The Education Forum

# DR Costella's leaning lamppost

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

My evaluation of this theory is negative. At the same time I find Dr Costella's Pincushion theory about the Stemmons sign to be one of the most compelling bits of evidence to date. I have looked deeply into the subject and after two years I still can't find a valid reason to explain it. So I am not attempting to impugn his integrity as a researcher, but the lamppost anomaly may not be evidence of alterations.
The image below shows that the angle of the lamppost changes relative to the wall as you pan across. So for the Barnes photo and the the Z film to match you would have to duplicate the direction the camera is pointing to. In the Barnes photo the camera is pointing about one or two feet to the right of the Stemmons sign. In the Z film you don't even see the lamppost till frame 261 when the camera is pointing around 18 degrees to the right. So a comparison is impossible.
I have not measured this yet but I think the change is due to the the angle of the wall changing as you pan. As the cameras lens pans it's angle to the wall changes. The wall is at an angle to the camera to begin with and it adds to the vanishing point by a keystone effect. The wall appears to angle down more and more toward the center of the photo as the camera angle increases. That widens the angle of the lamppost to the wall, so in the series of photos were I aligned it by the angle of the wall the lamppost leans more and more to the left.(Often we mistake vanishing point as something that causes things to appear higher in the frame as they recede into the distance. It actually moves everything toward the center of the photo.)
One other problem with comparing the Barnes photo against anything is the extreme amount of distortion in it.   In the Barnes photo below the buildings lean outward more and more as they appear farther and farther from the center of the photo. The center of the photo generally shows were the optical center of the lens is. (At the optical center the distortion is about zero because the front and rear surfaces of the lens are parallel.) The buildings lean outward from that center. This is equally true for the horizontal axis. The same distortion occurs as you move up or down from the optical center. It is harder to find because there are not a lot of horizontal lines to track.
I have to conclude that the changing angle of the lamppost is normal and expected. Actually I don't like to reach full conclusions because in these complicated issues it is easy to miss something. how many times has some theory seemed valid then after a while new information or evaluation can turn things around. So I am pretty confident in this analysis but am still open to being proved wrong.

Edited by Chris Bristow

##### Share on other sites

Ya gonna have to make a better argument than this.

Who is Barnes, why *his* footage, and where can his footage be found, the camera and lens Barnes imagery used, the media recorded on?

In you example are you using footage where pin cushion distortion has been removed? Thanks ahead of time for your input.

Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation:

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Ya gonna have to make a better argument than this.

Who is Barnes, why *his* footage, and where can his footage be found, the camera and lens Barnes imagery used, the media recorded on?

In you example are you using footage where pin cushion distortion has been removed? Thanks ahead of time for your input.

Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation:

David, there are some facts that I neglected to state, sorry for that. On Dr Costella's website his comparison photo is the 'Barnes' photo taken very near Zapruders location. I think he was an FBI photographer or employed by a local newspaper. Dr Costella compares it to an image of his panorama and the lamppost looks to be from frame 361 of the Z film.
The footage I used is from Youtube and I didn't check if it was pincushion corrected. Pincushion would cause the pole to swing from left to right as it moves across the screen and would cause the angle between wall and lamppost to decrease not increase So I discounted the need to account for pincushion related to the lamppost.
I checked the wall in the Ytube image and it has a very small amount of pincushion curvature and imo would not come close to accounting for the change in angles. Objects on the horizontal center line of a photo are displaced horizontally and the top of a wall on the horizontal middle line is displaced horizontally and so there is little to no angular change of the top of the wall in that case. The closer to that center line the less angular deviation. The  Ytube video has the top of the wall much closer to that center than to the top. In the Z film the wall is almost at the top of the frame and exhibits much more curvature because of that(And an old style camera). But even the zfilm distortion would not account for the large change of angle seen in the Ytube video.
I don't have the info on the camera Barnes used but I wanted just to point out that every copy of that image I have seen is very distorted.
It is strange just how much change there is in the Ytube video. I will have to reproduce the situation in miniature and see if I can duplicate the change of angle. ( I usually do that before posting, oh well)If I can't reproduce it I will consider that I made a mistake, and the change in vanishing point perspective I theorized would cause the change of angle is not enough to even measure. Thanks for the input.

Edited by Chris Bristow

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Ya gonna have to make a better argument than this.

Who is Barnes, why *his* footage, and where can his footage be found, the camera and lens Barnes imagery used, the media recorded on?

In you example are you using footage where pin cushion distortion has been removed? Thanks ahead of time for your input.

Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation:

Mr. Healey is right.

Why argue over whether a lamppost is leaning or not when there are far better examples of photo editing in the Zapruder film than a leaning lamppost.  Here is just one example of many found in the Zapruder film.

I don't know what is going on with the Johnson security vehicle in Altgens 6 and here in Zapruder.

Maybe Chris can straighten this out with examining the camera, camera angles, and perspective and calculated nicely with the appropriate math.  I've often called this the Johnny Cash car from his song building an auto which was "put together one piece at a time".

A car with two rear ends, one in the front and one in the back, probably beats out Johnny's car in strangeness.   The front windshield of this vehicle makes absolutely no sense.  I will be interested in what the LNs say about it.

Here's another from the same general area of the Zapruder film.  This is an enlarged crop from Z frame 157.  It appears that Kennedy is laying his head on the side of the vehicle and his arm is flopping around outside the vehicle.  Shot and dead?  This is truly strange imagery but, I am willing to bet that my detractors will have some loopy explanation for this.

Edited by John Butler

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"A car with two rear ends, one in the front and one in the back, probably beats out Johnny's car in strangeness.   The front windshield of this vehicle makes absolutely no sense.  I will be interested in what the LNs say about it. '

Not being a LN, maybe I could suggest why the car has two "rear ends"😀.

The Windshield white triangle shown on the windscreen is obviously a  reflection of light. (the black is the reflection of a building on the screen, )

As far as JFK's arm flopping about the vehicle is concerned, then his"arm" is just more reflections on the side of the limo.He is not laying his head win the side of the vehicle.

Trouble is people who are wedded to alterations, see things which don't exist.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

##### Share on other sites

It looks like old Ray Mitchell needs to go to the dictionary to learn a new word.

Specious mean superficially plausible but, totally wrong.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, John Butler said:

It looks like old Ray Mitchell needs to go to the dictionary to learn a new word.

Specious mean superficially plausible but, totally wrong.

Looks like old John Butler needs to go to see an optometrist, as my name on the forum is Ray Mitcham. As for my arguments being specious, maybe you should try to refute them. (Don't bother. you can't.)

Still not tried the two pole shadow experiment yet, John?

Edited by Ray Mitcham

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/26/2019 at 12:21 PM, John Butler said:

It appears that Kennedy is laying his head on the side of the vehicle and his arm is flopping around outside the vehicle.

Re Zapruder frame 157, enlarge  the white square, and you will see JFK still upright.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ray Mitchum,

You say your not a LN or even a secret one.  I don't know whether I can trust that since the facts don't seem that important to you as long as you have an argument.  For instance your explanation of the "Johnny Cash" car (Johnson Security Vehicle) is about as dumb as your two pole loopiness.

"Not being a LN, maybe I could suggest why the car has two "rear ends"😀.

The Windshield white triangle shown on the windscreen is obviously a  reflection of light. (the black is the reflection of a building on the screen"  Why should I refute this nonsense.  Take another look at the vehicle.

I took a look at your Z 157 example.  That is John Connally you have captured in you white rectangle.  The person you are referring to is turned around backwards and I don't recall any instances of President Kennedy doing that.  Do you know that there is probably more than a half dozen content problems with that frame.

Couldn't you use a bigger view of that particular frame.  Or, are you keeping it small just so it is difficult to assess?

OBTW, one of your confreres, after criticism, went on a rant and said he didn't have an "effin Master".  Do you, Ray?  Do you have an "effin Master" that makes you write these ludicrous comments?  Just curious?

Or, have you departed the land of reason and rationality for the land of disinformation and despite?

Edited by John Butler

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why should I refute the things that you say since they are obvious disinformation nonsense.

I'm thinking about starting a new topic "A Review of the Strange Imagery Found in Dealey Plaza".  There will be a ton of this kind of false, edited images.  You can have a field day thinking up goofy stuff.

Edited by John Butler

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is there any single eyewitness that says JFK flopped over at that point with his bare arm hanging out of the car, while Emory Roberts stepped on Roy Kellerman's face in an apparent attempt to scalp the dying president?  If so, then John Connally is an unsung hero for not letting this happen, even as Greer turned and fired two bullets into Connally, aiming along the sun-kissed, brilliantined part in Kellerman's hair.  No wonder they shot Bill Cooper, because he was getting real close to this.

Edited by David Andrews

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Butler said:

OBTW, one of your confreres, after criticism, went on a rant and said he didn't have an "effin Master".  Do you, Ray?  Do you have an "effin Master" that makes you write these ludicrous comments?  Just curious?

Or, have you departed the land of reason and rationality for the land of disinformation and despite?

A disinformation rant just for you:

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray Mitchum,

Once again, Butler seems incapable of reading let alone understanding a photograph. My name is Ray Mitcham.

Perhaps you are deliberately misspelling my name as an insult, but if so it is just shows how you stupid you are.

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

The Windshield white triangle shown on the windscreen is obviously a  reflection of light. (the black is the reflection of a building on the screen"  Why should I refute this nonsense.  Take another look at the vehicle.

No you have another look at this and previous frames, and you will see the white triangle grow, showing it is a reflection of light as the vehicle moves.

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

I took a look at your Z 157 example.  That is John Connally you have captured in you white rectangle.  The person you are referring to is turned around backwards and I don't recall any instances of President Kennedy doing that.  Do you know that there is probably more than a half dozen content probl﻿ems with that frame.

You have proven your argument that "it is Connally," to be wrong, with your next post, where you arrow Connolly further forward in the limo.😂

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

Couldn't you use a bigger view of that particular frame.  Or, are you keeping it small just so it is difficult to assess?

Try seeing if you can see this.

or this.

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

OBTW, one of your confreres, after criticism, went on a rant and said he didn't have an "effin Master".  Do you, Ray?  Do you have an "effin Master" that makes you write these ludicrous comments?  Just curious?

I don't have any "confreres", I have fellow posters who appear to agree that you are barmy. (See Chris Davidson's post immediately above.) Neither do I have an "effin master". Do you have an "effin brain"?

18 hours ago, John Butler said:

Or, have you departed the land of reason and rationality for the land of disinformation and despite?

If I have, I expect,  you will be there to welcome me with open arms.

p.s. If my two pole experiment is "loopiness", please be my guest and prove me wrong. I know you won't, because you know it's correct.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Butler said:

I'm thinking about starting a new topic "A Review of the Strange Imagery Found in Dealey Plaza".  There will be a ton of this kind of false, edited images.  You can have a field day thinking up goofy stuff.

You already supply more than enough goofy stuff.