Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[Craig Lamson]

Who gives a rats azz about JFK? Not me.

BTW since its the topic of the thread, have you figured out WHY I've blown Costella's so called "best proof" of alteration clean out of the water? Or is it still way over your head?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Greg, that accent is too good to be wasted on Lamson.

Thanks Jim.

I know we have had our differences in the past--Farewell America--but we also share a passion for the truth. For this quality alone--I'm glad to know you.

You claim to have a "passion" for the truth, yet here you are pimping the Costella falsehoods. You don't even understand how wrong he is.

It seems that your "passion" is more about protecting your worldview.

Can you refute my studies?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Can you hear: STFU? I knew you could!

[Craig Lamson]

Can you hear: STFU? I knew you could!

Your thread, your question, your ignorance...

So can you refute the work or are you just hot air?

[Greg Burnham]

Can you hear: STFU? I knew you could!

Your thread, your question, your ignorance...

So can you refute the work or are you just hot air?

Yes, it is my thread, my game, my question, and no legitimate answer has come from you. However, you are not required to answer my question. You are also not required to embarrass yourself any further. The links you provided are rife with irrelevance.

I admitted my error regarding shadows on the moon. To err is human--to admit it shows integrity. To deny it, even in the face of irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty, demonstrates cognitive challenge beyond your scope, dis-honesty, or vanity.

[John Dolva]

Greg, that accent is too good to be wasted on Lamson.

Thanks Jim.

I know we have had our differences in the past--Farewell America--but we also share a passion for the truth. For this quality alone--I'm glad to know you.

You claim to have a "passion" for the truth, yet here you are pimping the Costella falsehoods. You don't even understand how wrong he is.

It seems that your "passion" is more about protecting your worldview.

Can you refute my studies?

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, that accent is too good to be wasted on Lamson.

Thanks Jim.

I know we have had our differences in the past--Farewell America--but we also share a passion for the truth. For this quality alone--I'm glad to know you.

You claim to have a "passion" for the truth, yet here you are pimping the Costella falsehoods. You don't even understand how wrong he is.

It seems that your "passion" is more about protecting your worldview.

Can you refute my studies?

So Dolva adds a [ b ] and a [ /b ] to emphasize words in another's message and passes THAT off as a "post" ???

[John Dolva]

You are a clever chappie Greg,.

Did you figure that out all by your self?

[Craig Lamson]

Can you hear: STFU? I knew you could!

Your thread, your question, your ignorance...

So can you refute the work or are you just hot air?

Yes, it is my thread, my game, my question, and no legitimate answer has come from you. However, you are not required to answer my question. You are also not required to embarrass yourself any further. The links you provided are rife with irrelevance.

Really? Just for some education here "monk". the studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Costella's claim is bogus, proven via some very sweet empricial evidence. So far NO ONE can refute it.

Your ignonorace in the matter has been duly noted.

However if you can bring some skin to the game and prove WHY you think the work is "rife with irrelevance" then please feel free to do so. As it stands your reply simply reeks of ignorant handwaving. Quite an embarassment for you I might add.

I admitted my error regarding shadows on the moon. To err is human--to admit it shows integrity. To deny it, even in the face of irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty, demonstrates cognitive challenge beyond your scope, dis-honesty, or vanity.

Then PLEASE show us the "irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty. So far the ONLY thing that is certain is that Costella blew it.

[Dean Hagerman]

JFK Interview ostensibly addresses "Lone Nuts" and the "son" of one, Craig Lamb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txIismezLAo&feature=player_embedded

That voice is perfect!

[Greg Burnham]

Can you hear: STFU? I knew you could!

Your thread, your question, your ignorance...

So can you refute the work or are you just hot air?

Yes, it is my thread, my game, my question, and no legitimate answer has come from you. However, you are not required to answer my question. You are also not required to embarrass yourself any further. The links you provided are rife with irrelevance.

Really? Just for some education here "monk". the studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Costella's claim is bogus, proven via some very sweet empricial evidence. So far NO ONE can refute it.

Your ignonorace in the matter has been duly noted.

However if you can bring some skin to the game and prove WHY you think the work is "rife with irrelevance" then please feel free to do so. As it stands your reply simply reeks of ignorant handwaving. Quite an embarassment for you I might add.

I admitted my error regarding shadows on the moon. To err is human--to admit it shows integrity. To deny it, even in the face of irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty, demonstrates cognitive challenge beyond your scope, dis-honesty, or vanity.

Then PLEASE show us the "irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty. So far the ONLY thing that is certain is that Costella blew it.

Craig,

Why is this anomaly absent from every other feature of these frames? Why is there no such "rotation" anywhere else besides that which exists on the right post and side of the Stemmon's Sign? This is significant, Craig. It is not as easily dismissed as you would have us believe. What you posted in your link is not relevant. We are dealing with a "closed system" here--a system for which an outside analogy need not be inappropriately employed. It is not valid to use a "real world" example to attempt to prove that an "artificial world" was not created. In such an attempt the experimenter will invariably delude themselves due to ascertainment bias. The "sample" from which they derive their conclusion is not representative of the subject being studied--and therefore, it is inadequate to the task.

Can we refrain from vitriolic exchanges and opt for cordial discussion? I will agree to do that. Will you?

[Craig Lamson]

[

Craig,

Why is this anomaly absent from every other feature of these frames?

Are there OTHER leaning signs in the Zapruder film?

Why is there no such "rotation" anywhere else besides that which exists on the right post and side of the Stemmon's Sign? This is significant, Craig.

It's not "rotation" You really don't have a clue about this do you?

It is not as easily dismissed as you would have us believe. What you posted in your link is not relevant.

It is PERFECTLY relevant. Costella claims the movement of the leaning sign is against the laws of physics ( see my pages for his quotes) He says that photographic parallax renders it impossible. Not true as proven by a very simple photographic experiment...the relevance of my study....

We are dealing with a "closed system" here--a system for which an outside analogy need not be inappropriately employed.

Simply more handwaving ingnorance on your part.

It is not valid to use a "real world" example to attempt to prove that an "artificial world" was not created. In such an attempt the experimenter will invariably delude themselves due to ascertainment bias. The "sample" from which they derive their conclusion is not representative of the subject being studied--and therefore, it is inadequate to the task.

Again, more handwaving bullsnit on your part. This is simply beyond your ability to understand.

Let me make it REAL simple for you, it seems to be required.

Costella uses the photographic principle of parallax to make his claim about ths sign. The corretness of his application of the principle is being questioned.

FOLLOWING COSTELLA'S own constraints, a test was done to test his application of the principle of photographic parallax. That simple test (which I highly suggest doubters do for themself) shows Costella did not correct apply the principle of photographic parallax in his work.

For the learning impaired. He screwed up. His claim is invalid.

Now, your handwaving aside. If you can disprove my application of photographic parallax was incorrect, please do so. Otherwise you are just more white noise.

Can we refrain from vitriolic exchanges and opt for cordial discussion? I will agree to do that. Will you?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Are there OTHER leaning signs in the Zapruder film?

The pincushion distortion issue is unrelated to the "leaning" of the sign, even if it was, in fact, leaning.

[Craig Lamson]

Are there OTHER leaning signs in the Zapruder film?

The pincushion distortion issue is unrelated to the "leaning" of the sign, even if it was, in fact, leaning.

Really this just blows right over your head....

Costella claims that only an incorrect application of pincushion distortion can account for the movement of the pole. In other words it's his handwave speculation for the artifact seen in the Z film. To PROVE his point that it can only be pincushion distortion he uses THE PRINCIPLE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC PARALLAX. He says parallax renders such movement impossible.

The problem is he screwed up how parallax works. Which is truely funny since he goes to great lengths to assert his authority as a phd in Physics. Must be pretty painful for ol John.

That he is wrong is proven in my work.

That kills his claim.

As for the sign, surely you jest.....

[Greg Burnham]

[

Craig,

Why is this anomaly absent from every other feature of these frames?

Are there OTHER leaning signs in the Zapruder film?

Why is there no such "rotation" anywhere else besides that which exists on the right post and side of the Stemmon's Sign? This is significant, Craig.

It's not "rotation" You really don't have a clue about this do you?

It is not as easily dismissed as you would have us believe. What you posted in your link is not relevant.

It is PERFECTLY relevant. Costella claims the movement of the leaning sign is against the laws of physics ( see my pages for his quotes) He says that photographic parallax renders it impossible. Not true as proven by a very simple photographic experiment...the relevance of my study....

We are dealing with a "closed system" here--a system for which an outside analogy need not be inappropriately employed.

Simply more handwaving ingnorance on your part.

It is not valid to use a "real world" example to attempt to prove that an "artificial world" was not created. In such an attempt the experimenter will invariably delude themselves due to ascertainment bias. The "sample" from which they derive their conclusion is not representative of the subject being studied--and therefore, it is inadequate to the task.

Again, more handwaving bullsnit on your part. This is simply beyond your ability to understand.

Let me make it REAL simple for you, it seems to be required.

Costella uses the photographic principle of parallax to make his claim about ths sign. The corretness of his application of the principle is being questioned.

FOLLOWING COSTELLA'S own constraints, a test was done to test his application of the principle of photographic parallax. That simple test (which I highly suggest doubters do for themself) shows Costella did not correct apply the principle of photographic parallax in his work.

For the learning impaired. He screwed up. His claim is invalid.

Now, your handwaving aside. If you can disprove my application of photographic parallax was incorrect, please do so. Otherwise you are just more white noise.

Can we refrain from vitriolic exchanges and opt for cordial discussion? I will agree to do that. Will you?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- The Queen in Hamlet