Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Greg Burnham

Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

Recommended Posts

Over the past few weeks I was in Australia visiting my daughter and granddaughter in Brisbane. Then I flew to Melbourne for about 5 days and visited with John Costella for part of that time. I'll leave the details out, but I seemed to recall that Craig has yet to offer any explanation for why the Stemmons Sign lacks pincushion distortion as seen in the Zapruder Film--when it MUST--if it is authentic? "Parallax" can't account for the obvious rotation (change in angle) of the sign post nor that of the edge of the right side of the sign--particularly when no such effect is present along the top edge of the sign.

It took me a few weeks to answer your question, Craig (about parallel shadows on the moon). How many years has it been since these questions about the Stemmons Sign were first posed to you?

To refresh your memory...here's a short YouTube that addresses the issue. The part that is most relevant to this topic starts at approximately the 6 minute point.

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

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past few weeks I was in Australia visiting my daughter and granddaughter in Brisbane. Then I flew to Melbourne for about 5 days and visited with John Costella for part of that time. I'll leave the details out, but I seemed to recall that Craig has yet to offer any explanation for why the Stemmons Sign lacks pincushion distortion as seen in the Zapruder Film--when it MUST--if it is authentic? "Parallax" can't account for the obvious rotation (change in angle) of the sign post nor that of the edge of the right side of the sign--particularly when no such effect is present along the top edge of the sign.

It took me a few weeks to answer your question, Craig (about parallel shadows on the moon). How many years has it been since these questions about the Stemmons Sign were first posed to you?

To refresh your memory...here's a short YouTube that addresses the issue. The part that is most relevant to this topic starts at approximately the 6 minute point.

Stemmons Sign Tom Foolery

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Maybe you can bail out costella. He can't bail himself out....

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last comment in the link that Lampson provided above says:

"By the way, you don’t have to take my word on this, like Costella, Fetzer and company, who simply hand wave, and expect you to believe their claims. I urge you to do your own tests and reach your own conclusions. That’s the wonder of empirical testing, it can be repeated."

ROFLMFAO

If you're so dedicated to "empiricism" then why don't you go to Dealey Plaza and do it with a Bell & Howell camera? Ok, you're right, there's no Stemmon's sign there anymore. So, why not do it with any sign of your choosing as long as you use a Bell & Howell Director's Model like Zappy's and at the very least attempt to replicate the conditions?

Your exercise is not representative of anything relevant to the subject being debated. Certainly, you did manage to prove "something" -- but what the hell has it got to do with what we are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last comment in the link that Lampson provided above says:

"By the way, you don’t have to take my word on this, like Costella, Fetzer and company, who simply hand wave, and expect you to believe their claims. I urge you to do your own tests and reach your own conclusions. That’s the wonder of empirical testing, it can be repeated."

ROFLMFAO

If you're so dedicated to "empiricism" then why don't you go to Dealey Plaza and do it with a Bell & Howell camera? Ok, you're right, there's no Stemmon's sign there anymore. So, why not do it with any sign of your choosing as long as you use a Bell & Howell Director's Model like Zappy's and at the very least attempt to replicate the conditions?

Your exercise is not representative of anything relevant to the subject being debated. Certainly, you did manage to prove "something" -- but what the hell has it got to do with what we are talking about?

If you are too ignorant too understand, that not my problem, its yours.

Chalk up one more clueless ct....

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are too ignorant too understand, that not my problem, its yours.

I think most everyone is starting to understand you Craig. And the word begins with a "t".

I think I understand YOU too DiEugenio. And the word bgins with K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that about me because of who you are.

My point is that everyone is beginning to see the light about you.

Over and out.

Oh please. I've been around for years and there is just a BEGINNING? Man you suck as a historian.

Heres a little nugget you are sure not to understand. The facts are the facts regardless of the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lampoonson is here to annoy. Ignore him. I am not questioning his motivation.

It is just an observation; all of his postings are merely annoying.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lampoonson is here to annoy. Ignore him. I am not questioning his motivation.

It is just an observation; all of his postings are merely annoying.

Jack

I'm sure my posts are annoying to you Jack, I've destroyed more of your stupid claims than you care to count.

Showing the depths of your photographic ignorance has been quite enjoyable.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently wondered why Zapruder or his secretary (whomever held the camera) didn't jump or otherwise react to the rifle shots going off. Self preservation has to be the ordinary instinct in that circumstance.

A normal reaction ought to be for him to jump to high heaven as soon as a set of high powered rifles were shot off. Granted a Manlicher Carcano isn't a "high powered rifle" but I'm sure most here would agree that some set of powerful weapons were employed to kill the President. Very loud reports as anyone who has gone hunting with rifles knows.

Unless the person filming the death scene was expecting a volley of shots to be fired AND knew in advance that these projectiles weren't coming his way.

I'm told somewhere that Zapruder or his wife was associated with George De Mohrenshildt (aka "Baron) through various Russian connections in Dallas. So since "The Baron" was CIA we might possibly conclude that Zapruder was also CIA. or at the very least helping them. That was the job he did anyway. Sure seems that he capitulated to CIA 100%.

Zapruder never disputed the doctored film from what he saw. From what I've seen/heard anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently wondered why Zapruder or his secretary (whomever held the camera) didn't jump or otherwise react to the rifle shots going off. Self preservation has to be the ordinary instinct in that circumstance.

A normal reaction ought to be for him to jump to high heaven as soon as a set of high powered rifles were shot off. Granted a Manlicher Carcano isn't a "high powered rifle" but I'm sure most here would agree that some set of powerful weapons were employed to kill the President. Very loud reports as anyone who has gone hunting with rifles knows.

Unless the person filming the death scene was expecting a volley of shots to be fired AND knew in advance that these projectiles weren't coming his way.

I'm told somewhere that Zapruder or his wife was associated with George De Mohrenshildt (aka "Baron) through various Russian connections in Dallas. So since "The Baron" was CIA we might possibly conclude that Zapruder was also CIA. or at the very least helping them. That was the job he did anyway. Sure seems that he capitulated to CIA 100%.

Zapruder never disputed the doctored film from what he saw. From what I've seen/heard anyway.

Lee,

There are endless anomalies (to put it mildly) associated with the "so-called" Zapruder film. I call it the "Happy Zappy (should be rated X (for violence)-- Cartoon" (because it's a FAKE). There is no question remaining as to its utter lack of authenticity. IT IS A CARTOON--at best...a violent depiction of an American coup animated to protect the guilty, obfuscate the facts, and forever undermine the Executive Branch of the US government.

NOT ON MY WATCH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I get the picture DiEugenio, you just don't get the picture.

Of course the topic of htis thread is Costella's false claim about the sign.

Do oyu have the mental capacity to understand the claim and the proofs that destroy it?

Can you refute the FACTS contained here?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm.

Its a great little sampler of the quality of CT work.

Edited by Craig Lamson

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

×