David Josephs

"Reasonable" is not in play here Len.... The ad was placed and ran since August 1962. C20-T750 - in the AD - was a scoped 36" rifle, the TS. Orders came into Kleins FROM THESE COUPONS - agreed? Kleins shipped customers SOMETHING for Item # C20-T750 between August and March HIDELL was supposedly shipped a 40" FC rifle - yet there is nothing to prove it was ever delivered - for a Feb 1963 order I've argued that the 100 rilfes marked "38 E" on all 10 packing slips were TS rifles based on the weights shipped and some simple logic (100 6.5lb rifles, 100 1lb packing cartons, 10 master shippers each holding 10 packed rifles = about 750 lbs, the shipment weight Railway charged for.... 100 7.5lbs rifles plus packing would be 100 lbs OVER... simple math.) and NO ONE has come forward knowing what "38 E" stands for or where one - ANY ONE OF 99 OTHER RIFLES wound up.\ Not ONE Len.... Is it really possible to get 100 rifles on 2/22/63 and only sell ONE OF THEM? Is it REASONABLE to believe that the FBI did not print a SINGLE other order as the information on those orders would contradict the story being told about C2766? That's ALL WE KNOW, Len. We also know that the FBI had microfilm with copies of ALL THESE ORDERS... so finding out exactly what was shipped, to whom and when was EASY on 11/23/63. ONE INSTANCE does not constitute a business practice of shipping a larger heavier more expensive item for one ordered without informing customers... without CHANGING THE AD in August 1962 if they had no more of these rifles.... The evidence as it now stands highly suggests that the pencil written C2766 and VC836 where AFTER THE FACT... until we see another VC # shipped from that 100 rifle lot there is NOTHING to corroborate Kleins shipping HIDELL C2766 at any time. DJ I don't trust Armstrong, did anyone else confirm this? Who do you think should have printed this? The WC? I don't think this issue came up till after the report was published. Another reason no to make them public is the privacy of the other customers. And what do you think happened to the rifle from the Hidel order? And a more general question how could a group plotters so incompetent have pulled off such a complex plot?

It was my understanding they simply ran out of the shorter rifles not that they never had them. Ozzie seems to have ordered just around the time they ran out. And I don't think many people would complain about receiving a $20 product instead of a $ 13 one. Well Len... rather than going with your understanding... how about just going and looking into it? Kleins orders 400 36" TS rifles (Waldman 1) on January 15,1962 from Crescent Firearms On April 13th 1962 Waldman claims they CHANGED the order to the 40" FC rifle (by Mitchell Westra) The FIRST ORDER of FC rifles supposedly arrives at Kleins on Feb 21, 1963... AFTER the Feb Ad for a 36" 5.5lb C20-T750 is already out Kleins advertised the 36" C20-T750 with scope for $19.95 since August 1962. (Which rifle was shipped for orders placed between August and Feb?) The microfilm that had the HIDELL order as well as hundred of orders PRIOR to HIDELL was used to print ONLY the HIDELL order and then was taken by the FBI and becomes a WC exhibit. Except when Armstrong went to the Archives in 1995, that Microfilm container was empty... there is no way to see what the orders prior to Oswalds ON THAT FILM were shipped and how they were processed. I went thru the packing lists of the rifle that arrived WITH C2766 and found the corresponding VC # asigned by Kleins (Waldman) - attached. We have not a single record of what happened to any one of the other 99 rifles from that shipment... If they were shipped in place of C20-T750 - as you say - then any single order showing that occurred would be proof in support of Kleins sending a different rifle for C20-T750 orders prior to and after HIDELL. Can you think of any reason NOT to print these corroborating orders, that would be right there on the microfilm with the HIDELL ORDER other than they did NOT process them that way? So back to our story..... You say they simply ran out of the shorter rifle... they never GOT the shorter rifle... unless you can produce something showing Kleins EVER getting 36" M91/38TS rifles from ANYONE They cancelled that order Len... 5 months before they started selling them as a scoped, packaged bundle. So between January 1962 and February 22, 1963 there is no record of a shipment of TS "short" rifles to Kleins... what were they shipping for orders as they did not get the 40" model until Feb 1963 So again... If I sent in a coupon for a C20-T750 in say OCTOBER 1962... what do you THINK Kleins sent? Why don't we know EXACTLY what they sent and what the orders looked like...? I mean they HAD the microfilm (attached) If one of the 99 other rifles were sold, the serial # and VC # would be on the order just like HIDELL's. it would show a C20-T750 ordered just like Waldman 7 Without a single piece of evidence we are supposed to take for granted that Kleins was shipping a replacement rifle or a rifle THEY NEVER ORDERED OR RECEIVED in place of the advertised one? To your final sentence... agreed, no on e would complain, unless they WANTED the 36" rifle NOT the 40" one... In that same wein, if YOU irdered a 36"TS and got the same model as the rifle that killed JFK - you think we'd have heard about at least ONE of them? Where ARE those other 99 rifles Len? or did they even exist in the first place? DJ

The rifle ordered was a C20-T750 - which, as listed in the FEB issue of the magazine - was the M91/38 TS... they simply wrote 5.5lbs instead of 6.5 lbs but all the other descriptions of the rifle matches the TS... 92.7cms = 36.5 inches. In APRIL 1063, Kleins replaces the TS with the FC in their ads for C20-T750.... An interesting question remains... the C20-T750 was on ad from Aubust 1962 thru Feb 1963 as a 36" TS. Since Kleins NEVER rec'd the TS rifles (the order they cancelled) WHAT ON EARTH were they shipping to customers prior to Feb 63 (Hidell's order) when a C20-T750 order came in? And why do we not see a single witness in the entire country, who said they ordered the C20-T750 but got the heavier FC rifle instead - the SAME RIFLE as Oswald... you'd think that would be important... a pattern of Kleins shipping a replacement rifle... Hope this helps clarify the situation a little DJ

Huhh? Everyone? You quoted Harkness as saying 5th, Hill saying "upper right hand corner" and Sawyer saying 4th or 5th. Being told the wrong floor would explain the delay. Also IIRC a few witness indicated the 6th or upper floors. The witnesses all placed the shooting in the upper right corner of the TSBD... If Brennen or Euins or Rowland or Worrell where asked, which they were, they would tell you the 2nd wondow down from the top right hand corner.... SAWYER goes to the 4th floor and drops off two policement at 12:34... and comes back alone. Read the testimony - it's absurd. The building was left wide open for 30 minutes if not longer... the QUESTION Len, is what happens between 12:37 and 1:22, almost 45 minutes... while the KEY WITNESSES all told DPD exactly where the shots where fired from... ?? D Huhh? The original story is that it was moved? Do you have a source for your claim about Ellis? As for Sawyer isn't the most likely explanation be that he was mistaken? What would be the point of planting the rifle on the 5th then moments later moving it to the 6th? Alyea said he accompanied the cops as they searched floor to floor starting at the bottom and they found it on the 6th, I assume others indicated this as well. Ellsworth, not Ellis... my bad. You really need to read Sawyer's testimony... IMO Sawyer was one of the bad guys. But what the officers found may very well have been a Mauser considering what Frank Ellsworth saw in the Depository that day. Ellsworth was an agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency and was in his office not far from the Depository when he was told of the shooting. He ran to the Depository and entered the building with Captain Will Fritz. Ellsworth claims he found the sniper's nest on the sixth floor, but the "gun was not found on the same floor as the cartridges, but on a lower floor by a couple of city detectives... I think the rifle was found on the fourth floor." [32] Ellsworth participated in a second search of the Depository after 1:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963. The gun that was found was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano hidden behind boxes near the "stairwell back in the northwest corner ... I have the recollection that the position it was in, and where it was found, led to conjecture that as Oswald came down the stairs he probably pitched it over behind these books." [33] Ellsworth has stood by his original assessment of where the Mannlicher-Carcano was found in a 1993 interview with authors Ray and Mary LaFontaine. 32. Russell, Dick. The Man Who Knew Too Much, Carroll and Graf, 1992, p. 568. 33. Ibid, p. 569 Yes if they were not sure of the floor and the shells were partially concealed by boxes. You seem to take issue with the rifle being found 11 minutes after the shells, if so why? You also seem to take issue with a witness (either Sawyer or someone who spoke to him) who only would have seen the barrel briefly from a distance thinking it "looked like a 30-30 rifle or some type of Winchester", why? Not taking issue at all... again, read TRULY's testimony related to talking to Lumpkin and going to see Fritz... I think you will find it very illuminating. That it looked like a 30-30 is NOT the point of this thread.... except that the broadcast is at 12:44... and as a result of SOMEONE seeing it... "it LOOKED LIKE..." so either one of the four men named TOLD him this, which also included WHERE they saw this 30-30 looking rifle sticking out from, and STILL they do not go to THAT CORNER for some time yet.... or Sawyer saw it and had one of the men MOVE IT.... or ??? There are too many mentions of THAT CORNER for it to take so long for ANYONE to reach there... IMO. Looked like there were more police arresting Oswald at the theater than looking for the rifle in the TSBD.... or being concerned that an ARMED ASSASSIN was laying in wait within the TSBD... DJ

If Yates' story is true, David, then it could have been the Carcano that was found. I've been intensively researching Yates' story for quite a few months now and still do not know what to make of it. My main point is that whether a real Enfield or a real Mauser were found or whether they were simply reported as being found, I cannot buy into the coincidence that both these types of weapons had direct links to people who would help define the official narrative. EDIT: P.S. I believe Warren Caster gave his Warren Commission testimony with Bill Shelley sat with him. Was the Mauser that made a trip to the TSBD a 7.65 or a 7.62, the more popular version? I ask since Boone and Weitzman were SPECIFIC about the caliber when they really didn't have to be.... Without SEEING a 7.65mm on the rifle there would be no reason to call it such. Especially since our MC has 6.5 stamped right on it. I still have yet to see a photo a a single MAUSER with 7.65 stamped on it "in plain sight" yet since the 7.65 is about the same size as the 30.06... there is good reason to see why they may be "confused" but no good reason for the coincidence of THOSE types of rifles being at the TSBD THAT WEEK.... and Given what I've read about the gun smuggling going on at the TSBD... it is not surprising to think that the activity earlier in the week had to do with THAT TSBD business as opposed to Oswald.... the only thing connecting the shots to 6.5mm is CE399 and the rifle, right? the fragments cannot be traced back to specific sized ammo...? We have no idea what occurred on the other floors during those 40 minutes... other than some strange testimony from Sawyer and the contradiction with Truly KNOWING he spoke to Fritz much earlier than previously thought. A conspirator thinking out loud: "It doesn't matter what rifle(s) they find... it will be seen as a conspiracy to kill JFK, one of the rifles can be traced back to Oswald while the others... will be part of shipments going to Cuba... (we have all the weapons we need right there at the TSBD and "they" got Oswald to order a MC from Kleins as HIDELL)" As with so much "conspiracy" evidence... the other rifle(s) and shells, etc... simply disappeared, like the shirt Oswald wore to work. Once LONE NUT was established... the only thing to explain away is Mexico City and Sylvia Odio which are either LNer lies of the CIA or proof of Oswald the conspirator... can't have it both ways....

Lee... how does Yates' story fit into your scenario? The actual Carcano taken in and hidden as well as it being in the paper bag that is "found" yet never photographed (as I can't see how it could have been made on the 22nd) Isn't that yet a 4th rifle to consider? Cheers DJ

The only question I have is... with everyone claiming the 2nd floor from the top, SE corner... why does it take from 12:37 till 1:22 to find the shells and rifle? Frank Ellis and Sawyer REPEATEDLY stated the evidence was found on the 5th floor ... Ellis says it was moved up to the sixth... That was the ORIGINAL STORY As early as 12:36 they know the spot where the shooter was supposedly seen... yet it's 40 minutes before the rifle and shells are found... Does that sound reasonable to you? DJ 12:34 142 (Patrolman C.A. Haygood) I just talked to a guy up here who was standing close to it and the best he could tell it came from the Texas School Book Depository Building here with that Hertz Renting sign on top. 12:36 260 (Sergeant D.V. Harkness) I have a witness that says that it came from the 5th floor of the Texas Book Depository Store. 12:37 22 (Patrolman L.L. Hill) Get some men up here to cover this school depository building. It's believed the shot came from, as you see it on Elm Street, it would be upper right hand corner, second window from the end. 12:37 137 (Patrolman E.D. Brewer) We have a man here who says he saw him pull the weapon back through the window off of the second floor from the southeast corner of that depository building 12:41 Dispatcher 2 (Batchelor) there's a possibility that 6 or 7 more people may have been hit. 12:44 Dispatcher Yes, 12:44 p.m. 12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) The type of weapon looked like a 30-30 rifle or some type of Winchester. 12:44 Dispatcher 9, it was a rifle? 12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) A rifle, yes. 12:44 Dispatcher 9, any clothing description? 12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) About 30, 5'10", 165 pounds. 12:45 Dispatcher Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle, - repeat, unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build. No further description at this time or information, 12:45 p.m. 12:45 531 (Sergeant G.D. Henslee) Well, all the information we have receive, 9(Sawyer), indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building. 12:47 Dispatcher Signal 19, involving the President. Suspect: white male, thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty-five pounds, believed to have used 30 caliber rifle. Believed to be in the old School Book Depository, Elm and Houston, at this time. 1:11 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) On the 5th floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls and it looked like the man had been here for some time. We are checking it out now. RIFLE FOUND AT 1:22 ON 6TH FLOOR 1:33 Dispatcher Notify 9 that we have information that the ladder that runs up to the roof on this building there is concealed space under a sheet metal plate, sheet metal has to be raised and there is some concealed space under that sheet metal. 1:33 p.m.

Interesting thought David... Did anyone ever check to see if any mail was ever delivered to the POBox in NO? and if so, what OTHER OSWALD mail if any was there? DJ

Yet the hand stamp on most of the flyers is a PO Box... Why put a POB as a location to receive info and lit on FPC flyers other than to HIDE the real location, which in turn leads to Oswald being on a mission... Which mission is yet to be determined.... You get the feeling he was pushed and pulled, for and against by "handlers" he wasn't sure what he was doing and for who... DJ

Getting back to the Stamp kit and Camp Street.... I did this collage and found it interesting... I would need a flyer with the CAMP street address stamped on it... but it's obvious this kit did the work on Hideel and on HANDS OFF... I will need to look thru everything to find other places where Oswald may have used this Stamp Kit.... And is there any significane to JUN 8, 1963? Cheers DJ and why put a PO Box onto a flyer that serves as an invitation for literature and lectures... that would be useless

Getting back to the thread's title for a second... Sawyer was in the TSBD from about 12:34 till 12:37... His testimony states he and 2 others went up to the 4th floor "for a look around"... gave it a once over and came back down, running into Baker. The broadcast with the description was not until 12:44... If he heard from Baker this description... and was out front by his car and radio by 12:37 or so.... Why wait to broadcast it... Harkness and Haygood as well as Brewer have taken "witnesses" to the front of the tSBD... this includes Euins and Brennan, and by 12:40 in every case.... I see no reason that while out front with witnesses and other police, Sawyer would not have heard this description from SOMEONE.... If Sawyer does indeed mirrot Baker, then we know for SURE it was not Oswald, as it was not Oswald who Baker describes on the stairs.... I too agree the lunch story was inserted... for some reason... to get Oswald into the lunchroom.... I guess since so many people saw him there at that time. The 5'11" 165lbs was a standard used to describe Ozzie... yet he was NEVER that tall or that heavy.... but LEE was....

Spoken from a position of utter ignorance, Robert strikes again... Indeed you haven't read very much so it's no wonder you haven't gotten to it yet. And even more OBVIOUS, imo... is if his statement is correct... wouldn't this lead one to believe - given his proximity - that Harriman and the other "sponsors" had done an amazingly good job at covering ANY tracks leading to them? Doesn't the notion that LBJ could even be CONSIDERED a "materstermind" automatically remove him from possiblity? What "mastermind" creates a plot that includes himself as a possibility? I've read Robert write about CFR-based sponsors repeatedly.... LBJ was not a CFR insider - he took orders. If anything Harriman and the sponsors easily kept their finger on LBJ... the idea that LBJ was the second "patsy" is actually quite profound imo.... Not only was he fearing being killed, but being outed as well... LBJ was a player on the chessboard... he had not real idea who owned the pieces DJ

I usually dont repost my stuff, but Jim here ran from the discussion on DPF when I directly confronted his conclusions and his misleading probability statements about IF THEY WERE THE SAME SHIRT what are the odds of things Matching.... y'all are being played. https://deeppolitics...61698#post61698 Here is your EXPLANATION JIM... the one you ran from on this forum when I pointed out your MATH was wrong, the way you described probability was wrong, The MATCHES you claim to have made are poorly supported AND I identify 6 areas in which the images are NOT the same in Altgens and your post arrest photo. Any one, 100% correct MISMATCH reduces the chances of the shirts being the same to ZERO... I found 6 that you don't even bother to address The most obvious being the sleeve lengths... look at Lovelady afterward and Doorman... the left sleeve is down past his wrist while Oswald's shirt barely reaches his wrist....... and the bald heads just don't match... they are both lovelady's. We also discuss how Fritz's notes say that Oswald was out with Shelley - yet you IGNORE comments both from that same page AND the previous page: On a previous page of the same notes Fritz tells us: Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr. On the SAME PAGE AS THE LOVELADY reference is: home by bus changed britches (britches being clothes btw) If JF is going to give Fritz's note 100% reliability to PROVE DOORMAN IS OSWALD... then how does he dismiss Oswald TWICE mentioning changing his clothes, Bookout confirming in HIS report and them finding these clothes in his room and listing them on the inventory? “Obvious proof” is obviously in the eye of the beholder (or creator) in this case Jim. UNTIL you can adequately address MY SIX POINTS OF MISMATCH and mitigate them to a ZERO PROBABILITY and support why you are even better than 50/50 on your Items... you can have a thousand matching items and STILL they would not be the same shirt…. You’re reaching for straws with an argument that is terribly inaccurate to the point of misleading…. One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose. DJ

So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101.... So you've finally figured out how much Z's camera has to SHIFT to produce the result we see supposedly caused by parallax? Post your work and PROVE something rather than just telling everyone how RIGHT you are... Or is that, like everything else... too far over your head to even attempt?

Yes indeed old man... reality sucks.... Another excellent and articulate argument in support of your lack of knowledge related to the JFK Assassination. HUNDREDS of hits! wow, ain't you the big man on campus.... even though all you've ever offered on your own is your three little inches...? and THAT was proven wrong too... You're a critic... and a poor one at that.... You offer nothing of your own.... as you don't understand the event... but you're the first to chime in when OTHERS DO THE WORK... and when asked to show your work... off you scuttle, back under your rock.... spitting and frothing all the way home... So since you MUST have the last word old man... have at it... show the 2 people reading this thread your BIG BRAIN... stroke your ginormous ego... and then you ought to nap... your old heart can only take so much... See ya around old man... I for one have had enough of your foolishness...

Kudos Barry.... That so many do not understand how entrenched the CIA was and how similiar the "assassination plans" were to the global conquests they had already been involved in Best of luck DJ

Thanks Craig.... We all get it - you just can't do it.... no harm in admitting you're WAY out of your league on this and any other JFK forum... You simply do not have the chops to be able to apply your little experiments to the reality of the evidence... You've been reduced, yet again, to the parents from the Peanuts cartoons... "Waa-wa wa waaaa, waa-wa-wa...." The 2 guests here you are trying to convince can have you... and of course you have Rago... both on equal footing when it comes to understanding the event.... Thank for playing old man.... and PROVING you're simply all talk. It's time for your nap and meds so the grownups can have a real discussion....

From T3 UP to the throat at a DOWNWARD angle of 17 degrees... pretty special bullet and IMPOSSIBLE to get around.... Just a little visual aid for those following along with the bouncing ball..... about 5+ inches down from the top of the collar... http://mcadams.posc....ss/Sa-benne.htm I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said and just a quick visual on what this bullet wound have to avoid to do what they said it did... The SBT is anatomically impossible

Expertly done Greg.... Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated... CL is, and has always been just one of the rest of the uninformed masses... Not interested in the actual assassiantion, history, context or evidence... Just another puffed up ego needing a release... so he vomits all over this forum, repeatedly. Just like the little schoolground bully he likes to believe he is... look him in his beady little eyes and ask for PROOF.... and you get EVERYTHING BUT.... Once again Greg... EXPERTLY DONE and thank you for exposing, yet again, this person for what and who he pretends to be....

And off he goes again.... How obvious do you need to be CL? We can SEE you moved the camera as you panned.... You have a tripod CL... put your video camera on the Tripod with the object anywhere in frame... now ROTATE the camera around the center of camera's display... The LOS does not change.... You've once again rigged your experiment to produce false results... I've used my cellphone camera rotated around the fixed spot and it works just fine.... http://s1233.beta.ph...eo0029.mp4.html You will notice, as I described, how the Green marker lines up with the hole in the speaker behind it... this is with the camera hanging from my hand and just rotating around the phone display's center... as you would follow and rotate an image in a viewfinder of a Bell and Howell Camera LOS is a STRAIGHT LINE OF LIGHT... simple MATH tells us that three objects in a straight line remain in a straight line unless one of the three points MOVES OFF AXIS... When the Camera PANS... there is no change in any one of the three points that create the line Determining the Nodal Point of a Lens http://archive.bigbe...hoto/nodal.html While it is not entirely essential to accurately position your camera for each image, it does make things a LOT easier if the lens is rotated as close as possible around its nodal point. By doing so, you remove parallax errors which may require a lot of retouching to make things look right in the finished panorama. Determining the nodal point of a lens is quite easy to do visually. You will need two vertical features to use as reference points e.g. a doorway, flag/light pole, corner of a all etc... One must be very close to the camera, the other, far away. You will also need an adjustable tripod pano head or a focussing rail to adjust the position of the camera relative to the axis of rotation. Accuracy will be in the order of 1mm for a circular fisheye lens. Accuracy will be greater with the near object as close to the camera as possible. The diagram below shows what happens in the three possible situations. Note that the relative positions of the objects on each side of the gap is determined from the nodal point of the lens, not the axis of rotation. So you determined the nodal point of Zapruder's camera have you? You know for a FACT that Zapruder could not possible have rotated his camera around the actual nodal point and that what we see the Signposts do is unnatural? Obviously with my LAMPOST GIF he rotated around the nodal point just fine... the post, Zapruder and the background stay in a perfect line. Why is the result of my Lampost Gif and little movie I posted with the green marker - both showing no change in parallax and based on PANNING A CAMERA rather than SHIFTING IT FROM SIDE TO SIDE not more indicative of what Zapruder does , than your SHIFTING the lens from side to side, which is not what occurred? YOU need to account for the movement of the sign posts by relating it to the movements of Zapruder... if it requires a few feet of movement to acheive that shift, we know that did not occur. But since you only play with knives and cups and rulers and not the actual evidence... you probably can't do these measurements and your argument falls apart once again. How far was Zapruder from the sign post How far from the signpost to the retaining wall corner How much SHIFTING of the camera is necessary to produce what we see in Costella's gif Where is the nodal point on that camera Prove that it was impossible for Z to rotate the camera around its nodal point and not produce parallax - as I proved it IS POSSIBLE with the Lampost gif. DO something Lamson... or are you only good for posting misleading examples, claiming victory and insulting others?

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." 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. So this entire discussion revovles around the use of the word "MOVED" when the literally correct word would be "PANNED" CL claims that when "viewed from any other position" the pole will APPEAR to have taken on a different angle compared to the background. The question then is "Does PANNING A CAMERA constitute enough of a change in the LOS from the FILM>OBJECT>BACKGROUND to account for what we see happening to the signpost? It is clear to all of us CL that if Zapruder "moved" the film portion of the camera in ANY direction off the LOS, the angle changes.... But as this graphic shows... DURING PANNING - which is what Zapruder did.... he wasn't dancing a jig up there... the OBJECT and BACKGROUND's LOS does NOT change with respect to the film it is being captured on. There may be some optical shift due to the lens curve itself... but it simply cannot account for the poles moving as much as we see them do in Costella's analysis. CL writes: Careful examination shows that the Exacto knife changes angles as the lens is shifted right and left. Costella says this is impossible and against the laws of physics. Sadly, for him, empirical testing shows he is wrong. Why do you supoose CL chose a 10mm SHIFT from right to left to define "MOVE" as opposed to the actual physical movement seen - PANNING? Because like any school kid who has ever placed a pencil a foot in front of their nose and alternately opened and closed their eyes knows... the pencil SHIFTS back and forth! But do the SAME EXPERIMENT with the pencil except this time TURN YOUR HEAD to the right 10 degrees.... and using peripheral vision tell us that the LOS of the Object and the Background has changed... if has NOT. PANNING does not change LOS... SHIFTING does. CL needs to explain how much SHIFTING Zapruder must have done to cause the result we see from Costella... and since that involves MATH... I wouldn't hold my breath Thanks Greg... appreciate the help and clarity of the situation. DJ

Cant do photogrammetery... CANT/WONT provide the data to support his black box copnclusions yet will continue to provide SHAM, OFF BASIS EXPERIMENTS that prove NOTHING other than CL knows how to misdirect. SHOW YOR WORK already CL... or it that also too hard for you? Your 45+ degree leaning exacto knife has no relation to a pole 5 degrees off vertical... Nor does it have anything to do with SHIFTING the lens left and right off LOS What I posted is a gif of the Lampost as Z pans past it... just like he is doing with the sign posts.... Yet instead of the results we see with the LAMPOST... the SIGNPOSTS move all over the place relative to the background... That you are not honest enough to provide the measurements and calculations you DIDN"T DO yet can still claim a conclusion is quite sad.... You SCREAM for others to post support for thier conclusions... While you CHANGE THE PARAMETERS of the experiment, SAY you didn't... and conclude others are wrong.... You can't even explain why the LAMPOST stays on the same LOS to the FILM & Background due to the PANNING versus SHIFTING the lens because it contradicts your experiment's conclusions.... We've been thru this... here is a camera being panned with a LOS of the image as it moves across the film... The LOS from the FILM to the OBJECT to the BACKGROUND does not change, it simply moves across the film... as it does in my LAMPOST Gif. The BLUE LOS points to one corner of the film at the beginning of the PANNING and the other corner at the end of the PANNING... LOS remains the same Prove otherwise

So as Z pans his camera past this ALMOST VERTICAL POLE we SHOULD see the LOS and Angles change with respect to the background... since the CAMERA IS MOVING - at least according to CL. As I tried to show MANY times now, as one PANS the LOS onto the film itself simple moves the object ACROSS the film... I could care less about nodal points... what matters to what we see onthe FILM is what light hits the FILM and from what ANGLES. If I were to move the camera 10 inches to the right or left, the LOS changes.... If one PANS the camera arounds one's eye, the film itself also pans... The STRAIGHT LINE that is light will move from one area of the film to another while NEW LIGHT from the direction of the panning will now enter the frame.... If the Camera drops its LOS DOWN 5 inches... or LEFT 5 inches, all this of course changes... and anything that is straight IN RELATION TO THE DIRECTION THE CAMERA IS "shifted" will have changed. In the Signpost example, the posts move AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT, in this Lamppost example you can EASILY SEE how panning does not change the LOS from the film to the post to the red bushes in the background.... we know for a fact that the lamppost moves from the far right of the frame all the way across (as I keep saying) and then off frame... without changing its angles relative to the background... Please explain why this PANNING example should not produce the same results with the nearly vertical sign posts... DJ

Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6. You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet? You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH? You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing... and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination, and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>... You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home.... David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you, So I can use "make pretend" words like CL does and it's okay.... Here's the definition... what would YOU call it? In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion