Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[Craig Lamson]

COSTELLA: "I'll swear to that on a witness stand -- that those three frames did not come through Zapruder's camera, in that order, one after the other. It's impossible!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmQDhWOQSg&feature=related

Swearing is what you guys are doing now, given the beating jophnboy is taking. Has he figured out how PARALLAX works yet. Maybe he can swear abou this monumental failure too! roflmao!

Woof Woof!

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!

What science would that be davie? Heck you and yours still can't figure out how parallax works? Now thats science biting you on the azz davie.

Traction? You guys and your physics professor who can't even figure out parallax? You got no traction.

All you have is wannabe woof woofs posting stuff they don't have a clue about and could not check for accuracy if thier life depended upon it.

Costella has been stuffed for years, which is why he has run away. His embarassment must be massive.

But hey he has monk to post stiuff he knows nothing about.

That's pretty much the depth on your side of the argument.

[Greg Burnham]

you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!

What science would that be davie? Heck you and yours still can't figure out how parallax works? Now thats science biting you on the azz davie.

Traction? You guys and your physics professor who can't even figure out parallax? You got no traction.

All you have is wannabe woof woofs posting stuff they don't have a clue about and could not check for accuracy if thier life depended upon it.

My life has depended upon accuracy, Craig, many times and in many ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqq_YZHqE-Q&feature=related

Edited July 18, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

self delete

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

My life has depended upon accuracy, Craig, many times and in many ways.

Good for you. Now why don't you answer the question.....

How have you checked the accuracy of costella's claims

[Greg Burnham]

My life has depended upon accuracy, Craig, many times and in many ways.

Good for you. Now why don't you answer the question.....How have you checked the accuracy of costella's claims

Yes. I am satisfied as to the accuracy of the majority of his claims. I am not qualified to render a judgment as to the science of some of it. However, I am convinced that he is completely qualified and he is the "genuine" article.

[Craig Lamson]

Yes. I am satisfied as to the accuracy of the majority of his claims. I am not qualified to render a judgment as to the science of some of it. However, I am convinced that he is completely qualified and he is the "genuine" article.

So you simply don't have a clue. Fair enough.

If he is a "genuine article" How did he so badly screw up something as simple as photogrpahic parallax? For gods sake the guy is SUPPOSED to be a phd in physics.

Clearly if he can't deal correctly with something as elemental as parallax, what else has he screwed up? Oh yea, how a SHADOW works for example. You might know something about that. Its quite claer he has spent very little time in observation of he world around him or viewing it through a lens. Not a glowing endorsement considering his utter failure ... see:

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

www.craiglamson.com/coatella.htm

www.craiglamsom.com/costella2.htm

Then that brings us back to the monkster. You claim the above work is not revelant, you you have just admitted you don't have the first clue abbut any of this. In other words you false objections were nothing more that BS tossed out in a poor attempt to prop up someone's work you don't even know is correct.

You just believe. How quaint. Sad...but quaint. Yet one more example of a cluelessss ct clinging to ANYTHING to maintain their worldview.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

So you simply don't have a clue. Fair enough.

I didn't say that "I don't have a clue" -- However, I'm not a know-it-all, either.

If he is a "genuine article" How did he so badly screw up something as simple as photogrpahic parallax? For gods sake the guy is SUPPOSED to be a phd in physics.

He is a PhD in physics. I don't believe you have shown him to be in error. We disgree on that. Fine.

Clearly if he can't deal correctly with something as elemental as parallax, what else has he screwed up? Oh yea, how a SHADOW works for example. You might know something about that. Its quite claer he has spent very little time in observation of he world around him or viewing it through a lens. Not a glowing endorsement considering his utter failure ... see:

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

www.craiglamson.com/coatella.htm

www.craiglamsom.com/costella2.htm

Why all the venom, Craig?

Then that brings us back to the monkster. You claim the above work is not revelent, you you have just admitted you don;t havehte first cluew aoubt any of this. In other words you false objections were nothing more that BS tossed out in a poor attempt to prop up someone's work you don;t even know is correct.

IMO, your work does not address John's study adequately, and is therefore, irrelevant. That is my opinion. Although I am not an "expert" I'm not stupid and I have an opinion. I did not "admit" anything. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You just believe. How quaint. Sad...but quaint.

I'm a man of little faith, Craig. I never "just believe" -- NEVER.

Yet one more example of a cluelessss ct clinging to ANYTHING to maintain their worldview.

I haven't needed to resort to personal attacks or calling you a "clueless LN" to make my point. Why must you resort to personal attacks--calling me a clueless CT--to make your's if your point is, in fact, so strong?

[Craig Lamson]

you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!

Hey davie, you claim expertise in the art of film compositing ( yet unproven but lets skip that bit for now).

Your pal john boy says this about the sprocket hole."

"Scientists believe that the forgers created the images by first exposing a photographic film with the frame image (in this example, the limo and Secret Service agent, etc.) as well as the right parts of the next frame and the previous frame that would bleed over in the area between the sprocket holes (the bright smudge of light you can see that goes up to the armpit of the Secret Service agent). Then they created the sprocket-hole shapes by doing an extra white exposure, with just these hole shapes.

This seemed to give nice white sprocket hole shapes, but the forgers didn’t notice that where there was only the “hole” exposure plus the exposure of the dark blue limousine, the result was only pale blue, not white."

The question for davie the film compositing "expert: is this:

Why was the so called "sproket hole" exposure underexposed and by how much? And it it was underexposed ( it had to be, since jonhboy claims there is part of of the image left that has not been wiped out by the white exposure). in addition it burned through base film with zero exposure and there is none of that left either which is also impossible with a matte less burn? ( why use a matte if all you are doing it to do is go zero density?)

The numbers just don't add up davie? Heck, john boy sure has no clue. Hes never exposed any film like this. He is just waving his hands wildly, hoping no one will notice his ignorancee in the matter.

Why don't you clean this all up for us davie. After all you are the supposed expert in all of this...

[Craig Lamson]

So you simply don't have a clue. Fair enough.

I didn't say that "I don't have a clue" -- However, I'm not a know-it-all, either.

Sure you did!

If he is a "genuine article" How did he so badly screw up something as simple as photogrpahic parallax? For gods sake the guy is SUPPOSED to be a phd in physics.

He is a PhD in physics. I don't believe you have shown him to be in error. We disgree on that. Fine.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?????

Clearly if he can't deal correctly with something as elemental as parallax, what else has he screwed up? Oh yea, how a SHADOW works for example. You might know something about that. It's quite clear he has spent very little time in observation of the world around him or viewing it through a lens. Not a glowing endorsement considering his utter failure ... see:

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

www.craiglamson.com/coatella.htm

www.craiglamsom.com/costella2.htm

Why all the venom, Craig?

Thats not venom at all monk, thats a statement of fact.

You can't refute the fact that he totally screwed up both how a simple shadow works and how photographic parallax works. Neither can Costella. Again fact not opinion.

Then that brings us back to the monkster. You claim the above work is not revelant, you you have just admitted you don't have the first clue aboutt any of this. In other words you false objections were nothing more that BS tossed out in a poor attempt to prop up someone's work you don't even know is correct.

IMO, your work does not address John's study adequately, and is therefore, irrelevant. That is my opinion. Although I am not an "expert" I'm not stupid and I have an opinion. I did not "admit" anything. Stop putting words in my mouth.

If you don't have the knowlege to understand what is going on HOW in the world can you say it is irrelevant? Your logic is pretty fuzzy. If you DO have a clue about this, then tell us EXACTLY why the work is irrelevant? Box, meet monk. BTW, opinons don't count. This is black and white stuff. It is or it's not.

You just believe. How quaint. Sad...but quaint.

I'm a man of little faith, Craig. I never "just believe" -- NEVER

Of course you do, you have just proven it. You pimp the work of costella but you don't understand it. You claim my work is irrelevant you you can't express why in an understandable manner. Yet you continue to pimp costella's take. Thats just a BELIEVE monk, pure and simple. You can't back it up any other way.

Yet one more example of a clueless ct clinging to ANYTHING to maintain their worldview.

I haven't needed to resort to personal attacks or calling you a "clueless LN" to make my point. Why must you resort to personal attacks--calling me a clueless CT--to make your's if your point is, in fact, so strong?

Of course you have monk, Do I need to bring on the quotes? Lets just look to the start of this thread....

The fact of the matter is that you are clueless. Heck you just told us so...

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

I just purchased a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera...the same one allegedly used by Zappy. I will conduct my own tests using that camera. My tests will not be conducted immediately for several reasons. However, I will report the results here if and when they are completed.

[David Josephs]

On 7/23/2010 at 10:06 PM, Greg Burnham said:

I just purchased a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera...the same one allegedly used by Zappy. I will conduct my own tests using that camera. My tests will not be conducted immediately for several reasons. However, I will report the results here if and when they are completed.

Was looking for something else and found this thread...

Curious, Greg.... Since Craig here leaned the exacto knife from the front to the back of the cup... wouldn't that account from the shift from parallel to not as you move off axis?

(you can tell by the angle of the bottom of the knife)

If the knife was taped to the inside of the cup perfectly vertical... would the same things occur as you moved the camera left and right?

Somehow I think whether the "signpost" used in the analogy is vertical or not makes a difference... no?

DJ

Edited March 24, 2017 by David Josephs

[Greg Burnham]

Hi David,

I just saw this post. Sorry for the delayed reply. I don't think that Craig necessarily leaned the exacto knife. Perhaps, but I can't tell. However, if the Stemmons

sign was leaning it would have an effect on appearance due to a change of perspective as the camera pans.

[Craig Lamson]

Hi David,

I just saw this post. Sorry for the delayed reply. I don't think that Craig necessarily leaned the exacto knife. Perhaps, but I can't tell. However, if the Stemmons

sign was leaning it would have an effect on appearance due to a change of perspective as the camera pans.

The knife was leaning...from my article: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Dr. John P. John Costella, an Australian with a PhD. in physics, has produced what he says are solid proofs that the Zapruder film has been altered, In two of his studies he proclaims that images we see in the Zapruder film are impossible therefore the film has been altered. His studies are summarized here:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.htm

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/lamppost.html

In the first study listed Costella tells us this regarding how the signpost moves in the Zapruder film:

"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."

In the lamppost study Costella tells us this about the how the lamppost changes angles between the Zapruder film and the DPD photo:

"But there are two things that don't match up properly.

One is the road sign, which comes out blurry. This is because it was pasted into the film incorrectly, as described on the last page.

The other is the lamppost to the right of the sign. In the panorama above you can see the top half of the lamppost as shown in the Zapruder film. Just to its right is the real lamppost as of November 1963. (Ignore the lamppost further to the left: this is where it had been moved to by 2002.)

It does not matter that the Zapruder film lamppost is slightly to the left of the Dallas Police Department photo. That is explained by the police taking the photo from a slightly different position to Abraham Zapruder. (This is called "parallax".)

What is important is that the angle of the lamppost is wrong. You can see this more clearly in the comparison below:

If you look at the white wall and the bushes in the background, you can see that the two panoramic views line up exactly. But the lamppost changes its angle.

This is even clearer if we draw a line down the middle of the lamppost:

The Zapruder film shows the lamppost leaning slightly to the right. Even though it is only a small lean, it is something that could not happen if the film was genuine.

And finally Costella has this to say in a post on the Education Forum:

'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.

This is where the transformations referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected negligibly by the small movement of the camera location).

I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, probably because he has been blocked from my email for years due to harassment. I am sorry that he has remained confused and confounded on this issue for so long. I hope he can do the homework necessary to enlighten himself. I have wasted many hours on his harebrained requests in years past, and am not inclined to throw away more time on him. If anyone wishes to believe his rantings, then by all means let them. It's a free country.

So if we summarize Costella's statements they are quite clear.

" if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera"

"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."

There is no ambiguity in Costella's statements. And after all he has a PhD in Physics, so he speaks from a position of authority.

But a question remains, is he correct?

When confronted that his statement cannot be true in the real world and asked to provide empirical proof of concept, Costella runs away. That in itself is not unusual for Costella and it's not the first time he has failed to do some simple photographic tests to see if his opinions play out in the real world. But real world empirical testing is part of science. One must question why Costella does his best to stay away from it. I can only surmise it to be fear of admitting failure.

To find out if Costella is correct I decided to do some empirical testing.

The question:

Can the angle of vertical pole change if we move the camera?

First we have to ask, what is a vertical pole? If we answer that it is a pole that is perfectly vertical and truly plumb then Costella is correct, that pole will not change angles as the camera is held perfectly horizontal no matter where you put the camera. So far so good for the Doctor.

But what happens if the pole is not vertical and perfectly plumb? Does his theory still hold?

The answer is a resounding no! Let's consider that leaning pole. In real life a leaning pole an appears exactly vertical when viewed for two points, one where the pole is leaning directly towards you and one when it leans directly away from you. Viewed from any other position the pole will be at varying angles from vertical depending on your viewing position. This is quite easy to test in real life by simply walking around a leaning pole and viewing the changes in angle.

All of this begs the question, were the poles Costella uses in his study of the Zapruder film vertical in all axis or were they leaning? The photographic evidence says they were leaning. But does all of this translate to actual photographs. Again contrary to Costella's claim, yes it does!

Doing the test.:

To illustrate the fact that the angle of a vertical pole can change when the camera is moved I created a simple test. I used a Canon 1DsMKIII camera, a tripod, a Bogen 303Plus Pano head, a 90mm Canon Ts-e lens, an Exacto knife in a cup and window molding as a background.

For this test I placed the cup with the Exacto knife about an equal distance from the camera and the window in the background. The camera was leveled. The Exacto knife was placed in the cup in such a manner that the top of the handle was angled towards the camera and so it appeared vertical in the camera.

The 90mm Ts-e lens ( http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=156&modelid=7329#ModelDetailAct ) was chosen for two reasons, it allow for shifting the lens side to side by 10mm in each direction and it is highly corrected for distortion so no transforming of barrel or pincushion is needed, The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.

[David Josephs]

For this test I placed the cup with the Exacto knife about an equal distance from the camera and the window in the background. The camera was leveled. The Exacto knife was placed in the cup in such a manner that the top of the handle was angled towards the camera and so it appeared vertical in the camera.

Cause putting the REPRESENTATION OF THE SIGN POSTS AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE WAS SUCH A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SIGN POSTS - RIGHT?

With all your ability you could not reproduce the posts as they appear in REAL LIFE?

Instead, knowing that a leaning representation would look even more off vertical as you moved the camera,

You set it up - the exacto knive is placed in a manner to illustrate YOUR point, rather than to reproduce the event. and you move the CAMERA relative to the knife... while in Z the camera does not move relative to the posts.

If NOT VERTICAL, then the LATERAL or VERTICAL movement of the camera should reveal this lean - accepted...

except the CAMERA does not move off axis relative to the sign posts and the images behind them.

When the wall is lined up correctly, which means the Line of sight IS THE SAME, the post should not move...

yet they do http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.html

I do not believe your experiment accurately reproduces what Costella is saying... and once others understand you DID place the knife at such an extreme angle and didNOT move the camera similiar to Z...

Your little experiment is worthless....