Craig Lamson

On your "bluish white smoke"... Got any links that support your statement that bluish white smoke is indicative of an electrical fire? I've done extensive research into reading smoke and have yet to find a source that makes the same claims as you. One interesting factoid is that is that cold air temps often cause dark smoke to turn light. Something about moisture in the burnt gas hitting the cold air....at least thats what people who fight fires for a living say. But hay if you can provide some source information on your claim that the smoke SHOULD have been black in those temp conditions from the fuel fire and that fires that START from an electrical source give off bluish white smoke I just might grant you this point.

deleted, dupe post

Opps....might want to rethink that GPS thingy Jim....unless Karl Rove now controls the sun too! http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botpm US NEWS SPACEWEATHER KRT KRT US NEWS STORY SLUGGED: SPACEWEATHER KRT PHOTOGRAPH VIA NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (January 14) This powerful solar flare on Oct. 25, 2002, sent a storm of high-energy particles (proton and electrons) racing toward Earth at a million or more miles per hour. Such flares can garble terrestrial communications links, black out power grids, cause navigation errors, even confuse homing pigeons. Astronauts and satellites in orbit are at special risk. (lde) 2003

Pro 25 years as a pro Almost all digital now, 35mm dslr, 4x5 betterlight scan back. Carry on only. Equipment: (well most of it...I have a bunch of new Canon stuff since this image...1Ds, 1DsMKII, 10D...9 lenses) http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37591568

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do? I've asked questions which receive no reply. A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it. I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them. Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I have pointed out, I will discuss any issues that are free from personal attacks. I too would be interested in the research credentials of Mr. Burton. Like Mr. Lamson, he showed up on this forum strictly to discredit me,along with other members of BADASTRONOMY website. Questions asked with personal attacks deserve no reply. For that matter, NOBODY is obligated to engage in discussion with anyone, let alone unpleasant persons. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok Jack, no insults just an honest question. In this study : http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html you indicate that the double crosshairs are the result of an overlay on a photograph that has lifted during a copy process. Please explain exactly how the lighting was set up to create the effect you say is shadows from a lifted overlay. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you are known as MR. LIGHT, I am sure you can explain it better than I. Most professionals use 2 (or more) lights positioned at a 45-degree angles on each side of the copyboard. Like you, I am puzzled why the side lights did not cast multiple shadows of the overlay crosshairs. But hey, my job is to point out such anomalies, not to explain them. You tell us your theory on how the shadows were created...and why. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not puzzled at all, but it is interesting to note that you base you theory on something you cannot explain or even offer an opinion as to how your theory might even work. And I'm sorry but your job goes far beyond 'pointing out anomalies" when you suggest reasons why these so called anomolies exist. But thank you for answering the question and pointing out you have no idea how your theory might work. BTW, there is no way to create a lighting setup to create what you call the shadows from a lifted overlay. You might note however that your "shadow" crosshairs are in perfect alignment with the rest of the crosshairs on the image. My theory, which Jay Widley was kind enough to do the math on, and who found it to be a very likely candidate can be found in Evans 13 page thread in case you want to check.

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The "gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal, they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve. Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed. Jack White <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love this one...White as Fetzer before him argues against the principal of the lever....amazing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> can always tell when the non-photo alteration camp get's nervous. They ring any bell they can find, especially when they've run out of arguments, so here we go AGAIN - regurgitating a argument from 10/03. They could find no one ( I wonder why?) to duplicate the transit experiment in Dealey Plaza, as performed by Dr's. Fetzer and Mantik amongst their able bodied assistants. I suspect no one will take up the chore now... As a result we're back to the BM movement [bill Miller - pardon the pun] along with Gentleman Larry Peters, or whomever he is. Get your gear down there and show us your findings? Next to the seamless films of DP [four years now] might this experiment be second? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The TRANSIT experiment...that cluster F__K! Are you kidding David? There has never been a more sorry sight than White and company doing the transit thing...well perhaps second to a PhD and White running strings all over the plaza.... So David...care to go on the record? Are White and company correct...Was Moorman in the street when she snapped #5?

Additionally, as I have always pointed out, the corner of the pedestal is not square, but is offset by about an inch. The "gap" advocates refuse to recognize this. When retouching the "drum scan", they also were ignorant of the CAMBER of the top of the pedestal (for shedding rainwater). It is NOT A FLAT SURFACE, but is raised more than an inch in the center. When they retouched the top of the pedestal, they made it a STRAIGHT LINE, not a curve. Give up, Peters/Miller. The hoaxers have been exposed. Jack White <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love this one...White as Fetzer before him argues against the principal of the lever....amazing.

In a word...bunk. Your zippo is so out of focus and jpg artifacted it next to worthless. However when one spends the time to actually do an in depth comparison of the white Zippo and the Thompson Drum scan they are in perfect agreement as it relates to the "gap". You are just plain wrong here jack.

In a word...bunk. Your zippo is so out of focus and jpg artifacted it next to worthless. However when one spends the time to actually do an in depth comparison of the white Zippo and the Thompson Drum scan they are in perfect agreement as it relates to the "gap". You are just plain wrong here jack.

Mr. Healy - I see you're still trying to move on and keep Mr. White out of the spot light by continuing to beat a dead horse. Very well, here it is from someone who worked with Mr. White on the Badge Man project. Gary Mack has said, "Jack White not only has had access to all known Moorman photos - including an 8x10 print of the drum scan - he has copied all of them. Every single one! I was there. I gave some of them to him. He has them all, yet insists on using the WORST one to try to make his point." A CD that I was eventually given, as well. No - that is smoke and mirrors on your part and here is why. You can overlay every known copy of Moorman's photo over the top of one another and there will NEVER be one that shows the gap closed as Mr. White's so-called recreation photo does. Below is an example of two Moorman photos - One is Thompson's with the fingerprint on it and the other is Groden's without the fingerprint. Like with the pedestal, there is a gap between Jackie and JFK's head. When overlaid on top of one another - the gap never changes. The only way to get the gap to change is by lightening the photo until you start washing out the images and expanding the light colored areas. There is no Moorman print in TGZFH that shows the gap closed, nor will Mr. White ever be able to produce one on this forum. (see attachment number one) Mr. Healy - again you are trying to mislead someone. When enlarging an image after it has been reduced to 72 DPI it will cause it to pixel and become distorted with magnification. However, magnification can be achieved before posting an image to a forum such as this one. I can zoom in on the Moorman photo - capture it to where we can count the emulsion specs if you like. No matter how you slice it - the gap will not close. The transfermation to the Internet will not selectively alter any parts of the image being posted. In other words - it will not leave the some gaps like that between Jackie and JFK's head open while closing others like that between the pedestal and the pergola window. (see attachment number two) You mean the same resolution imagery that Mr. White didn't post? By the way - I did source my Moorman images, but you have to take the time to actually read the post thoroughly. That is the most honest statement you have made thus far. I believe you are talking about JFKResearch where no one can challenge alteration claims without being banned from the site. That brings us to the next question - If you are not here to share your opinions about photo and film alteration, then why are you posting in this thread at all? Interesting! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I was reading this old thread I found this question by you David and its time to correct the record. When Tink had the Moorman 5 copy neg drum scanned in San Fran he had the the scanner tech make two copies of the cd containing the file. All the details of the scan are available at our web page on the Moorman 5. Tink had the scanner tech sign each original cd and he sent one to me and one to G. Mack for the 6 floor. Gary still has this original disk. When I recieved the disk I did noting to the file....nothing..repete...nothing. No changes what so ever. I simply made dupilcates of the master disk supplied by Tink and sent them out in the mail. The file you recieved is exactly as it came off the scanner. The master disk (with the scanners techs signature) was returned to Tink. Any claims by White that the image was retouched is pure crap. The file is as it came from the scanner...and I might add it matches the print that was made from the same neg perfectly, as well as every other file I have seem from the Moorman except for that crappy scan White likes to promote. And even that one when subjected to careful study also shows the same gap as all the other Moormans floating around.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=38521I won't respond to any of his posts here if they continue to be of this low level and I suggest you do the same. Our bickering with him only serves to distract from discussion of the details of this case which is to Fetzer's advantage. So does getting into debates over the Z-film and other JFK issues Len <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Healy just likes to go WOOF WOOF...he's the guard dog here for Fetzer, White and Costella. Don't ever expect him to actually offer anything of substance to the discussion, thats just not his job, nor does it seem that he is qualified to do anything more.

You dont read well do you rodeo boy? Everything you would ever want to know the sorry state of Fetzer and crews shoddy and falsehood filled works can be found at the link that has been posted here at least twice. So flame on there David...and then go video some cowboys.... and BTW there rodeo boy... drygoods n : textiles or clothing and related merchandise [syn: soft goods] You can't even get that right.

Oh yes..the hacks have had at it...Fetzer Costella, Four Arrows et al. The debunking of Fetzers falsehoods and downright lies are here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ I agree with Fetzer on one point...do the reading and the research yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I think Fetzer, Costella and Arrows believe that Wellstone was murdered by Bush. In Fetzer's case at least it seems clear to me that he is willing to stretch, bend and distort the truth to prove his case, like a DA or cop who would fake evidence against a suspect they were sure was guilty. Several eminent people have come to have strange beliefs. There are Ph.D. university professors who don't believe the Holocaust happened or that we went to the Moon, there are others who believe in "Intelligent Design" [i.e. Creationism]. Without exception [as far as I can tell] these profs. who believe these things are outside their area of specialty. For example there aren't any European [general], Jewish, German, Polish etc. History/Studies profs. who doubt the Holocaust, no Physics, Geology or Aero-space engineering profs. who don't think man has been to moon and no natural sciences [biology etc.] profs., who believe in Creationism. This makes sense because these crackpot ideas are based on misconceptions that people who know there stuff don't suffer from! So I ask Fetzer have any pilots, aviation or crash scene experts endorsed you theories? Has anyone with expertise in fire backed you ideas in that regard, have any experts in the area said publicly that EMPs exist? Now that we are on the subject has anyone associated with Wellstone or any of the other victims expressed anything but disdain for your theories? The Wellstone people and family seem to want to distance themselves from you as much as possible! They complain that it is a distraction from his legacy. http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail....=4054&catID=298 There is also the interesting case of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who believed all manner of strange things! <http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My god Jim you are SO predictable. Time to play the sympathy card. Fetzering at its finest. I must say I truly enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself over and over again. You spend a lot of time talking about disinformation yet it has been shown that you and your crew spew more disinformation that anyone. You drag out that old saw of Whites and post it as if it had some truth, when is not. You play the "I'm being atacked my professionals" in hopes that will somehow curry favor with the readers. What a joke. You tell us that your have "proved beyond a resonable doubt" that Wellstone was taked out by a hit, yet your claims lies in tatters at the yahoo site and now here. You answer to the critics...I'm a PhD and have other PhD's with me. A classic appeal to authority. The problem is your "authority" has been shown to be lacking. You are the guy who spent two weeks arguing that the principal of the lever was wrong....sheesh. Your bud Costella, the great PhD from down under goes on at lenght in Hoax about how the singpost breaks the laws of physics, yet when you understand what he is trying to prove you find he misses a most elementtry point...the sign post in question is not vertical and thus his entire argument fails. The list goes and on but the point being...your appeal to authority fails. So now that you have gotten your pity party out of the way, how about you actually try and defend your theory based on evidence? I'm not holding my breath, seeing how badly you failed on the yahoo forum. I'm not holding out much hope that will happen because I know you cant argue this on the evidence because you have none. No I expect more "Fetzering" which is a term we on the yahoo forum coined to describe Jims rants. His last post is a perfect example of Fetzering.

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do? I've asked questions which receive no reply. A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it. I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them. Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I have pointed out, I will discuss any issues that are free from personal attacks. I too would be interested in the research credentials of Mr. Burton. Like Mr. Lamson, he showed up on this forum strictly to discredit me,along with other members of BADASTRONOMY website. Questions asked with personal attacks deserve no reply. For that matter, NOBODY is obligated to engage in discussion with anyone, let alone unpleasant persons. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok Jack, no insults just an honest question. In this study : http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html you indicate that the double crosshairs are the result of an overlay on a photograph that has lifted during a copy process. Please explain exactly how the lighting was set up to create the effect you say is shadows from a lifted overlay.

It is a good comparison. The people of Pompeii got adequate warning when Vesuvius began erupting in 79 AD. However, thousands were killed by poisonous gases or by the falling buildings. Why? The rich got out but insisted on their slaves staying behind to protect their homes from looters. The vast majority of people killed in New Orleans were the descendants of slaves. They were not ordered to stay but they lacked the necessary funds to get out. Like the US government, the Romans believed in charity rather than a state run welfare system. One would have thought we would have made some advancements in 2000 years but in some countries that does not seem to be the case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, we have a pretty big welfare system in this country, and thats a big part of the problem. It saps the will of those in the system. Perhaps many of those poor will have a chance at a better life now, way from the pit they lived in in NO. Only time will tell.

Mark, LA. has no provisions for "martial law" in the state constitution. The best they have is "state of emergency".

This Aaron Broussard ? Feds subpoena campaign records Details sought on donations from bond firm Thursday, August 18, 2005 By Michelle Krupa West Bank bureau Federal investigators have issued grand jury subpoenas to Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard and 24th District Judge Kernan "Skip" Hand for records of political donations to Hand's campaigns from Bail Bonds Unlimited, Hand's attorney and Broussard said Wednesday. The subpoenas offer the first public indication since the conviction seven weeks ago of Judge Alan Green that authorities are pushing ahead with their Operation Wrinkled Robe investigation of Jefferson Parish courthouse corruption. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ind...45510247860.xml

9 messages in topic - view as tree GordonD Nov 16 2003, 8:19 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: gordondavid...@hotmail.com (GordonD) - Find messages by this author Date: 16 Nov 2003 20:19:34 -0500 Local: Sun,Nov 16 2003 8:19 pm Subject: Great Zapruder Film HOAX contributors have answered the GANG... Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Here's the URL for those interested in first hand responses to the GANG'S website: http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax Point by point! Anything further Joe, David Wimp, Ron Hepler, Tink Thompson, Craig Lamson, Barb J., James Gordon and the others. We're around to please, answer questions, clear up ANY and all confusion that YOU may have.... No one is answering my PovRay concerns from your camp yet, been what, a week now, what's up? DHealy -- aka gd Joe Durnavich Nov 16 2003, 10:56 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: Joe Durnavich <j...@earthlink.net> - Find messages by this author Date: 16 Nov 2003 22:56:17 -0500 Local: Sun,Nov 16 2003 10:56 pm Subject: Re: Great Zapruder Film HOAX contributors have answered the GANG... Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse USENET THREAD: GordonD writes: >Here's the URL for those interested in first hand responses to the >GANG'S website: >http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/hoax >Point by point! Anything further Joe, David Wimp, Ron Hepler, Tink >Thompson, Craig Lamson, Barb J., James Gordon and the others. >We're around to please, answer questions, clear up ANY and all >confusion that YOU may have.... Thanks. That reminds me: I should point out that Dave Perry just contributed an article on John Costella's theory that the rain sensors are really listening devices. It is worth it alone just for the quotes from Costella: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm >No one is answering my PovRay concerns from your camp yet, been what, >a week now, what's up? David, my responses must have not made it to you. I'll respond here: ---------------------- >Message from David Healy >Can you pass this on to the guy's, I haven't heard from them since I asked >for the URL regarding the .pov file... >Need clarification on David Wimps lens distortion >note: below parts extracted from JoeD's dealeyplaza.pov/.ini >btw Joe, I inserted the ini file into the POV file for [my tests] as info >only [POV3.5 has a problem with Wimps orth camera - I'll have to load 3.1 >back in in a few day's], you'll notice I've commented it out - on the Apple >side of things - the .ini is a menu function. Haven't wrote an .ini file >since version 1 in DOS I rewrote the .pov to work with POV-Ray 3.5: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/sign.pov >The .ini and .pov file your site posted, is not enough! I need to see how >Wimp came to the code for the lens and the viewing angle -- in short how did >he code for the Z-camera "full zoom" lens distortion factors and his >corrections for the pincushion corrections, etc. >Fustrum size/viewing angle ain't enough. >Is the correction applied to the whole [Hunt] world or the [Hunt] world >through the lens? David Wimp's writeup on lens distortion is here: http://home.att.net/~joliraja2/DistortionDiscussion.html Note that lens distortion is a 2D transform, so we just corrected the Zapruder frames first using a separate application and worked with those. For the "Pincushion distortion Test" section, we did apply a distortion transform to the generated 3D image files. >And, >/* >* The cameras are setup to use the right-handed coordinate system. >* This allows the use of coordinate values that closely resemble* >* the coordinates on John Hunt's HSCA map. Coordinates here are in >* feet, so divide the x and y values on the map by 10 to get feet*. >* Also, make the y value negative. >* >*/ >* emphasis mine - dgh >ah ---- closely resemble? resemble -- feet? we should be talking inches >here, shouldn't we [at the outside most]? -- Elevations on the map are given to a precision of 0.1 feet. For example, the top of the pedestal is labeled as "101.2" feet. For convenience, we specified the x and y coordinates the same way, except that the "y" values are negative--thus the "closely resembles" remark. >Let me make myself clear, when you deal with optical printing and >compositing we're dealing with one thousandTH of an inch .001 tolerances --- A frame of 35 mm film is less than an inch wide, though. Dealey Plaza is thousands of cubic feet in volume. There is no point in an accuracy of 0.001 inch. >POVRay in the scientific world has been known to map 'dna strands' and other >molecules. Certainly your measurements can do better than this? >Needs a little more work, yes? -- Better placement of the Zapruder camera, >perhaps. Keep in mind that John Costella is claiming certain changes like the change in sign width are impossible. We are merely demonstrating that moving the virtual camera back does change the sign width and that this is a natural consequence of perspective. As we point out on the web page, it is a qualitative analysis, but that is all that is necessary in this case. >Of course when you place the camera in the world "accurately" in the exact >"Z" spot >what's to stop you from dropping the camera { location *-y ; a tad when you >make your run? -- >Actually if one wants, one can fine tune the camera till you get the exact >results one wants! ! Isn't that correct? No. The laws of projective geometry control the outcome. In other words, if you move the virtual camera towards the rear of the pedestal to shift the sign rightwards, the sign is also going to get smaller whether you want it to or not. As a cameraman, I am sure you are very well aware that this is just how the world works. John Costella denied that in his article, and that is what we took issue with. >Where's the .inc file for Hunt's data? Can't be , what? couple of megs -- >.dxf file perhaps? >Thanks, >David Healy >oh -- you using a frontend on Pov? If so, make and version # please John Costella can provide you with a copy of John Hunt's HSCA map. You have been given the pov file, and the conventions used to input the topo data along with the data set that was used and how to get it. Now it seems to me with your great wealth of experience putting all of this together should be within your grasp. So do it and quit whining. Your appeal to authority on the subject of physicists is duly noted, not that it means anything. Your "physicist" have made two documented errors concering photograhy ... moorman and that shadow in the Apollo 11 photo. These errors alone discount your "physicist" as any sort of authority on photography. His latest blunder, not understanding how moving a camera works, puts him into woowoo land. Clearly your team has the horsepower to provide a simple emperical proof of concept demonstration. Rest assured I will be posting very soon the same showing in easy to view form exactly why Mr. Math Teacher is dead wrong. In the mean time perhaps you might actually do some real work for a change rather than being the "hordes" guard dog. Like doing a pov ray work? Have a great day David...it looks like you could use one.

Healy whined: "Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?" THIS is the best the "gang" can do... Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!" Yes an error...in fact a massive one. Somehow I'm not surpised you dont understand. One that wipes out the very foundation of his most important claims. And I dont need a physicist. Just a simple expert photographer. In fact the major weakness of your "horde" is your physicist. Never mind that he is quite the kook (but in great company in your little group) the problem is that your physicist...er math teacher seems to have failed photography 101, if in fact he ver took it. Now you guys might have had a chance in getting it right if you would have had a competent photographer on board to keep your wacky PhD's in check. But alas all you had was White and lets just say that history has shown over and over and over again that Jack White is anything competent in regards to photography. And finally to you David. You have the pov ray files, they were given to you in 2003. Do I need to quote the entire usenet thread? WHy not do something useful for a change other than read a book about optical printers. Why not use the pov ray files to prove that the sign MUST not move. After all your PhD,-physicist,-math teacher says that the way it has to be. It should be a snap for you to prove him right. BTW, you might want to suggest to Costella that he start telling the truth when he writes his replies. From his last: "I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, " This is quite an untruth. In fact its the second request he has replied to in the last few weeks, the other was on a different public forum. He told a blatant untruth in that reply as well. If needed I will be happy to supply the exact links to his untruth if needed. Seems in addition to being in error on the Zapruder fillm, you vaulted physicist cant seem to even tell the truth on very simple matters.

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here... http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From the hordes rebuttal: "I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle). Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them." Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis". You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see John is well versed in the fine art of fetzering just like you Jim. First. the quote is direct, I suggest John read it again. His fetzering on this is really silly. The Zapruder camera moved between every frame and John, that means you took two 2d images from two different camera locations and did the transformation you just said you could not do. So which is it? can you do it or not? Time to put up or shut up. Produce the work. John continues: "A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise 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. This is where the transformations referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected negligibly by the small movement of the camera location)." Yes a perfectly vertical pole will remain vertical, but what about one that is not perfectly vertical, like the signpost on the freeway sign? Costella lives by the numbers which is his complete failing when trying to do work on photographs. Unless a camera is rotated exactly on the nodal point of the lens you introduce perspective changes that, depending on the rotational point and its distance from the nodal point, introduces perspective changes that are impossible to "transform" away. People who use cameras for a living know this, it seems math teachers dont. Then add into the mix photographing a leaning pole from different camera locations and Costella and his "proof" go down in flames. Is it any wonder why he is not forthcomming with his proof that he can do what he says he can do? None of this is hard to show with simple emperical evidence. A simple camera and tripod will do. I will be happy to post camera raw digital images of a simple street scene taken with only one axis of rotation...pan...that show a sign post "flipping and flopping when photographed in the center of the frame compared to being photographed at the edge of the frame. Now remember Costella tells us that the laws of physics makes this impossible, but the reality of the matter is that it is not. You up for the challenge John, or are you going into hiding again? Want me to also send you some images that also prove that your "impossible" Apollo shadow is not really impossible? LOL! For all of his "scientific" bluster and his PhD., Costella is playing a shell game on the readers. He claims he can do certain things, but when requested to show exactly how he did them, he runs, even though he clearly states any number of times his willingness to do so. Not a good place to be if you are a math teacher playing scientist and trying to convince the world that the Zapruder filim is fake, the Apollo photos are fakes, that a US senators aircraft was taken down by an "EMP" weapon by the GWB administration, and that rain sensors in Dealy Plaza are really listening devices. Not a good place to be at all. I suggest that Costella spend some time with a real camera, and provide emperical proof of concept. In the process he might actually learn what happens when you "move the camera around". A little real world time just might open up your eyes and perhaps then you might actually "see" the error of your position. Then again given your past performances that is unlikely. I suspect we will just see you "fetzer" So John are you still going to "fetzer" or are you going to finally make good on your word?

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here... http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From the hordes rebuttal: "I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle). Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them." Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis". You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days?

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here... http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

ROFLMAO!