Craig Lamson

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physist needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a physist to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick?

Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL!

Jack you would not know a photographic fact if it bit you on your azz... I guess in your case ignorance IS bilss. To many *specular highlights* is your brewsky these days? Considering that you PROVED to the forum that you DON'T KNOW what a specular highlight is...your statment makes you look like a total dumass...oh wait...you have looked like a total dumbass since your first post here...sorry. Woof woof there guard dog...now back to your cage and that old shoe you were chewing on.

Jack you would not know a photographic fact if it bit you on your azz... I guess in your case ignorance IS bilss.

A better story here complete with images taken from the original downlink data... http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/..._SSTV_Tapes.pdf

Brendan. This post of yours was not warranted, it only served to try and de-rail Jacks thread. If you have nothing of value to add to the thread then don't bother posting. I am so sick of this CRAP. And yet you let White slide with his joker crap and LEMMING with his post on this thread...double standard there Robin? Perhaps SOMEDAY White will post a photo thread that is WORTH discussing, provided he EVER LEARNS the basics of photography.....but his track record is zero so I'm not holding my breath... Bullcrap LEMMING! I offer the disinfecting light of FACT to the nonsense photography FANTASY threads posted on this forum by the likes of White. That you and others cant DEAL with fact is not my problem. I mean why let facts get in the way of another nutjob JFK fantasy.... I see you broke YOUR WORD, such as it is, in just a few days there LEMMING! Not going to read my posts eh? LOL! I'm not suprised you can't keep your word. Walk over that ct cliff now like a good little nutjob lemming...

Brendan. This post of yours was not warranted, it only served to try and de-rail Jacks thread. If you have nothing of value to add to the thread then don't bother posting. I am so sick of this CRAP. And yet you let White slide with his joker crap and LEMMING with his post on this thread...double standard there Robin? Perhaps SOMEDAY White will post a photo thread that is WORTH discussing, provided he EVER LEARNS the basics of photography.....but his track record is zero so I'm not holding my breath...

What gets me with Jack is that even if he isn't very good at determining angles, perspective, shadows, and etc., .... why would he just not recreate the damned image instead of wasting so much time? Jack has had at least 42 chances since the assassination to test what the shadows in Dealey Plaza should look like because that is how many 11/22s that have passed by since JFK's murder. Below is Charles Brehm's shadow seen passing over the curb ... note that it doesn't cast due east of Brehm, but rather in a more northern/northeast direction. Is there any reason to believe that Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows are special and should cast differentlly - of course not! Bill Miller There is a very important clue as to what happened to the sitz/zap shadow in Bronson contained in the image you posted Bill.

The shadows are not being hidden by the pedestal nor was that my claim. The shadows ARE in the picture and they are the WITH the rest of the shadow of the pedestal. This is not rocket science Jack and your failure of this simple task shows your utter lack of understanding of light and shadow...again. Great work from the CT " photo expert" . LOL! The usual gang of idiots is strangely quiet on this study. Even Mr. Light. Jack Are you really this stupid Jack? Where are the shadows? The same place as the bulk of the pedastal shadow. When you grow a brain and can figure this simple one out, please let us all know. I'm not holding my breath. Lamson's reply is the height of incomprehensibility. Lamson is an irrelevant Joker. Send for Batman. Anyone with a brain and who knows light and shadow (and a bit of physics) can easily figure out where the shadows are....do you posess either Jack?

The usual gang of idiots is strangely quiet on this study. Even Mr. Light. Jack Are you really this stupid Jack? Where are the shadows? The same place as the bulk of the pedastal shadow. When you grow a brain and can figure this simple one out, please let us all know. I'm not holding my breath.

Lamson is an irrelevant joker. Ah yes.. Jack White...another loser who can't deal with fact..... Lamson did not even read the paper by Dr. Jones. Lamson is therefore an irrelevant joker. Now the looney loser White believes he can read minds...amazing stuff for ignorant old man! Read Jone's paper? Why yes I have..it a morass of jumbled facts, wishfull thinking and plain JUNK science. Poor old Jones has been dismantled over and over and over..... Try again next time loser. Ive watched it and there is NO WAY to know if it was molten steel or if thermate or similar caused it. MAY YOU BURN IN HELL FOR USING THE DEAD TO PROMOTE YOUR LUNACY! Free fall? LOL! your video CLEARLY shows the building WAS NOT in freefall...witness the ejecta falling FASTER then the bulk of the building! Once agion LEMMING has shown he has NO skills as a researcher nor is he a person with a functioning brain. Thanks LEMMING!

Lamson is an irrelevant joker. Ah yes.. Jack White...another loser who can't deal with fact.....

As usual Peter LEMMING resorts to baseless retoric when faced with simple facts that destroy his postings on "thermate cuts" which are actually cutting torchh cuts. Classic stuff from the intellectual dishonest CT crowd. LEMMING is a perfect example. Lost in his warped world view he is incapable of thinking for himself, instead he is willing to be led around like the LEMMING he is by others who promote junk scinece and wild claims. What a sad sack of a person he is. And the brown shirt comments....classic stuff there LEMMING... Now deal with the cutting torch stuff...if you are HONEST ENOUGH to do so. P.S. You really need to learn to READ LEMMING! Nowhere in the article you posted does it make the claim that any of this happened BEFORE the impact of the aircraft...no wonder you have such a tough time dealing with reality...you can't read understand what you read! LOL!

Sigh... Start here: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...6191&page=3 Then deal with the rest of the thread. Real engineers, real facts.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ... Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid. But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film. Bill Miller WHAT REINACTMENT FILM? Who volunteered to play JFK and have their brains blown out? Do you have knowlege of such a film or is this just speculation? Those who have seen the film say the head explosion is even more gruesome than in the Zfilm. Why would anyone lie about such a film? Present evidence, not speculation! Jack Present EVIDENCE of the other film rather the accounts of flaky indiviuals like DellaRosa. Perhap the actual FILM? DellaRosa's stopry STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!! Lets see not, a film that shows something very different than the Zapruder film is shown not once but many times in a collage classroom! A film that if real would blow the entire case wide open, is shown nilly willy to a bunch of kids in a collage class....yea right.... Lets also consider that for the is film to exist then it MUST folow that every film and photograph taken in the plaza is also fake....yea right....

Can a worker with a cutting torch cut a steel beam in a such a manner DURING THE CLEANUP PROCESS? Why yes they can.

LOL! You might want to BUY a clue, yours is missing!

Of course that's the problem with Costella...he is NOT "thorough"! He shows us this when he failed at the Moorman. He shows us this when he is unable to understand a simple shadow in an Apollo photograph and does not do a simple photograph to see how it actually works. He shows us this when he fails to understand how much a shadow moves when a lamp post leans and does not attempt to actually see real results but rather simply "tells" us it "can't" be that much. He shows us that when he tell us that it physics makes it impossible for a vertical object (line) to change angles in a photograph (Stemmons Sign) when the sign in question is NOT vertical. He shows us that when he tells us he can alter images to make them appear to be from the same camera position and then whan called on it admits that well yea, you cant do that when the camera has moved He shows us that when he tells us that it is impossible to sharpen a photograph pre computer when in fact the opposite is true. AND He shows us that when he writes about Rain Sensors WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH AT ALL. He's a piss poor example of "thorough" David, but exactly what we have come to expect of ANYONE connected to either you OR Fetzer. In other words...laughing stocks! While I expect a nonsense reply from you, why not BUCK your usual trend for ignorant rants and addresss the above IF YOU CAN!

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I had my legs--I had my body above the rear seat, and my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car. Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward? ...as you moved forward ...as you moved forward ...as you moved forward Ashton Gray P.S. Could there maybe be a reading comprehension test requirement? Yea maybe YOU could take it "soupy". Hill DID move forward, from the bumper, to the trunk, to the back of the passenger compartment. Too hard for your "stained" brain to understand? Or was it just poorly processed in the fixer step? Maybe a litlte wetting agent might make it a bit clearer for you.

Chris, The image does resemble a hand if you discount the "front part" - but if you DON'T discount the "front part" it looks like a shoe, in my opinion. Doesn't it look like a shoe to you? Forget about a hand just for a moment. Look for a shoe. Do you see one? Not to mention the fact that JFK's body was on the *other* side of the back seat, with his head facing the other door. MV Mark, as I stated earlier initially I thought it was a shoe. As a whole, it does look like a shoe. I took some pictures with my shoes flipped upside down in the approx. position and superimposed them over the photo. The problem I have with the shoe is the contour from thumb to wrist. It's not there. Where as with my hand, it is. Another question I have is: who or what is this? thanks chris Exactly how do you deal with the dark shape that covers the lower triangle chrome strip on the side of the limo. A shadow from the seat is impossible, as is a reflection of seat. Both will break simple laws of physics. The ONLY thing that is possible is SOMETHING actually hanging OVER the lower chrome strip. Everything else is a hucksters sideshow No one else here has had the intellectual honesty to deal with this basic issue ...do you?

Ah..another clown joins circus. What a crock of crap Aston. Just a litttle primer for you. For your BLOB to be the shoe we see in the Miller photo it would have to be a HOLE IN THE EMULSION OF THE NEGATIVE for the resulting print to show it as black. And not just any old hole, it has to show gradations of tone, not just pure black. So please tell us exactly WHAT could have caused the defect on the Miller negative that COULD have created the BLOB. Flesh it out completely, give us all the possibilities. This is a simple process, only only four chemicals required...plus water. So put on your clown suit and try stupid theory work. This should be very entertaining. Oh and while you sre at it please tell us how this BLOB created a perfect reflection of a shoe in the lower triangle chrome strip.....

I have taught in schools since 1977 and I profoundly disagree with your analysis of the situation. Motivation is a problem but this is not directly the reason why kids from disadvantaged backgrounds fail to do well at While I agree that strong family values and support are instrumental, the bottom line is either the kid decides to do the work or they don't. Neither the family nor the government can change that little fact. Nothing creates motivation like failure, and when used properly failure it the BEST method of learning anything. Removing the downide of failure is a mistake. What a terrible way to create adults that will have to compete in the real world that to take away the downside of failure. Why would helping bad students improve go down badly for the advantaged. The opposite is true. More educated children become more productive adults, which lowers the burdens on the taxpayer and society in the long run. I my view the ones with little interest in the progress of disadvantaged students are the liberals. After all one of their biggest voting blocks are the disadvantaged and the poor...you know the people to whom these liberals always promise the keys to the national treasury...Boosting them up actually HURTS the liberals. **************************************************** "Nothing creates motivation like failure, and when used properly failure it the BEST method of learning anything. Removing the downide of failure is a mistake. What a terrible way to create adults that will have to compete in the real world that to take away the downside of failure. Why would helping bad students improve go down badly for the advantaged. The opposite is true. More educated children become more productive adults, which lowers the burdens on the taxpayer and society in the long run. I my view the ones with little interest in the progress of disadvantaged students are the liberals. After all one of their biggest voting blocks are the disadvantaged and the poor...you know the people to whom these liberals always promise the keys to the national treasury...Boosting them up actually HURTS the liberals." SIEG HEIL, Herr Goebbels! I suggest we pack them off on cattle cars and ship them to the ovens and the glue factories. They'd better much better utilized as candles and lampshades, don't you think? Too stupid to become anything else, eh? Lamson, you're a dickhead. Another moron UBER leftist checks in. Thanks so much for your opinion, for what ever it is worth. Quick question Ter...ever learned anything by failure? Ever forget the results? Terry you are a crackhead!

Oh, for the love of Buddha, Jack: I didn't say he did. Go back and actually read what I wrote. I know damned well what generally pumping saturation of color unselectively into any image can do to various areas of an image, especially one that is washed out to start with. I deal with it all the time. I'm not accusing the man of willfully manipulating it to "introduce fleshtones" in an area that is now being used as the "new, lower face." Whatever you're interpreting as "fleshtones" in that area possibly was nothing more than an ARTIFACT introduced when the overall SATURATION was pumped up and the image was made to be more "colorized." That's all. And the other possibility is that what is now "flesh tones" always was the face, and what previously was thought to be the "face" is some other highlight in the image being formed by the foliage in the background. That's equally likely. The fundamental problem is that you are dealing with images in which there is too little information to begin with to make any certain evaluation. And the only point that I was making, which I stand by, is that the two unprocessed images exhibit no signs of retouching to create a "shorter" woman. Beating it to death further isn't going to change my view of it, because I've looked at it highly magnified here with my own eyes, utilizing my own image processing and enhancement software, and I don't see it. Ashton You said: "Mmmm. Well, "flesh tones" only appear in your friend's enhancement, and in an area that already was in part of the top diagonal highlight that starts about shoulder area." Please explain how I misinterpreted that. I will be glad to post the two photos and let you do your own enhancements. However, John was working with higher quality TIFFs, and I can only post JPGs. Let me know, and I will post them. Jack Save your Tif files to png format. It is a lossless compression (meaning no additional artifacts) and its a format that will display on most web browsers. You can post the files on any number of image hosting websites on the web. PBASE and SMUGMUG. I've posted full res Canon 1Ds MKII files in png on pbase. ( about 50mb uncompressed, in 8 bit, 16.7 mega pixel captures) You can also send really big files via services like YOU SEND IT I'm away on vacation but when I return home I can also set up members of this forum as users on my FTP server and file could be deposited and retrieved from there.

I have taught in schools since 1977 and I profoundly disagree with your analysis of the situation. Motivation is a problem but this is not directly the reason why kids from disadvantaged backgrounds fail to do well at school. We have to get things in the right order: 1. Children without the right support from the home begin to struggle with their academic work. 2. They receive low grades, negative comments, are placed in lower sets, etc. To be told you are failing lowers your motivation. This of course reduces motivation and they fall further behind. The answer to this problem is for the government to take measures that helps to reduce the disadvantages they face in the classroom. Governments have never been willing to do this because it would go down badly with people from advantageous backgrounds. It is this group that applies the most pressure on politicians. In other words, it would be a vote loser. (A large percentage of people from disadvantaged backgrounds do not bother to vote in elections.) Where did you get the idea from? Unfortunately, every school that I have ever taught in has been run and staffed by people with strong conservative attitudes. This is not surprising as everybody in education have achieved academic success by using the existing system. They are therefore slow to see the flaws in the system. For example, most teachers are in favour of streaming or setting. As they have never experienced what it is like to be in a bottom stream, they have little understanding of the negative impact it has on student motivation. And your teaching experience in the USA is what? I guess you study of American history missed the parts about the political leanings and power of the teachers unions and the treatment of conservatives both as teachers and students in higher education. And then there is that school choice thing designed to give parents the right to take the tax dollars assigned to their kids and take both the money and the kids to the school of their choice. Of course the liberals both in government and the teachers unions have a heart attact about that one....to hell with the kids. While I agree that strong family values and support are instrumental, the bottom line is either the kid decides to do the work or they don't. Neither the family nor the government can change that little fact. Nothing creates motivation like failure, and when used properly failure it the BEST method of learning anything. Removing the downide of failure is a mistake. What a terrible way to create adults that will have to compete in the real world that to take away the downside of failure. Why would helping bad students improve go down badly for the advantaged. The opposite is true. More educated children become more productive adults, which lowers the burdens on the taxpayer and society in the long run. I my view the ones with little interest in the progress of disadvantaged students are the liberals. After all one of their biggest voting blocks are the disadvantaged and the poor...you know the people to whom these liberals always promise the keys to the national treasury...Boosting them up actually HURTS the liberals.

Yea, thats the ticket there John, however next time please spell mymnake correctly...you can find it over my picture in all of my posts. Research is your friend.