Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
In other words: Oswald is innocent, but not the way Cinque wants us to believe. BUT... there is evidence enough, to proof his innocence, whatever Lamson wants us to believe...
Both men are not really interested to solve the crime. But I like the way, they try to eat each other. I wish them success!
KK
Who said I said Oswald did it? Surely not me.
-
The Oswald Innocence Campaign has completed the first-ever reenactment of the Altgens photo, using posers in the doorway. An award-winning professional photographer was hired to do the photo-shoot, and his analysis of the results is included in the report.
To view it, go here:
An absolute mess. As I predicted you got it all wrong...the camera position, the sun position, people position...heck you even got the lens wrong. pretty much everything. Amateur hour on steroids. Should have found a photographer who at least understood how Opaque works...what an embarrassment to the profession.
-
What effect does the retaining wall have on the perceived height of an object behind the retaining wall if the camera elevation is 1) below the retaining wall (as in the Moorman photo) and 2)if the camera elevation is above the retaining wall(as in the Betzner photo)?
I think Hugh Betzner's elevation was 100' and he was 6' tall. I think Mary Moormans elevation was about 89' and she was 5' tall. The height of the top of the retaining wall is 100'.
Picture of Hugh Betzner taking his number 3 picture.
I'm not interested in chasing "things" behind the retaining wall...
Draw your self a scaled diagram and plot the LOS's...
-
What effect does the retaining wall have on the perceived height of an object behind the retaining wall if the camera elevation is 1) below the retaining wall (as in the Moorman photo) and 2)if the camera elevation is above the retaining wall(as in the Betzner photo)?
I think Hugh Betzner's elevation was 100' and he was 6' tall. I think Mary Moormans elevation was about 89' and she was 5' tall. The height of the top of the retaining wall is 100'.
Picture of Hugh Betzner taking his number 3 picture.
I'm not interested in chasing "things" behind the retaining wall...
-
If there is parallax caused by the lens changing positions, Costella has been proven wrong. You can even test this by simply moving around a leaning lamp post and watching the angles change in relation to the background. This is NOT rocket science and Costella knows it. That's why he avoids it like the plague. If he addresses this he KNOWS he will lose and that is a reputation killer for a guy like him. A PhD in Physics who can't even get parallax correct! Imagine that.
I assure you that you will not be destroying John Costella's reputation. John Costella has done something way more significant to the ultimate solution of this case than his mistake with the lampost parallax. I will not bore you with the details now.
I asked you question regarding the Betzner photo. Are you going to answer it? This is the third time I have asked.
Your debate with Josephs is over. You won that debate. It does not help you to debate someone like Josephs on a subject like this. You have to debate the strong not the weak.
Ask your question, If I'm interested I'll respond.
-
I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.
Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.
I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.
Six simple questions for Costella..
1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?
2. How did it move?
3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?
4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?
5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?
6. Where are these photos?
Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6.
You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet?
You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH?
You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing...
and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination,
and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>...
You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home....
David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you,
You can't even get his occupation correct. Hers a PHYSICS PROFESSOR? ROFLMAO!
This is a very simple question. ANYONE can solve it.
NO need for detailed discussions about optics, Zapruder did not need that to take his images.
No need for Costella's unproven theory, unproven because he can't even be bothered to take a few photos to prove his claim...he just posts an appeal to authority.
Nope, any joe blow can test this by simple taking photos, just like Zapruder did.
If there is parallax caused by the lens changing positions, Costella has been proven wrong. You can even test this by simply moving around a leaning lamp post and watching the angles change in relation to the background. This is NOT rocket science and Costella knows it. That's why he avoids it like the plague. If he addresses this he KNOWS he will lose and that is a reputation killer for a guy like him. A PhD in Physics who can't even get parallax correct! Imagine that.
Simple test to first determine if panning by turning the head or even turning the body can cause parallax. You say it will not.
Simply prove it.
Take your camera and set up a parallax experiment. Two poles some distance apart. Make the first one 10-15 feet from the camera. Make he second another 10 or 15 feet. This will make any changes very easy to see. Take your first shot so they are directly in line with each other. Then pan by turning your head and lets compare your images. If you are correct, there will be no change in the alignment of the poles.
Costella can try to make this far more complicated than it is, but its just a few simple pictures, just like Zapruder did.
-
I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.
Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.
I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.
Six simple questions for Costella..
1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?
2. How did it move?
3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?
4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?
5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?
6. Where are these photos?
-
I trust the two of you will be very happy together
Rago and Lamson.... now THERE'S an exacta....
Thanks so much for stepping up and showing the world your ignorance. I'm sure it did not turn out the way you expected. You actually ( and wrongly) thought you were correct. We all found out you were completely clueless.
-
I have diddled around in this thread long enough that now I have become interested in it.
Am I correct that the reason the lamposts do not appear to be completely vertical in the two views(DPD and Zapruder) is because the lampost was not exactly vertical to begin with and the parallax caused by the two different LOS just exaggerated the fact that the lampost was not exactly vertical to begin with. It took the parallax to bring to our attention that the lampost was off vertical.
Is that correct?
Yes. In fact how many lamp posts have you ever seen that were exactly vertical?
-
Great work dave you completely described exactly what did NOT happen when Zapruder panned his camera, Instead you described and illustrated ( in very simple terms) what happens when a camera is panned AT THE ENTRANCE PUPIL.
And of course there will be NO parallax change when the camera is panned on entrance pupil. I noted that in one of my posts above and you went all crazy telling me I was using BS photographic terms. Guess you are having a change of heart now that its YOUR (even though its wrong in this instance) idea.
So instead lets look at what ACTUALLY would happen when the camera is panned by a neck turn instead of on the entrance pupil.
The camera MOVES as it must. The LOS changes, and parallax occurs. I have it correct in my argument, and I have proven Costella and now you have it wrong.
The only thing you "kicked" was yourself.
You failed to understand even the most simple of items...panning a camera. You failed to even read the paper correctly. You created straw man out of thin air and instead of 'knocking them down" you knocked yourself down.
You simply displayed your massive ignorance and arrogance. Nothing wrong with arrogance except when you are wrong, like you are. Then it only makes you look very small and petty.
Welcome to your new reality ...
-
Craig, dumbing down would be a STEP UP for your work....
You and your work are simplistic at best.... a scam and charade as usual... and a directed attempt to disrupt and annoy at worst...
you're a gnat on a bull's a$$ who thinks he's an elephant - a pathetic old man wishing he'd have paid attention to the hatred he brings upon himself
First learn to add/subtract/multiple/divide well enough to understand speed and distance...
then maybe you can believe your little girl offerings need "dumbing down"
what an amazingly pompous a$$ you are.... you do understand THAT is your rep... right? that REP you are so concerned with and proud of....
Start a thread CL... see who actually cares - see who wants to play your games and enjoys your posting company...
Show off that BIG BRAIN old man... before you can't remember where you left it.
You can't understand it and you complain I use "technical photographic terms" to describe a technical process.
Maybe you can study up and learn the word 'parallax"...
I'm really sorry dave. I'll try really hard to use short words for you from now on...and lots and lots of pictures.
dave's meltdown continues.
-
No need to "take apart your work" old man... it's complete crap from the word GO. Has been for years... will be for years to come.
All you need do is post it.
You now gonna play your, "here's a photo, tell me what's wrong with it" game? {yawn}
or the "here's an experiement - see how I'm pulling the wool over your eyes" game?
This is no SURPRISE to anyone but you CL.... old people like you are the last to understand THEY are the problem.
The only FANTASY here is the one between your ears in believing your posts contribute anything... teach anything, resolve anything.
At BEST you're a LNer DVP/VB wanna-be without the prerequisite knowledge of your bible, the WCR.
You wave your hands about telling all how photography is supposed to work...
cause you actually know very little about the assassination.... yes indeed CL... you're a real mystery, and a complete failure on every forum you infest.
Carry on like a little girl again now CL... it's all you seem good at.
If the work is to hard for you to understand (and it clearly is) just say so and I'll try and dumb it down to your level. Not sure it can go that low but I can try.
-
of course not old man... who would be here to call you on your never ending BS...
Let's see you've been DESTROYING posters in your mind for years...
Even on this thread...
what a complete joke of a human being you are old man....
Pathetic then, pathetic now and forever.
Watching you get all worked up... typing so fast your fat little fingers can't keep up...
No time to review your post for fear of missing something to "comment" about...
you are a joke... an ongoing joke.
Posted 14 July 2010 - 03:57 AM
Lampoonson is here to annoy. Ignore him. I am not questioning his motivation.
It is just an observation; all of his postings are merely annoying.
Jack
I'm sure my posts are annoying to you Jack, I've destroyed more of your stupid claims than you care to count.
Showing the depths of your photographic ignorance has been quite enjoyable.
Edited by Craig Lamson, 14 July 2010 - 04:00 AM.
Right Dave, anytime you think you can take apart my work just give it a go. Given your work here on this thread and how badly you did, i suspect you will be batting 0 for whatever for a long time to come.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
-
bye now....
davies famous last words, he just never keeps them.
-
You are absolutely correct, I've been a complete thorn in the side of the silly 'alterationists' for years.
Thats the entertainment value you silly little boy.
And you will be back, you just can't help yourself.
You don't have the first clue WHAT you are talking about and you are such a glutton for punishment.
You are such a silly little xxxxx.
Its just amazing what people say to me about you in emails. Only kooks find you convincing.
-
ROFLMAO!
Good to see you trolling again davie jo.
I said it would be a few days before I prepared the material to destroy you once and for all. And that's still the case. Your time will come and it really wont be pretty for you.
Enjoy whats left of your reputation .. you know your search for 'truth"
Soon everyone will see you are not looking for truth at all, just affirmation of your warped worldview...
-
Unlike your waiting for me old man, I dont wait around for your posts... they just show up... we all have a nice laugh... you curse and mumble, spit and drool
then leave.
You're just a bunch of nonsense and misdirection with a few little girl insults thrown in for good measure..
Here's an idea...
go be self important, find a real reason, and then come on back and let's see more of your personal DJ obsession shine thru...
Your experiment was a shame just as you are a sham... but hey...
THANKS for the vacation.
Maybe we all can read thru the forum threads now without getting nauseous from your presence...
Oh this will be so much fun destroying you, your ignorance and arrogance.
Your reputation ends with this davie.
Enjoy the next few days....
While you are waiting for your reputation to be destroyed maybe you can tell us why this statement of yours in NOT a complete falsehood...
"Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics ..."
-
My oh my davie the ignorance you display in this post is simply amazing.
It is going to be SO MUCH fun showing what a complete fool you are.
You have a few days to reconsider your claims here. Not that you will.
I have a couple of very hot projects that require extensive post processing and it will be a few days before I can produce the materials I need to totally destroy you.
Enjoy the next few days...
-
Once again davie jo gets completely wrong and you simply tell a bunch of whopper in the process...not very honest....
"It finally take Greg to comment for him to finally come clean... y'all can keep him"
It was clearly stated in the article from the day it was published years ago and I told you this on Duncan;s forum, yet you still tell this Whopper...
"What I am challenging is Lamson's experiment to illustrate why the poles SHOULD be different in different frames... and the fraudulent way in which he goes about it.
The CAMERA is not changing its vertical or horizontal line of sight relateive to these poles... the CAMERA is panning..."
The only "fraud' here is your opinion and false claims.
I"t's a dishonest experiment from a man who regularly witholds information from the presentation of his "photographic proofs" and then ad homs detractors rather than deal with his dishonesty"
Again nothing dishonest at all and if you want to make a specific claim where you think I "withheld information" do so and try and prove your case. But good luck because you are destined to fail once again.
"Can anyone remember a post in which he actually proposes something HE believes other than his three little inches of cloth? Which again, when presented with the jacket and shirt and wound lining up replies he could care less..."
You can "believe" all you want. Ill stick to things I can PROVE and know empirically. You should try it sometime. Oh wait...
"As usual, CL cannot - nor does he even try to prove the motion of his camera in the experiment relates to the movement of Z's camera thru these frames...."
Of course it relates. You simply don't have what it takes to understand.
"Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics without his holier than thou, "I don't really care about the assassination anyway", "I'm just here to be amused" attitude"
And what forums would those be exactly davie jo? You made a very serious charge. Now prove it.
-
Cause putting the REPRESENTATION OF THE SIGN POSTS AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE WAS SUCH A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SIGN POSTS - RIGHT?
45 degrees? Really, you measured that HOW? Oh wait I asked you this at Duncan's forum and you ran away from the question as quick as you could. Why? Because yo have no way of know WHAT the angle is, and instead you simple make up an untruthful statement and present it as fact when you know completely that it is false.
Your suggestion that this represents the signposts is a very poor strawman.
The article was quite clear as to the question being asked, and what the study was trying to accomplish:
Costella sez this:
"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."
What was the question I clearly stated the article was trying to answer?
"But a question remains, is he correct?
When confronted that his statement cannot be true in the real world and asked to provide empirical proof of concept, Costella runs away. That in itself is not unusual for Costella and it's not the first time he has failed to do some simple photographic tests to see if his opinions play out in the real world. But real world empirical testing is part of science. One must question why Costella does his best to stay away from it. I can only surmise it to be fear of admitting failure.
To find out if Costella is correct I decided to do some empirical testing.
The question:
Can the angle of vertical pole change if we move the camera?
First we have to ask, what is a vertical pole? If we answer that it is a pole that is perfectly vertical and truly plumb then Costella is correct, that pole will not change angles as the camera is held perfectly horizontal no matter where you put the camera. So far so good for the Doctor.
But what happens if the pole is not vertical and perfectly plumb? Does his theory still hold?
The answer is a resounding no! Let's consider that leaning pole. In real life a leaning pole an appears exactly vertical when viewed for two points, one where the pole is leaning directly towards you and one when it leans directly away from you. Viewed from any other position the pole will be at varying angles from vertical depending on your viewing position. This is quite easy to test in real life by simply walking around a leaning pole and viewing the changes in angle.
All of this begs the question, were the poles Costella uses in his study of the Zapruder film vertical in all axis or were they leaning? The photographic evidence says they were leaning. But does all of this translate to actual photographs. Again contrary to Costella's claim, yes it does!"
With all your ability you could not reproduce the posts as they appear in REAL LIFE?
Instead, knowing that a leaning representation would look even more off vertical as you moved the camera,
Impossible. Unless you have the ability to perfectly position the poles in 3d space, and if you can then please provide that data.
Besides the angle is immaterial to the question. 1 degree or 60, if the pole leans the angle changes as the camera moves. Costella claimed this was against the laws of physics. I simply set up an simple experiment to see it his claim held water. It did not.
You set it up - the exacto knive is placed in a manner to illustrate YOUR point, rather than to reproduce the event.
I can't reproduce the event. Instead I did a proof of concept demonstration to see if the claim made by Costerlla...this claim..was correct.
" 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."
Costella was WRONG. Proven ... unimpeachable.
and you move the CAMERA relative to the knife... while in Z the camera does not move relative to the posts.
If NOT VERTICAL, then the LATERAL or VERTICAL movement of the camera should reveal this lean - accepted...
except the CAMERA does not move off axis relative to the sign posts and the images behind them.
When the wall is lined up correctly, which means the Line of sight IS THE SAME, the post should not move...
Except, as usual, given your complete ignorance of all things photographic, you get it completely wrong.
There is only ONE way to pan the Zapruder camera in such a manner NOT to move the position of the lens relative to the signposts and not cause parallax.
That would be rotating the camera around an axis that falls on the entrance pupil (often called the nodal point) of the lens. For the sake of the discussion the position of the axis would be the center of the length of the camera lens. The actual position may be forward or backward slightly.
This is pretty standard stuff for those of us who do panorama photography. I do hundreds of 360 vr movies every year for my clients. It is well proven science.
http://archive.bigbe...hoto/nodal.html
http://www.vrphotogr...ptalign-tn.html
So unless you think Zapruder had his camera set up in a panorama tripod head and rotated it around the nodal point, HIS CAMERA MOVED BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY as he paned, inducing PARALLAX!
Like I said, as usual when you wade in half cocked into an area where you have zero knowledge, you get it TOTALLY WRONG!
I do not believe your experiment accurately reproduces what Costella is saying... and once others understand you DID place the knife at such an extreme angle and didNOT move the camera similiar to Z...
Your little experiment is worthless....
I followed Costella's directions to a tee...
The angle is immaterial to the study. It can be 1 degree or 60...and the work stands.
You got the Zapruder camera movement completely wrong.
Your entire post is worthless, just like your so called knowledge of items photographic.
My oh my, you do do a really good job of making yourself look foolish.
-
Hi David,
I just saw this post. Sorry for the delayed reply. I don't think that Craig necessarily leaned the exacto knife. Perhaps, but I can't tell. However, if the Stemmons
sign was leaning it would have an effect on appearance due to a change of perspective as the camera pans.
The knife was leaning...from my article: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
Dr. John P. John Costella, an Australian with a PhD. in physics, has produced what he says are solid proofs that the Zapruder film has been altered, In two of his studies he proclaims that images we see in the Zapruder film are impossible therefore the film has been altered. His studies are summarized here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.htm
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/lamppost.html
In the first study listed Costella tells us this regarding how the signpost moves in the Zapruder film:
"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."
In the lamppost study Costella tells us this about the how the lamppost changes angles between the Zapruder film and the DPD photo:
"But there are two things that don't match up properly.
One is the road sign, which comes out blurry. This is because it was pasted into the film incorrectly, as described on the last page.
The other is the lamppost to the right of the sign. In the panorama above you can see the top half of the lamppost as shown in the Zapruder film. Just to its right is the real lamppost as of November 1963. (Ignore the lamppost further to the left: this is where it had been moved to by 2002.)
It does not matter that the Zapruder film lamppost is slightly to the left of the Dallas Police Department photo. That is explained by the police taking the photo from a slightly different position to Abraham Zapruder. (This is called "parallax".)
What is important is that the angle of the lamppost is wrong. You can see this more clearly in the comparison below:
If you look at the white wall and the bushes in the background, you can see that the two panoramic views line up exactly. But the lamppost changes its angle.
This is even clearer if we draw a line down the middle of the lamppost:
The Zapruder film shows the lamppost leaning slightly to the right. Even though it is only a small lean, it is something that could not happen if the film was genuine.
And finally Costella has this to say in a post on the Education Forum:
'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.
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).
I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this point, probably because he has been blocked from my email for years due to harassment. I am sorry that he has remained confused and confounded on this issue for so long. I hope he can do the homework necessary to enlighten himself. I have wasted many hours on his harebrained requests in years past, and am not inclined to throw away more time on him. If anyone wishes to believe his rantings, then by all means let them. It's a free country.
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.
But a question remains, is he correct?
When confronted that his statement cannot be true in the real world and asked to provide empirical proof of concept, Costella runs away. That in itself is not unusual for Costella and it's not the first time he has failed to do some simple photographic tests to see if his opinions play out in the real world. But real world empirical testing is part of science. One must question why Costella does his best to stay away from it. I can only surmise it to be fear of admitting failure.
To find out if Costella is correct I decided to do some empirical testing.
The question:
Can the angle of vertical pole change if we move the camera?
First we have to ask, what is a vertical pole? If we answer that it is a pole that is perfectly vertical and truly plumb then Costella is correct, that pole will not change angles as the camera is held perfectly horizontal no matter where you put the camera. So far so good for the Doctor.
But what happens if the pole is not vertical and perfectly plumb? Does his theory still hold?
The answer is a resounding no! Let's consider that leaning pole. In real life a leaning pole an appears exactly vertical when viewed for two points, one where the pole is leaning directly towards you and one when it leans directly away from you. Viewed from any other position the pole will be at varying angles from vertical depending on your viewing position. This is quite easy to test in real life by simply walking around a leaning pole and viewing the changes in angle.
All of this begs the question, were the poles Costella uses in his study of the Zapruder film vertical in all axis or were they leaning? The photographic evidence says they were leaning. But does all of this translate to actual photographs. Again contrary to Costella's claim, yes it does!
Doing the test.:
To illustrate the fact that the angle of a vertical pole can change when the camera is moved I created a simple test. I used a Canon 1DsMKIII camera, a tripod, a Bogen 303Plus Pano head, a 90mm Canon Ts-e lens, an Exacto knife in a cup and window molding as a background.
For this test I placed the cup with the Exacto knife about an equal distance from the camera and the window in the background. The camera was leveled. The Exacto knife was placed in the cup in such a manner that the top of the handle was angled towards the camera and so it appeared vertical in the camera.
The 90mm Ts-e lens ( http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=156&modelid=7329#ModelDetailAct ) was chosen for two reasons, it allow for shifting the lens side to side by 10mm in each direction and it is highly corrected for distortion so no transforming of barrel or pincushion is needed, The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.
-
Thank you David,
Nicely conveyed.
If I may add just a bit more.
Time-Life Survey-Data Nov25, 1963.
SS re-enactment Dec 2nd-Dec4th, 1963 with final Survey Plat completed on Dec5th, 1963
FBI re-enactment Feb7th, 1964 - A revised Dec5th, 1963 SS Plat was created at this time too.
March16, 1964- The day the Autopsy Surgeons testified, SS Agent Howlett requests a copy of the FBI survey plat of Feb7, 1964.
WC re-enactment completed in May 1964.
FBI Survey Plat 6/25/1964 created, a full month after the WC phony re-enactment of the assassination.
Briefly paraphrased by me.
Full credit to Tom Purvis.
Craig wants you to believe the investigations were Sunday strolls.
Not happening!!!
They are all still fantasy events. They could not accurately recreate the Zapruder film not the events it contains. It is simply impossible to correctly redo all the minute variables. So each recreation and survey becomes a brand new event, not a recreation of an old one.
Its one guess after the next guess, after the next guess, after the next. One error compounds the next error which compound the next.
You can run your math until the cows come home, but its based on flawed data...
and its still garbage in, garbage out.
-
Meyers has Towner's camera running at 22.8 frames per sec in order to get his multisyncing to work.
Towner's camera actually ran at 18.3 frames per sec, same as Zapruder's, much more in line with what it's supposed to be.
How much faster does Meyer's have the camera running in terms of time.
22.8/18.3=1.25. So 25% faster.
chris
Getting back to this area, the Towner film consists of 167 total frames.
That would be 160 + 7 missing/spliced frames.
Towner started filming the limo as it turned from Houston onto Elm.
If I was Z and I started filming at the same time as Towner with the same "frame per second" rate I would have a parallel film version of the same time period.
Why is this important?
Well, the WC started there calculations at frame 161 and ended at 313 = 152 frames
They shorted JFK by 15ft. They also created a 1frame per 1ft guide.
Lets add the frames back first.
152 + 15 =167 frames
Gee!! Thats the same amount of frames as the Towner film.
Add them together and it's a total of 334 frames.
When did Shaneyfelt say they stopped the photographic aspect:
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334.
Or, maybe it was the end of their pre-conceived film work.
Work that equation forward and backward.
chris
Why, its just more compounded garbage...more of the same crap you have not been able to sell for years.
-
What a mess of a rant David.
The data the WC published had errors. The recreations (all of them) had errrors, which by the very nature of recreation they must. The errors compound. then Davidison (and you by extension) compound them in a vain attempt to make them fit your silly theory that since Altgens states 30 and 15 feet, that there must be a shot near his positon as seen in Altgens.
Garbage in equals garbage out.
And of course we can triangulate Altgens position to see he missed the 30 foot mark by 40 feet..he was 70 away...since that's how far the limo was give or take in A6.
And of course we can also surmise he missed the 15 foot mark because he did not have his camera to his eye when we first see him in Zapruder and if he was doing the zone focusing he suggests he would have needed to be viewing the limo continuously as it approached since his 15 foot focus mark (if he even got that correct) only gives him a 5 foot or so zone of focus. HE HAD TO TRACK IT TO WATCH IT COME INTO FOCUS!
The shot happened much farther up the street, which is why he was frozen with the camera still below his eyes.
Rear facts and solid process...compared to a cornucopia of compounded errors and a silly theory based on proven flawed testimony...
Garbage in, garbage out.
I don't care what the WC said. it was opinion, just like yours and everyone else's. Carried just about as much weight. Don't care if the SBT is true or not. Even if it were it would still never be accepted by ct's like you. I'm simply not interested in arguing it. But hey be my guest, knock yourself out.
The so called calculation in this thread are still going to be a complete mess.
JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The only thing preposterous is the work you have done on the is very silly issue.
You got the camera position wrong, you got the lighting position wrong, you got the people positions wrong ( a subset of failing to get the camera in the right place) and you even go the lens wrong.
You did not even come close to a recreation. You made a NEW creation.
The VERY NICE VEE (which destroys you) does not extend because she is NOT LEANING FORWARD like Lovelady.
You failed to prove ALL of your claims, and in the process created a perfect vee shadow which destroys you clam that it was not possible. Makes your photographers statements look really silly as well...
Great job Ralph. You destroyed your self and vindicated all the rest of us.
Money well spent. ROFLMAO!