Craig Lamson

So you can't read can you? And what exactly do measurements have to do with the principle of parallax? I'll take that as a "no." You took no measurements. Thank you for your admission. Measurements of WHAT Greg?

Burnham sez: "Surely you measured before making such sweeping conclusions?" What "sweeping conclusions" were those again?

So you can't read can you? And what exactly do measurements have to do with the principle of parallax?

Sorry that's the entire point of my work. I've not made any such statement. The only claim I HAVE made is that you can't RULE OUT parallax as it is claimed by Costella Exactly what are my "SWEEPING CONCLUSIONS" here Greg? Again the work in question; www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm What a charming and silly strawman Greg. Lets review once again what his is about. Its about how PARALLAX works. PERIOD. That's it. Now if you believe Costella can incorrectly dismiss the well documented effects of how the principle of parallax works in his claim...the one he says is the most bullet proof of all, then that is clearly your decision. My work addresses a single point. And it does that unimpeachable manner. It invalidates Costella's claim as he has written it. NOW it is incumbent upon HIM to find a way to remove parallax other than his bogus 'angles can't change nonsense" from the picture if he wants his claim to survive. That is not my problem. I have not nor will I try and solve it. In fact I don't believe there is enough data to do so reliably. That ball is in Costella's court if he intends for his claim to be valid. You are talking to the wrong guy. But you already knew that before you coughed up your straw man nonsense.

last post continued And and the lamppost changes angles...showing parallax. You simply don't have a clue do you? He CHANGED the LOS And both of your examples show parallax, which means once again, as is completely normal for you...you got it wrong. I need to do no such thing. That is Costella's problem. Its his claim, its his problem. Take it up WITH HIM. The educate yourself, unless you really enjoy looking so ignorant. You have been beaten to a pulp here davie. Welcome to reality.

And so did Zapruder. If he turned his head or turned his trunk to pan. How totally silly are you? No problem Davie, lets do just that. A simple tripod pan. And once again we get parallax. You really are beyond ignorant when it comes to this stuff. click to play ROFLMAO! You just complete made my case for me you silly boy. You video shows a perfect example of parallax. Watch the green led go from hidden to in view. You CHANGED the LOS. YOU INDUCED PARALLAX. YOU are so ignorant about all of this you did not even understand what you posted. And a simple mind like yours can't understand that the only place you can rotate a camera and NOT induce parallax is at the entrance pupil. PLEASE TELL US HOW ZAPRUDER DID THAT WITHOUT A SPECIAL TRIPOD HEAD? Inquiring minds really want to watch you continue to make a fool of your self over this very simple question. The entrance pupil is somewhere within the length of the lens. Now this is the tricky part for someone like you...understanding how he panned his camera. For there to be NO PARALLAX. He MUST HAVE PANNED HIS CAMERA ON THIS VERY SPECIFIC POINT WITHIN THE LENGTH OF THE LENS. SO how could he have done this without a tripod? He would have needed to hold his camera in this very specific location in 3d space and WALK IT AROUND THIS AXIS....THIS AXIS NEAR THE MIDDLE OF HIS LENS. Please tell us how he did this, again inquiring minds what to see you continue to make a complete fool of yourself.

I suggest you read the thread. You can do that...can't you? The do a bit of research and educate yourself. Not that interested. I do not think you really know what you are talking about. That's your prerogative. Its pretty clear you don't have a clue. But thanks for playing. Please try again when you have purchased your first clue.

I suggest you read the thread. You can do that...can't you? Then do a bit of research and educate yourself.

Been there, done that, you can google it.

Do you mean rotation of the camera about the axis of the entrance pupil? Rotating around the axis of the entrance pupil? How else could you pan around that axis? About ? Around? ON works for me.

All those meaningless words followed up by a graphic that in no way illustrates what Zaprudrs camera did; So tell us Dave, how exactly do Zapruder pan his camera and not move the front element of his lens? ( which is what you have depicted) Did he have that lens nailed down to that exact point in space and then rotate his ENTIRE BODY around that point? Or did he live in the real world and either rotate his head around the axis of his neck or twist his trunk to pan? BTW do you understand you have just illustrated MY point, that the only way to pan a camera WITHOUT parallax occurring is do so on the axis of the entrance pupil? ROFLMAO! Of course YOU depict a singe lens system. Zapruder had a multi element lens. Clearly this is entirely beyond your grasp even after being shown many links to provide you with the required knowledge. But hey, where are your photos to illustrate you have it correct? Am I gonna have to do THAT for you as well? Added on edit: Exactly WHY do I need to show that the is enough parallax change to show that it accounts for the movement? I make no claim one way or the other in that regard. On the other hand Costella tells us parallax can not even be considered. Now we know it can. Which means his argument no longer holds water. For HIS argument that this a case of alteration and nothing else, its incumbent upon HIM to show it can't be parallax. He failed this test the first time. Once again David has it all backwards. On edit again... Head turn pan. Parallax David? click to play

www. craigilamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm. What a CRAPPY straw man Greg and you know it. Costella made a BLANKET statement. "It CAN'T be parallax because I say so. It MUST be alteration because I say so". My test does ONE THING and one thing only. Its tests this simple claim. 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. Got it yet Greg? Its not my 'discovery' Its a very simple and basic principle of photography that is well established. The fact that Costella blew it so badly is simply amazing considering his massive appeal to authority in his claim. And since this is a BASIC PRINCIPAL there is not need for your test to be an exact duplicate of mine. Either the principle works every time or it does not. Changes in distances and so forth only change the DEGREE in which the angle changes occur, not IF they occur. The question created by Costella and HIS blanket statement was IF. Not HOW MUCH. So IF you want to try and recreate the lean of the sign in 3d and then try and PROVE that parallax cannot create what we see in Zapruder, by all means, give it a go. You might even be credited with a "discovery". Beyond that, the work I have submitted is self explanatory. if it is beyond your (and your 'team's") ken, well, that would be your problem.

The problem is you have hot SHOWN anything. Oh you have waved your hands mightily, but you have not even come close to PROVING your claims. This is NOT rocket science. Just take some images and pan a camera like Zapruder did. No need to find an exact match to the Stemmons scene. Just do it with some objects on your desk. The principle ALWAYS works. Lets see if your claim actually WORKS. ( here is a hint, it will NOT)

A completely different question Greg. Please feel free to try and answer it if you wish. Let me remind you of the question the IS being asked and answered... 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. The FACT remains Costella got it wrong when he said a "vertical" as in the leaning posts of the Stemmons sign CANNOT change visual angles as the camera moves. If you think that is incorrect I await your rebuttal. I wasn't talking about your critique of Costella. I was talking about your own working estimates. As I said, even if there was a lean in a direction, that would yield angles, vectors, and the size and distances would also be required for precision. I am not arguing that your are incorrect about your statement. I am encouraging you to share the raw data from your experiment as it relates to the sign--not to a stick in a cup. I've shared all the data as it pertains to the question I answered. The knife in the cup is the proof of concept demonstration. If you can't relate that to the sign, and Costella's argument. I'll not be able to help you further. But hey knock yourself out trying to find the data to prove the question YOU have asked. I suspect your results will be highly entertaining.

I see Indiana's flash-in-the-pan is selling *bending of light* again.... LMAO! Argument too complex for you David? You too can try and manage a rebuttal.

A completely different question Greg. Please feel free to try and answer it if you wish. Let me remind you of the question the IS being asked and answered... 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. The FACT remains Costella got it wrong when he said a "vertical" as in the leaning posts of the Stemmons sign CANNOT change visual angles as the camera moves. If you think that is incorrect I await your rebuttal.

How is it relevent? Simple. Costella sez that the posts CANNOT change angle as the camera moves IN ANY DIRECTION He says this is true because PHYSICS demands it. To that end he said this. '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. " Pretty clear cut. He says if you move the camera the vertical pole always stays vertical. So I simply tested his claim. It matters not a whit if it is the same as the Stemmons sign (and rest assured I have THAT test as well and the results match THIS test, but that's for yet another day) or hat the distances match. All we need to do to see if Costella has it correct is simply move the camera, and I did. If the angle of a "vertical' changes when the cameras moves he loses. Simple as that. And of course the BEAUTY of doing the test by shifting the lens is that NONE of Costella's 'transformation" gyrations need to be done. And what are the results...He got it wrong. I'll ask you this Greg, have you EVER seen any actual empirical photos by Costella that proves he is right and I am wrong? Or even a rebuttal from him? I'll not ask you to blindly believe me. Just try the test yourself. Find a leaning lamp post and stand in the proper viewing angle so the post APPEARS true vertical. There will only be two places this will occur. One when the lean is directly towards you and one when it is directly away from you. Now change position in relation to the post. Does the angle of the "lean" change? The correct answer is YES. But you can check it for yourself. And when you find that is does you too will have proven Costella wrong as well. So exactly what does all of this mean in relation to Costella's claim about the Stemmons sign? it means he got it wrong when it said it CANNOT be parallax basked on his flawed understanding of how parallax really works. But again do not take my word for it or even Costella's. Test it yourself.

This just keeps getting more hilarious every day. One day, Cinque thinks that the face we see in Altgens is REALLY Oswald's face ("his ear, his chin"). The next day, Cinque thinks the face of LOVELADY was superimposed over OSWALD'S head in the Altgens picture. Will it be Larry Craford's head in the Altgens pic tomorrow? http://jfk-archives....man-part-2.html Only two small problems, Jim. 1. Ralph is there standing on the steps with a perfect vee shadow. 2. We have a photo of him where is head shadow obscures his white tee shirt. These are your so called "money proofs" and Cinque created both in the plaza, destroying his own argument. Not to mention all of Hookes so call proofs got destroyed when Ralph proved there is not enough resolution in the Tri-x frames to support any of those claims. So you see despite the long winded article, the experiment in Dealey plaza DISPROVED all of your claims. Funny how that worked out for you.

Let review what Cinques is saying here. He is telling us that some time later in the day, after a fight in a theater with police while being arrested and after being draged out to a squad car,...Oswalds shirt collar is in the EXACT same position as it was at 12:30 while he was allegedly standing in the steps of the TSBD.... Yea, right.

Just a few simple questions Ralph, did your photographer do darkroom ..wet..prints of the tri-x shots or did you get scans directly from the negatives. And if you got prints what size? Now the Altgens you compare your images with, are they direct scans from first generation darkroom prints or are they scans from a print of unknown origin? Or even scans of a print of unknown origin that has been reproduced as a halftone in a book?

LOL! You can post all the photos you want from now until eternity and it all too late. You posted TWO images from the steps of the TSBD with vee neck shadows and no amount of shucking an jiving...or posting more photo with incorrect subject to sun positons... will ever change that fact. You destroyed yourself. Deal with it. As for the tee shirt being turned black its still same as it has always been. We can MEASURE it, and it destroys you... And until you offer up a wet...as in done in a darkroom...print from your tri-x tests PROCESSED TO MIMIC the tonality of the Altgens, you are comparing apples to oranges and you prove nothing. That's how the real world works Ralph, deal with it. You played your hand and you lost. At least admit it for once.

BTW, just a clairification. The images I used in my posts are direct links to the images Cinque has posted, I've not copied or reused them in any way, OTHER than the comparison image of the shadow in my last post. This usage falls under the fair use provisions of US copyright law. Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

BTW, lets illustrate where the lightened shadow falls...

This from the guy who has deleted all opposing views from his comments page. Imagine that. Now, on to your second point, the dark skin. In your image with the dark vee you show us CONCLUSIVELY that the area under Doormans chin MUST be in full shade. So you lose point one, since you claim the opposite. Your image proves that to darken the skin under LOVELADYS chin, it must be in full shadow. With that resolved we must ask where does that shadow fall and in what shape. You have proven conclusively that a vee shadow IS possible {x lady) and that we see that very shadow ( even though you lightened it with fill flash) falls exactly where it does in Altgens ( You in the center of the doorway) Which tells us we are seeing one of two things in Altgens. A vee shaped shadow ver a round neck tee shirt or a vee tee shirt and a vee shadow that falls PERFECTLY within the margins of the vee shirt...which would be an amazing coincidence. So how do we settle it? You say, look at my picture, you can still see the white of my tee shirt. Only one problem with that, b/w images can be processed to many different tonal "looks" and the stuff supplied by your photographer was not even close to what we see in Altgens. You were attempting a forensic photo shoot and your photographer failed on many points, the quality of the resulting images just being one. Lets compare his work to the Altgens: The first thing you will notice is the photographer did not even come close to matching the look of the Altgens. That was his job, in this instance and he failed miserably. This was not an advertising shoot but rather a forensic shoot and in this instance the photographer did not do his job properly. And since the images were NOT properly processed, any attempts to compare tonally, like Cinques has done here are fatally flawed. His attempt at a proof fails. So where does that leave us? We now know that a VEE shadow is possible. We now know that the shadow from doormans head falls just like it is seen in Altgens. We can PROVE that it is fact a shadow falling over a round neck tee shirt by MEASURING the tonality of the Altgens. And when we do we find that it is exactly that, a vee shadow as confirmed by Cinque, falling over a round neck tee shirt. It is Lovelady in the doorway.

Thanks for posting that one Ralph, it totally destroys your claim. So lets ask the simple question first. Wheres is the shadow from your head and chin? You claim that Doorman, in a similar position as you, shows a vee of skin THAT IS NOT IN SHADOW...a vee of skin that is in FULL sunlight but has the same tone as skin in full shade. If we look at your posted photo we can see the shadow from your head and chin falls DIRECTLY under your chin and down over your chest. It falls OVER the plaid shirt, which HIDES the fact the shadow is a vee. We KNOW it is a vee because it does not extend to any great extent over on the plaid shirt. This pretty much seals the deal. Its Lovelady in the doorway with a vee shadow. The VERY BEST you can hope to claim is that by an amazing coincidence the shadow from doormans head, WHICH YOU JUST PROVED IS IN THE EXACT PLACE WE SEE IT IN ALTGENS, falls PERFECTLY within the margins of a vee necked tee shirt. And you have stated many times you don't believe in coincidences. Too bad you can't do photo analysis...might have saved you this embarrassment. Added on edit. Do you see the bright spot in the window? That's a light. Fill flash was used in this picture to open up the shadows, that is make them less dark than they really are. That's not a very honest thing to do....