228. Pincushion distortion was then added.

Its pretty clear that lines near the center of the image circle suffer far less distortion that those at the very edge of the image circle. Can you detect the CURVE Jack White says must be in sides of the sign and the post?

So tell us Jack, just how much curvature MUST be present and how exact do you know its not?

Or maybe you and Costella simply has it wrong. Its not a pincushion problem at all but rather one of parallax. Suprisingly experimental, empirical photographic evidence shows quite clearly the effect of the flopping post is a perfect fit with parallax caused by camera movement.

In other words, dr john just does not understand how parallax works.

Thats pretty funny considering he is a phd in Physics. It appears he is also a dufus when it come to the real world LOL!

Edited July 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

Pincushion distortion within a "real" image is "graduated" throughout the image obtained from a lens. It is self consistent. It is measurable and the "graduation" from center to edge is mathematically predictable. Abrupt additions of curvature or abrupt subtractions of curvature are "red flags" -- as is the absence of proportionate pincushion distortion. Parallax refers to a change in "subjective" perspective. John's findings have NOTHING to do with anything "subjective" or based on the relative "position" of the observer. It has to do with the internal self consistency (or lack thereof) within the "closed system" of the image in the frame.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Pincushion distortion within a "real" image is "graduated" throughout the image obtained from a lens. It is self consistent. It is measurable and the "graduation" from center to edge is mathematically predictable. Abrupt additions of curvature or abrupt subtractions of curvature are "red flags" -- as is the absence of proportionate pincushion distortion. Parallax refers to a change in "subjective" perspective. John's findings have NOTHING to do with anything "subjective" or based on the relative "position" of the observer. It has to do with the internal self consistency (or lack thereof) within the "closed system" of the image in the frame.

Sheesh monk, the above is a real image with pincushion distortion created using the same process professionals use to remove pincushion distortion. We do it every day Monk. It is a perfect example of how pincushion distortion works and clearly shows dr john has duped you with handwaving. Can you say moron? I knew that you could.

Now since it has been established, ( but hey YOU can try and refute it, mr expert) that it is NOT a problem with pincushion distortion, we can move along to the REAL cause of the flopping post...parallax.

Of course it has been established beyond a doubt that dr john got it wrong when he said:

"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."

Now we can also show that he got it wrong when he said this:

"Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle)."

Interestingly it is his failure to understand something as simple as parallax that screws him here again. His ignorance just never quite.

Rotational parallax is for the biggest part what makes the post flop. Zapruder panned his camera from left to right, The camera was at his eye in front of his face. Thus the axis of rotation while panning was far behind the entrance pupil of the lens. If a camera is rotated from left to right ( panning) on an axis that is NOT at the entrance pupil of the lens, parallax will be present. Of course this is simple to prove in REAL LIFE. You just take a series of photos. Poof, say goodbye to more silly ct fantasy.

dr. john is screwed once again.

I told you to quit while you were ahead "monk", but hey look look pretty funny dipped in it. Thanks for the grins.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

Your claim of superiority or that John is wrong--does not make it so. It is the INTERNAL inconsistency of these frames that are at issue. It has nothing to do with "visuals" per se. By definition: If the film was indeed altered by employing a method designed to prevent discovery of the alteration, then the evidence of alteration of the film would be obscured. Your argument is fallacious as it "begs the question".

Edited July 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Your claim of superiority or that John is wrong--does not make it so. It is the INTERNAL inconsistency of these frames that are at issue. It has nothing to do with "visuals" per se. By definition: If the film was indeed altered by employing a method designed to prevent discovery of the alteration, then the evidence of alteration of the film would be obscured. Your argument is fallacious as it "begs the question".

This is really beyond you monk.

The only claim I'm making and PROVING is that costella's "very best proof of alteration" is pure bunk.

There is nothing internally inconsistant in the frames in question. They exhibit the natural effects of parallax. There is no inconsistancy in the pincushion. The parts of the sign in question are both small enough and fall in the correct areas of the frame to NOT show substantial visual distortion. Costella the wonderboy simple screwed the pooch on this one. No wonder he is in hiding.

As for you, I see your shucking and jiveing has not changed over the years. When you have your back in a corner the bullsnit flows. Its clear you are out of your depth. But at least you are a laugh a minute! Thanks for that.

But you are correct the my words don't mean I'm right, the WORK does. Please feel free to try and refute the WORK.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

Your claim of superiority or that John is wrong--does not make it so. It is the INTERNAL inconsistency of these frames that are at issue. It has nothing to do with "visuals" per se. By definition: If the film was indeed altered by employing a method designed to prevent discovery of the alteration, then the evidence of alteration of the film would be obscured. Your argument is fallacious as it "begs the question".

This is really beyond you monk.

The only claim I'm making and PROVING is that costella's "very best proof of alteration" is pure bunk.

There is nothing internally inconsistant in the frames in question. They exhibit the natural effects of parallax. There is no inconsistancy in the pincushion. The parts of the sign in question are both small enough and fall in the correct areas of the frame to NOT show substantial visual distortion. Costella the wonderboy simple screwed the pooch on this one. No wonder he is in hiding.

as for you, I see your shucking and jiveing has not changed over he years. When you have your back in a corner the bullsnit flows. Its clear you are out of your depth. But at least you are a laugh a minute! Thanks for that.

Over the years I've mellowed, Craig. And, I'm not tasked with enforcing the rules of engagement for this forum. So, my approach to those of your ilk is different here than it was at JFKresearch. I display a lot more patience and tolerance. Moreover, I'm never convinced that I am "right" -- and I remain open to information and correction. However, what you have offered so far doesn't persuade. You are free (apparently the rules don't apply to you) to continue to attempt to ridicule those who disagree with you. You are free to launch personal insults and call into question other member's intelligence. That probably will make your arguments more credible...

[Craig Lamson]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

IMO, your work was not representative of the issue being debated. Your work demonstrated parallax, which is precisely what John said could not account for the anomaly. I think you are talking about apples and oranges. Whereas you come from a vested position that the Zapruder film is authentic, I do not.

[Karl Kinaski]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

Even if you are right about this particular point, Lamson, the Zappi film remains a fabrication: Reminder

So for what reason you are fighting...?

KK

Even Harry D. Holmes, known as a guy who was trying to frame Oswald during his WC testimony said:

Quote:

Mr. Holmes.(Watching the motorcade from the Terminal Annex Building)

I had a pair of 7 1/2 x 50 binoculars. They were acknowledging the applause of the crowd and kind of waving, but not standing up. This is a short block.

Mr. Belin.

From Main to Elm?

Mr. Holmes.

To Elm is really not more than a good full block, but the motorcade turned north on Houston and went to Elm and turned left on Elm where it started on a downgrade to what we refer to as a triple underpass. As it turned in front of the School Book Depository, I heard what to me sounded like firecrackers, and it was my recollection that there were three of them.

I had my binoculars on this car, on the Presidential car all the time. I realized something was wrong, but I thought they were dodging somebody throwing things at the car like firecrackers or something, but I did see dust fly up like a firecracker had burst up in the air.

Mr. Belin.

Where did you see the dust?

Mr. Holmes.

Off of President Kennedy and I couldn't tell you which one of the cracks of the firecracker resulted in this.

Mr. Belin.

Do you have any recollection of the amount of time that elapsed between each of the three sounds?

Mr. Holmes.

I have tried to set a time, but it just escapes me. Honestly, I couldn't say. They were rather rapid. Say 20 seconds or something like that.

Mr. Belin.

You mean 20 seconds elapsed between all three, or less than 20 seconds?

Mr. Holmes.

Possibly 20 seconds, or half a minute and then crack and kind of a lapse and then another crack. I wouldn't want to swear to that. I have tried to recall it.

Mr. Belin.

Was there more time between the first and the second one, or between the second and third?

Mr. Holmes.

I couldn't tell you that.

Mr. Belin.

What did you see after that?

Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Kennedy leaned over against his wife, Mrs. Kennedy, as this thing, firecracker, looked like, come out. The car almost came to a stop,

Close quote

Edited July 16, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Craig Lamson]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

IMO, your work was not representative of the issue being debated. Your work demonstrated parallax, which is precisely what John said could not account for the anomaly. I think you are talking about apples and oranges. Whereas you come from a vested position that the Zapruder film is authentic, I do not.

Oh sheesh, thats exactly what I'm talking about. This is over your head.

Costella says it can't be parallax, its impossible. I've proven it IS possible and in fact is EXPECTED. You or Costella can try and refute my work anytime. I've given you the process so you can test it yourself. And I have so much more of that to come...really sweet stuff

Costella says it is lack of pincushion in the extant film but as I've once again shown that cannot be what is happening because the objects in question are positioned in the lens image circle in such a manner that they will not be materially effected by pincushion. Again you can prove my work wrong.

So dr john has it wrong about parallax, and he has it wrong about pincushion. And he's going to have it even more wrong when it comes to rotational parallax because it can be shown that when you REMOVE the rotational parallax by rotating the camera on the lens entrance pupil axis, the post flopping is eliminated. It's just the final nail in the coffin of what he has called the best proof of alteration ever. Now it's just going to be the best costella blunder ever. Monumental! Forget rain sensors, Costella will forever be remembered as the phd in physics who could not understand simple photographic parallax. How sweet it is.

So listen monk. I have posted the work. Stick your handwaving bullnit back in the drawer. It's meaningless and only makes you look afraid. Refute the work, or accept it..or not.

But your words no longer carry any weight. You are gonna need to bring real work to the game if you want to play...

Edited July 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

Even if you are right about this particular point, Lamson, the Zappi film remains a fabrication: Reminder

So for what reason you are fighting for?

KK

Sigh...leave it KK. So much escapes you.

[Karl Kinaski]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

Even if you are right about this particular point, Lamson, the Zappi film remains a fabrication: Reminder

So for what reason you are fighting for?

KK

Sigh...leave it KK. So much escapes you.

Give it up Lamson...I really don't know, what you are doing here...wasting your time and the time of others...is there no other playground for guys like you? BTW: what about the missing phenomenon of parallax?

KK

[Craig Lamson]

Give it up Lamson...I really don't know, what you are doing here...wasting your time and the time of others...is there no other playground for guys like you? BTW: what about the missing phenomenon of parallax?

KK

I've been quite frank and quite clear about why I am here. Does it need repeating again?

Your series of frames are panning blurred enough that making measurements or even a good visual inspection an impossiblity. The best anyone can do is speculate a conclusion and I don't do that.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson