Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
If those two proffered frames depict the same actions and implying the same "time" and or the same version of events, someone else needs glasses far worse that I ever did or will.
FWIW
Jim
Jim, you are clueless...
OH SO TYPICAL. FO CRAIG.
You are exposing your agenda again.
Clueless because I don't agree. TYPICAL AND EXPECTED.
I have for 3 decades suspected films are altered with or without anyone else's book or pontification by internet experts. I refuse to surrender the right of freedom of the mind to jackasses as you are conducting yourself to be.
Jason Vermeer pointed out IT IS POSSIBLE FOR TWO CAMERAS TO RUN AT DIFFERENT FRAME RATES.
Rather than dictate meaningless ad hominem attacks as tranparent as your motives are Craig you might address the points raised. AGAIN AS USUAL.
You sir and this topic as it is being treated reveal and agenda about reputation and something other than truth. Otherwise why refuse to produce refered to but never produced "experts".
AGAIN OH SO TYPICAL.
The issues atending the cover up and LIES attending the murder of Jack Kennedy are too important to be treated so cavalierly as you do.
Rather be what you call "clueless" than agenda riddled.
I don't have to agree with your view and not doing so doesn't designate me as clueless, it labels the attacker as out of mental ammunition for discussion. NUFF SAID AND VERY CLEARLY!
I retain my own freedom of thought, Sorry.
Clueless...Laughing all the way to truth past disruption and refusal to address questions asked by those that are not aware of agenda. I am and you are more than clueless, much more insidious than clueless - obfuscating.
Or you would in a civil manner discuss the issues attending film alteration. Or write your own book.
Yeah Right. I'll watch the B & N for it.
THE QUESTIONS STARTED ABOUT ALL FILM ALTERATION ******
LONG*** BEFORE**** JIM **** FETZER*** PUBLISHED ** A BOOK*** ON *** THE*** QUESTION!
Any new member would never know this point is not new.
A point you seem to have forgotten in your narrow focus of ad homenim attacks of NO MERIT WHAT SO EVER, aside from demonstrating you are at present incapable if civil discussion of the matter.
I am not of that "club" Craig.
Have a great deluded life Craig.
EVER hear the old R n R song about "Don't ask me what I think of you..."
Some serve research and some bear agenda.
I serve reality and research and those engaged in the real research agenda free. I can change my mind can you? Obviously not.
Save your meaningless ad homenim attacks for those so easily impressed.
I'll keep integrity and freedom of thought as an independent historian of these matters, you can keep your own chosen level of conduct ever clearer as to your own choice.
Discussion in civil manner wins out over dictation of view and ad homenim attack EVERY SINGLE TIME.
One of those three states of human interaction promotes LEARNING - the other two halt it.
This is the education forum REMEMBER?
Ah Jim. I see you are the same nutjob as you always have been...and without a doubt you are TOTALLY clueless about what you see in the frames White posted. You are one of those sheep living in a fantasy world.
You and White and many others on this board are way beyond learning. Your fantasy wil not allow for the real truth about these issues. To do so would destroy your belief system, flawed as it is.
I've offered more than my share of detailed analysis, emperical testing and more yet still the sheep prefer to believe the musings of a nutjob old man. Like I said, the belief system won't alow it. So why bother? When the makers of these absurd claims and thier guarddogs want to deal with the glaring errors of thier work, I'll be happy to supply the evidence...again. However thats not likely to happen...because they are gutless.
You have a problem with that...fine. I really could care less.
And yes I do have an agenda... the truth about the claims of photo alteration. Thats it. Problem is you can't handle the truth.
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Any "photo expert" worth his salt ...
No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) [...]
___________________
guess its about time to ask where ALL these photo experts ARE that you theorize about? All this noise you spout, what I see from you in particular is undeclared "opinion", IOW, empty bandwidth -- get those so-called "phot/film experts" over here, have 'em bring their credentials, too!
If there's consistency between the Nix/Zapruder films, then after three + years, why haven't we seen a motion presentation displaying such? Should be a piece of cake... then again, high technology has a tendency to throw film purists off a bit....
Blah blah balh. I'm here, my credentials are well know. I am a photo expert. My statements can be proven emperically. Want anything else poser?
Now you on the other hand claim many decades as an imaging professional. So show us what you know. Throw your hat into the ring on this very claim from your friend White. But if all you have to offer is your guard dog routine, you might as well just stfu because you are nothing but white noise....
when it comes to you delivering ANYTHING we know what to expect NOTHING!
have a nice life -- PRO whatever.... LOL
I see you are still a chicken s__t David. Still afraid to comment on Whites work. Such a coward. I guess when you actually have put your neck on the line rather that simply read a few articles in a book and then do a book report you just chicken out. So like all of you BS artists from Fetzers horde..cut and run when it heat is on. Chickens..the whole lot of you.
You have a good life too David, I'm sure its nice and cool under that rock.
-
If those two proffered frames depict the same actions and implying the same "time" and or the same version of events, someone else needs glasses far worse that I ever did or will.
FWIW
Jim
Jim, you are clueless...
-
'Craig Lamson' wrote:
[...]
Any "photo expert" worth his salt ...
No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) [...]
___________________
guess its about time to ask where ALL these photo experts ARE that you theorize about? All this noise you spout, what I see from you in particular is undeclared "opinion", IOW, empty bandwidth -- get those so-called "phot/film experts" over here, have 'em bring their credentials, too!
If there's consistency between the Nix/Zapruder films, then after three + years, why haven't we seen a motion presentation displaying such? Should be a piece of cake... then again, high technology has a tendency to throw film purists off a bit....
Blah blah balh. I'm here, my credentials are well know. I am a photo expert. My statements can be proven emperically. Want anything else poser?
Now you on the other hand claim many decades as an imaging professional. So show us what you know. Throw your hat into the ring on this very claim from your friend White. But if all you have to offer is your guard dog routine, you might as well just stfu because you are nothing but white noise....
-
Jack, I am not a photo expert. I offered a possible explanation that ran counter to your premise you stated above. I followed your rules and didn't call you any names. I maintain that the frames are capturing the same information but due to different distances and angles of the cameras, the resultant images are different but that it does not constitute fakery. I have been informed that I am referring to line of sight differences or perspective differences.
You invited the "challenge" and offered 2 replies, one of which was not related to your post. Are we done here?
Jason Vermeer
Jason...I read your initial reply and found nothing that required a reply, especially
when your initial sentence started with a criticism of me instead of addressing the
images.
You offered your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong.
You presented no facts to dispute that Hill and Jackie are very close in one
frame and very far apart in another. The Nix frame shows her HAND grasping
Hill's ELBOW, not his wrist as you erroneously stated. The Z film shows no such
event. My challenge was for anyone to produce a Z frame that shows her
GRASPING HIS ELBOW as seen in Nix. So far nobody has accepted that
challenge. If you can, please do so.
Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the
frame. That is research.
Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of
personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will
quickly admit if I am wrong.
Thanks for your interest.
Jack
(No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.)
Is your understanding of perspective, parallax and LOS so lacking that you fail to see whats is happening in the frames you posted? Why yes it is, as based on your continued failing in this regard in every photo "study" you have published.
Any "photo expert" worth his salt (that leaves you off the list) would never make the statement that Jackie was grasping Hills arm in Nix. To to so would be grasping at straws at best. In other words it cannot be stated as fact because the evidence (the Nix frame) is inconclusive. What you have offered is a poor opinion stated as fact. Sorry but its no where near a fact.
No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) would look for additional evidence to either support or debunk your opinion that Jackie was grabbing Hills elbow in the Nix frame you posted. Additional evidence is available and it's very clear evidence...the Zapruder film. The frames from the Zapruder film show that Jackie WAS NOT grabbing Hills elbow. In addition the perspective, parallex and los from both films MATCH for the area in question. There is NO INCONSISTANCY between the two films in this case.
What we have an ignorant old man making things up out of thin air once again. You should really give up this photo thing because regardless of what Shanet says, you are horrible at it. (which has been PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN, beyond any reasonable doubt.)
So your challenge has been met, two frames, one from Nix and one from Zapruder shaow the same thing ....
the frames you originally posted.
-
I don't understand how people are assuming the frames match, or how it was officially assumed so. What am I missing regarding the position of the people on the grass?
An understanding of LOS (line of sight)
-
In the past two days 130 visits have been made to this thread. To date only one other person has responded publicly . Where are all the naysayers and the anti-alterationist aficianados who are so very quick to go for the jugular whenever they can, and particularly when Jack White is being targeted ? I suspect that if they ever get around to going on the attack on this one , they will be insisting that the Dorman evidence has to be 'out of whack' time-wise or WHATEVER. For some of the more vociferous of the anti-alterationist devotees it must be really hard to accept that Jack has brought to light what at this time has to be regarded as self-evident/ conclusive/ prima facie proof that the Zapruder footage has been 'doctored' . Speaking for myself, I regard this as an outstanding contribution to the CT research community, and one that leaves no doubt at all when it comes down to the basis of visual interpretation.
Immediatelly following viewing of the pictures, I was going to post a congratulatory e-maill in support of Jack's discovery, but I decided to hold back until now. I knew the anti-alterationists were going to find it hard to take, but that would be nothing out of the ordinary. What interested me was to wait and see just how many of the alterationists would weigh-in to lend their support and encouragement to such a fine piece of work and to its discoverer-author. Sad to say, they sat on their hands and publicly applauded silently. Surely to heavens once in a while we can give credit where credit is due. In this particular instance , and until someone proves to me that it should be otherwise, I unequivocally salute Jack White's unique contribution. Well done, Jack !
Sure, we can say that anyone could have done it ....and the same can be said of Pythagoras and Archimedes and the guy who first decided to put the hole in a doughnut. Once you are shown how to do it, it's no problem at all in understanding it and then replicating it. But there always has to be a first , and this one happens to be just that. Or in Jack's case maybe we should say it is his second,since some years back he posted a similar type of discrepancy by comparing the Towner and Zapruder depictions of the spectators lined across the top of Elm St.
This is just too important of a discovery to let pass. Too often trivialities have been treated to far more recognition and enthusiasm by way of response than this one has up to the present. Accordingly, I trust that I have 'needled' at least a few of my readers to the degree that at the very least they will decide either to 'go after' me for what I have written or, and perhaps more appropriately, give Jack a pat on the back for a fine piece of work. Either way it would be really interesting to see this thread get the attention it so deservely merits. Anti-alterationists will indubitably now wish to come aboard...Or will they?
Ed, when Jack finally posts something that has merit I will be the first to post congratulations, this however is simply Jack doing what Jack does, failing to understand even the basics of LOS and perspective. In other words he has once again produced a study thats borders on ignorance...and we have all the sheep lined up to pat him on the back.
Its become a fools errand to respond to Jacks stupid claims. He will not deal with his mistakeS and the sheep have no desire to learn lest it destroy the fantasy world they live in. There is ample evidence of this scattered all over this forum. So whats the point? Most of the people here who profess to be seeking the truth want nothing of it...only more drivel that supports their fantasy.
-
The guard dog barked:
"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."
Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!
Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.
The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?
You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.
and the pussycat meowed:
Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....
Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....
That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?
You show an amazing amount of ignorance for someone who claims to have spent years in the imaging business. Maybe you are just a poser after all.
In any case, you you were actually smart enough to understand, there is no software to fix pano frames that have been rotated at some point outer than the nodal point. At best the the current software can only mask the bad frames by doing unsightly blends in the effected areas. You would know this if you actually had any expertise at all. Seems you don't. I guess they did'nt teach you this stuff while shooting fluff as a local tv news cameraman eh "mr. optical printer"?
Of course what the "scientists" of tgzfh, (yea thats a laugh!) failed to understand (or perhaps they did and were just trying to shine everyone on) was that Costellas "gotta ya" proof was a failure because he blew it when the said he could normalize the two zapruder frames and them compare them directly. Too bad he did'nt take the time to research something as simple as nodial point rotation before he made himself look like a total fool and a nutjob. Oh wait, he did THAT first with the rain sensors...ROFLMAO!
sounds like a silly ole fart making like a photog, foisting away the winter, in the dear old midwest... Get a life Lamson, you've no excuse explaining the rigors of photo manipulation to anyone.... well on second thought, get brushed up in 35mm compositing -- maybe Ray Fielding will give you quickie seminar so you don't make an ass out of yourself...
NODAL point? that sounds like something you'd lance, that on someones rearend or a tripod? LOL
and if you haven't rolled a CP16 -- sit down, you're beyond redemption trailer boy....
LOL! Its good to see that this stuff really is WAY over your nutjob head!
CP16, sorry...no I used an Arri.
Been very busy this wnter with a couple of trips to Georgia an such for some interesting work. Just statarted a very big new project for a national client yesterday...I have a great life thank you. And I love the midwest farbetter that the looney left coast.
You can lance what every you want where ever you want but it wont change the fact that what Costella says he did cant be done. Funny when ever he has been asked to deal with the issues involved in this "secret sauce" he slinks away. I wonder why that is?
Photo manipulation? Been my lifes works for for over two decades. I CAN make a film composite on any number of equipment platforms. YOU? Well of course not. We've all seen your third grade level efforts at doing it on a computer. You are a laughing stock! 35mm compositing...I''ve made thousands upon thousands of compositied 35mm frames. You? But I'm sure that Mr. Fielding can teach me a thing or tow and I'm always open for more knowlege.
Exactly how much optical printing did you do when you spent all of those years at the tv station shooting traffic accidents, football games and the local anchorman doing a standup in front of city hall? Big time stuff....
So bring it on woff woff...as usual your bark is far worse than your bite.
-
The guard dog barked:
"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."
Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!
Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.
The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?
You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.
and the pussycat meowed:
Millions of professional photog's? Pano's (for the lurkers; pano=panorama photograph) there may be millions who know what the term means, I doubt many know how to shoot one....! But, with software of the day....
Buy, just what do I have to buy? Stay on point champ - I guess you didn't ask him either.....
That the same nodal point Ray Fielding describes in his excellent book on Special Effects Cinematography, Craig? You read that book, too?
You show an amazing amount of ignorance for someone who claims to have spent years in the imaging business. Maybe you are just a poser after all.
In any case, you you were actually smart enough to understand, there is no software to fix pano frames that have been rotated at some point outer than the nodal point. At best the the current software can only mask the bad frames by doing unsightly blends in the effected areas. You would know this if you actually had any expertise at all. Seems you don't. I guess they did'nt teach you this stuff while shooting fluff as a local tv news cameraman eh "mr. optical printer"?
Of course what the "scientists" of tgzfh, (yea thats a laugh!) failed to understand (or perhaps they did and were just trying to shine everyone on) was that Costellas "gotta ya" proof was a failure because he blew it when the said he could normalize the two zapruder frames and them compare them directly. Too bad he did'nt take the time to research something as simple as nodial point rotation before he made himself look like a total fool and a nutjob. Oh wait, he did THAT first with the rain sensors...ROFLMAO!
-
The people the govt hires to combat the truth are SO OBVIOUS!
Instead of infiltrating and blending in, the stick out like sore thumbs.
Instead of originating research and discussing a VARIETY of topics,
they only post messages ATTACKING ONE PERSON or ONE SUBJECT
that they are assigned to harrass. They are not interested in JFK.
They never post any research...only vilification of anyone who
promotes truth.
The same ones show up on forum after forum, attacking the same
people and the same facts...mindlessly, over and over. It must
be a boring job.
Check it out.
Jack
You owe me a new keyboard Jack, I spewed diet coke out my nose after I read your latest nutjob post.
You know I think there are medical people that might be able to help you, check it out.
talk about nutjobs -- doubt diet-coke will help ... lmao!
The people the govt hires to combat the truth are SO OBVIOUS!Instead of infiltrating and blending in, the stick out like sore thumbs.
Instead of originating research and discussing a VARIETY of topics,
they only post messages ATTACKING ONE PERSON or ONE SUBJECT
that they are assigned to harrass. They are not interested in JFK.
They never post any research...only vilification of anyone who
promotes truth.
The same ones show up on forum after forum, attacking the same
people and the same facts...mindlessly, over and over. It must
be a boring job.
Check it out.
Jack
Jack,
you don't think Lamson actually works for the government do you? If so, we're in pretty tough shape..
Well lookie here....nut job number two checks in. Bow wow.
-
The people the govt hires to combat the truth are SO OBVIOUS!
Instead of infiltrating and blending in, the stick out like sore thumbs.
Instead of originating research and discussing a VARIETY of topics,
they only post messages ATTACKING ONE PERSON or ONE SUBJECT
that they are assigned to harrass. They are not interested in JFK.
They never post any research...only vilification of anyone who
promotes truth.
The same ones show up on forum after forum, attacking the same
people and the same facts...mindlessly, over and over. It must
be a boring job.
Check it out.
Jack
You owe me a new keyboard Jack, I spewed diet coke out my nose after I read your latest nutjob post.
You know I think there are medical people that might be able to help you, check it out.
-
The guard dog barked:
"dgh01: good gosh man, did this thought ever occur to you: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? Don't want to get too eserteric on you.... or does the thought make you nervous I mean after all, he's a real live Physicist ON-THE-RECORD."
Yea he's on the record showing just how stupid a Physicist can be. This guy you champion can't figure out how a camera works. It's the height of sillyness to see him try and fool the masses into thinking he can just manipulate a few images taken from different camera positions and make them appear to be taken from the same len axis. What a moron!
Of course if it was possible it would make millions of professional photographers who do high end pano's very happy because we go to great lengths and considerable expence to rotate our cameras on on the nodal point of the lens lest we create images where the frames don't match where they overlap.
The funny thing is that no amount of computer manipulation can fix frames that have been rotated outside of the nodal point, a simple fact of the process. But Costella is trying to hoodwink the willing CT"s with his BS. What a guy. And you buy it too. Just how stupid are you David?
You need a new champion David, this one makes you look very foolish...oh sorry, you have always looked very foolish.
-
Well Len, why don't you write a book on the subject, perhaps he'll give you a call. Till then, get along with the Zavada-Fielding/Healy discussion regarding the Zapruder film ....
So, how is Roland Zavada/Ray Fielding doing? You're the self appointed representative/presenter for the Zavada side of the equation, whats the latest? Why the delay? Thought this was a slam-dunk? Been what, 5-6 weeks now? Too damn many editors; "wide purchase...", can be a problem at times!
Having optical film printing problem/issues? I know a few specific SMPE/SMPTE periodicals that might help!
Just trying to move this along....
Still jerking around on the forums - hey David! You sound like the fool who wants someone to address the effects of gasoline on a motor that runs soley on a battery. Another example would be wanting to discuss why someone should take a certain route on a trip to save time while knowing that doing so would mean coming to a bridge that has been washed out, thus the effort was a waste of time. Who in their right mind would wish to argue optical printing effects with you when you cannot address the next step which is the tell-tale signs of alteration when trying to do it on the type of film Zapruder used. Are we to assume that you are the only person who cannot see the problem with what you are trying to purpose? I would be curious to know if you could find another person experienced in optical printing who knew about the problems with Kodachrome II film and still then would waste so much time following a path that cannot go anywhere.
Bill
actually, I'd be happy if the non-alteration camp could put forth any, ANY optical film printing expert, been three years and counting....
rofl.... so you want to play the big leagues, mano? -- till you demonstrate to me and others sufficient knowledge of film compositing and reversal films of 1963-64 vintage, you'll maintain a "constant nusiance status", a title you richly deserve....
Telltale 'film' signs -- listen, you're busom buddies with Groden, get'em over here, we'll talk film -- Have Bob explain to me and the rest of the world what Roland Zavada and Ray fielding will put forth.... roflmfao!
Better yet, have him post a few 35mm frames from one of "Moe Weitzman's" 8mm bump to 35mm -- then we'll talk. Oh, have him bring a KODAK Wratten manual....Thanks for making my weekend...
Just curious David, exactly when is YOUR camp planning on putting up an optical printing expert? We know its not YOU! Hell you cant even do a decent computer composite. Poser.
roflmao!
Even YOU can't save BM.... keep swing'in champ, maybe Groden will drop by and give you a hand -- changing the subject to computer graphics seems like the last breath -- LOL!
btw, my camp is ME! What's the matter with you?
Hell David, I would be stunned to see ANY composite created by your hand, film or digital, that could pass muster. So far you have a totally failing grade. Perhaps when you grow up you will actually learn how its done.
Then you might have what it take to play with the adults.
-
Well Len, why don't you write a book on the subject, perhaps he'll give you a call. Till then, get along with the Zavada-Fielding/Healy discussion regarding the Zapruder film ....
So, how is Roland Zavada/Ray Fielding doing? You're the self appointed representative/presenter for the Zavada side of the equation, whats the latest? Why the delay? Thought this was a slam-dunk? Been what, 5-6 weeks now? Too damn many editors; "wide purchase...", can be a problem at times!
Having optical film printing problem/issues? I know a few specific SMPE/SMPTE periodicals that might help!
Just trying to move this along....
Still jerking around on the forums - hey David! You sound like the fool who wants someone to address the effects of gasoline on a motor that runs soley on a battery. Another example would be wanting to discuss why someone should take a certain route on a trip to save time while knowing that doing so would mean coming to a bridge that has been washed out, thus the effort was a waste of time. Who in their right mind would wish to argue optical printing effects with you when you cannot address the next step which is the tell-tale signs of alteration when trying to do it on the type of film Zapruder used. Are we to assume that you are the only person who cannot see the problem with what you are trying to purpose? I would be curious to know if you could find another person experienced in optical printing who knew about the problems with Kodachrome II film and still then would waste so much time following a path that cannot go anywhere.
Bill
actually, I'd be happy if the non-alteration camp could put forth any, ANY optical film printing expert, been three years and counting....
rofl.... so you want to play the big leagues, mano? -- till you demonstrate to me and others sufficient knowledge of film compositing and reversal films of 1963-64 vintage, you'll maintain a "constant nusiance status", a title you richly deserve....
Telltale 'film' signs -- listen, you're busom buddies with Groden, get'em over here, we'll talk film -- Have Bob explain to me and the rest of the world what Roland Zavada and Ray fielding will put forth.... roflmfao!
Better yet, have him post a few 35mm frames from one of "Moe Weitzman's" 8mm bump to 35mm -- then we'll talk. Oh, have him bring a KODAK Wratten manual....Thanks for making my weekend...
Just curious David, exactly when is YOUR camp planning on putting up an optical printing expert? We know its not YOU! Hell you cant even do a decent computer composite. Poser.
-
FWIW, I think Lee Forman's idea about another scan of the fenceline might be worth trying. There's nothing to lose and it might yield something.
Thanks Mark.
Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.
I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.
But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.
- lee
To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land.
This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional"
"Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen.
"Professional"? No ... delusional...yes.
Professionalism? You'll have no problem posting, say a Moorman 5 study for your recently won convert will you, Lampoon ? -- why not post something with your expertise all over it? Oops, you have -- Nothing!
For someone bent on calling this 'whacko land', you sure spend a lot of time in the "schoolyard", checking the pulse of the troops and looking under your pillow every morning? roflmao!
Why not visit here, its more entertaining than watching the Simpson's ... Homer.
-
FWIW, I think Lee Forman's idea about another scan of the fenceline might be worth trying. There's nothing to lose and it might yield something.
Thanks Mark.
Again, we devolve into something ugly and unprofessional here instead of making progress. It's absurd.
I wonder if enlargement techniques used in the traditional sense are any different from using scanners? But a scan of 'print' is already poor starting ground. Case in point is the attached. This was an original print. I was able to do much with it - and still believe there is a large resemblance between the man in Robin's enhancement [who appears to have quite a long rifle, IMO] and 'Pick-up Man.' And I still wonder if the man standing next to him might fill the bill for the young man seen by Mercer.
But, I guess I'll be wondering for awhile longer.
- lee
To be quite blunt here Lee there is nothing that even remotely resembles "professional" here. What is going on is wacko land.
This stuff is akin to the 7 year olds in the schoolyard seeing bunnies in the clouds....and just about as "professional"
"Photo enhancement" of 4th ot 5th generation copies of poor originals then scanned on who knows what? Please. Or how about seeing men in the trees in a many generational image scanned FROM A BOOK that still includes the halftone screen.
"Professional"? No ... delusional...yes.
-
I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.
I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.
Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?
This is baffling to me.
- lee
Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques"
to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation
at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for
best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs.
On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which
is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE.
Jack
What a line of crap Jack. "badgeman' is about .3mm on the original moorman polaroid. You post some exposures that show that area of the moorman at 24mm x 36mm and you tell the world that you did not use "photographic enlargment techniques"? ROFLMAO!
Now that is just pure disinformation...or pure bullxxxx. You choose.
looks like the old WANKER-yanker found a way out of the snow - hopefully he'll be able to follow the bouncing ball and read the entire thread -- hell, we don't even know if this guy owns a camera, much less has "darkroom experience"..... that's okay
Oh, what's GaryM have to say about Badgeman these day's?
Been reading the Zavada report lately? LOL!
David...Lampoon's modus operandi is to use hair-splitting definitions
to confuse the unknowing.
If I crop a photo, he calls it a photographic enlargement technique.
If I use a long lens for magnification, he calls it alteration.
If I bracket exposures to get optimal tones, he calls it alteration.
If I increase or decrease contrast or brightness, he calls it manipulation.
If I use a strobe light to intensify lighting, he says I am changing the image.
All of the above are methods of properly studying photo images. To imply otherwise
indicates ignorance...or an agenda.
The unsophticated lay person is taken in by his "expertise".
Jack
Who is trying to hoodwink the unsuspecting laymen here Jack? Why I think it would be you. Not only did you do EXACTLY what you said you did not do, you failed to be honest about it even when caught. Just like in the Apollo thread.
The world is on to your disinformation Jack, and it's made you look rather foolish and downright stupid. Its a shame. You should have stopped years ago before you became the laughing stock of the research world.
And btw, boosting exposure to blow out detail to MAKE NEW DETAIL is not "optimizing exposure". Its photo manipulation. That Jack is a fact.
-
I would like to understand the process used by Jack White. Jack - Badgeman was the result of performing some photographic enlargement techniques upon the Moorman photo - is that correct? Who has the Moorman photo now - and why is no one interested in performing the same process for the fenceline by the tree? Robin Unger and I worked from the same source material - although Robin's enhancements were far superior to what I was able to come up with [attached]. In multiple scans of printed material, I was able to confirm what Robin had demonstrated, using a variety of sources - but again - not of the quality Robin achieved.
I see, a man wearing a Police Hat, with a rifle, a man on a radio, and another man with a camera wearing a hat.
Why isn't anyone interested in pursuing the same technique used by Jack to confirm Badgeman, and examine the grassy knoll shooter by the tree? Who holds the 'original' Moorman photo today? Isn't anyone interested in using the same technique Jack used on the rest of the photo?
This is baffling to me.
- lee
Lee...as I have explained dozens of times, I did not use "photographic enlargement techniques"
to bring out badgeman. All I did was simply bracket exposures. I did no darkroom manipulation
at all. It was simple in-camera bracketing, much as you might bracket a landscape scene for
best exposure. Here again are my bracketed negs.
On the fence area by the tree, I did weeks of work on that area WITHOUT RESULTS, which
is why you have not seen everything I did. It was INCONCLUSIVE.
Jack
What a line of crap Jack. "badgeman' is about .3mm on the original moorman polaroid. You post some exposures that show that area of the moorman at 24mm x 36mm and you tell the world that you did not use "photographic enlargment techniques"? ROFLMAO!
Now that is just pure disinformation...or pure bullxxxx. You choose.
-
Since I've been invited into this topic, I'll make some thoughts known. I can't comment on the validity of Mr Costella's work because, as I have said many times, I don't have the necessary knowledge of the complex issues involved in the debate to make a meaningful contribution. At best, they'd be speculation by an uninformed observer.
I do find interesting the comments made by Mr Costella regarding what he can or cannot do. To me, it doesn't make sense.
When you are granted access to official information, it is on the understanding that it will not be released to unauthorised persons or discussed with persons who do not have the necessary 'need to know' and clearance.
Part of gaining this access is to undergo a security assessment to determine if you are a fit and proper person to be granted access. Your background is discussed, as well as your political views, associations, and beliefs. If your views are incompatible with security guidelines, then you'd most likely be denied access - or your access would be only within certain areas.
So how does this relate to Mr Costella's JFK research? I'm not sure.
He would not be allowed to discuss conclusions he has reached that are based on his official work or information gained as part of his official duties. He should not discuss his duties.
If it was felt that his JFK research somehow compromised his position, he would most likely be asked to remove that research from the public domain and cease participation in discussing the topic. I find it unlikely that he'd be allowed to maintain a public webpage but not discuss the contents.
Sometimes you'd not comment on matters that might relate to employment because they might be interpreted as being an 'official' position from your employers. In most cases, as long as it was made clear that this was a personal opinion and did not necessarily reflect the views of your employer, there would be no problem (although statements to the media would be different). I don't see this situation being relevant to Mr Costella's JFK research.
You are certainly not 'gagged' in expressing views and opinions on politics or other related subjects.
For instance, in the public eye at the moment is the inquiry into the crash of a Royal Australian Navy helicopter, SeaKing SHARK 02 at Nias in APR 05. I have discussed this with many people in public forums. Because of my employment, there may be times that I cannot comment on aspects of the incident because they might be related to my work or information I have become aware of in an official capacity. In those cases, I don't comment - but it does not stop me talking about the subject.
This is what I find so strange about Mr Costella's statement. It would actually seem to contravene good security practice by drawing attention to the matter, rather than the opposite. It is almost like standing on a soapbox in a public square and saying loudly that you have access to highly sensitive & classified information which reveals astounding facts - but you can't talk about that.
Thanks for your insight Evan. This whole episode seems very contrived to me and the timing interesting to say the least. It was only a few days ago that Fetzer mentioned getting Costella to comment on the blood evidence...and whamo...this disclainer by Costella.
His new job must be something, it seems he can't even make any further comments about how his consummer Kodak digital camera works...how silly is that?
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ld_content.html
-
Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Did
it occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects?
You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his
previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment
any further on any of it. However, even without further comments,
you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine.
Jack
Well except for the stuff he says about not being able to sharpen a photo without a computer, which is just plain not true...but hey he's an expert in physics, math, computers and OPTICS...well maybe....
Lots of other stuff he's wrong about as well, but I guess it's his choice to STAND by his mistakes.
ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL!
I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me!
David Healy
No its simply the TRUTH. I know thats hard stuff for you to deal with, but it is what it is, and Dr. John screwed the pooch on this one.
bow wow.
-
Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Did
it occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects?
You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his
previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment
any further on any of it. However, even without further comments,
you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine.
Jack
Well except for the stuff he says about not being able to sharpen a photo without a computer, which is just plain not true...but hey he's an expert in physics, math, computers and OPTICS...well maybe....
Lots of other stuff he's wrong about as well, but I guess it's his choice to STAND by his mistakes.
-
John Costella says he is now an employee of the federal government of Australia. I was wondering if he or any of his friends would be willing to elaborate.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html
Len
What an interesting turn of events. A few examples of Costella's mistakes show up on this forum and a request for a correction to the web page you list is made...and suddenly this new disclaimer appears I would bet the mistakes (which now becomes disinformation) will remain to fool the unsuspecting for as long as the page remains active. What a crock. Still it's kind of funny to see Fetzers own site hosting proven disinformation given his tirades on the subject of disinformation.
Whats even more interesting is that another forum member, Evan Burton, is an employee of the Australian Federal Government and he seems pretty free to speak his mind about the US Space program, the Wellstone crash and 9/11. Perhaps Evan could comment on thios sudden stroke of nationalism on Costella's part.
-
NASA DO(O)MED CHAP 6
Here Jack uses a little deception to enhance his claims.
Firstly, Jack has NOT 'proved' that there was a "wrecker" in the previously mentioned image. He has CLAIMED there was one through very doubtful means - misuse of Photoshop or similar. I have previously asked Jack that if we were to submit his working image along with his resultant image (and thus claims) to the makers of Photoshop, and if they in their opinion said that it was the result of the misapplication of the Photoshop tools, would Jack withdraw his claim? He remains silent and refuses to answer - because he knows that it would be the most likely outcome. Therefore I will submit the images to the makers of Photoshop and ask their opinion anyway; stay tuned for results.
Secondly, Jack has 'colourised' the image to suit his own purposes. The image (AS12-48-7102) was a BLACK & WHITE image which Jack has shown in colour that he has added - and conveniently 'forgotten' to mention that fact.
Now, let's look at the image. Here is a crop of the hi-resolution image showing the section in question:
AS12-48-7102 (Hi-resolution, cropped)
So what is it? Short answer - I don't know. I do know it is not a toy crane...
What I do find intersting is that the length of the artifact matches the length of a section of the Surveyor extended arm. If we also draw a line along the shadow axis (marked in yellow below), we can see that it seems to be a mirror image of that section of the Surveyor extended arm (marked in red).
AS12-48-7102 (Hi-resolution, cropped, annotated)
I think it is some type of reflection. I can't say for sure because I don't have the necessary skills to positively determine that it is, but I think it is a reasonable guess.
I'd welcome comment on my guess from professional photographers and / or those with the necessary skills.
Looks like a chunk of lens flare to me. Its very similar in nature to what we see in the image you have in the post above.
Also if you look at the frame 48-7101 you will see its the start of a mostly upsun pan and it too shows some lens flare. Remeber that you don't actually need a lens to be pointed directly into the sun buty rather all you need to produce flars in most instances is for the sun to just srtike the front element of the lens. In the case of 48-7102 it appears that the camera/sun angle is such that the sun COULD strike the front element of the lens.
-
Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas?
Zavada & Feilding 1 + 1 = 2 David
Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this.
trying Nick...
David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963
I'm sure David has an "expert" waiting in the wings for this little event. You know its NOT going to be David. After all he has no first hand knowlege because he HIRES it instead.
a CHALLENGE for the provocateurs...
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Ah..another photograhically clueless sheep checks in...how predictable. Why don't you educate all of us and show us why this silly claim of Whites is correct.?