Greg Burnham

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

Sorry that's the entire point of my work. I've not made any such statement. The only claim I HAVE made is that you can't RULE OUT parallax as it is claimed by Costella Exactly what are my "SWEEPING CONCLUSIONS" here Greg? Again the work in question; www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm What a charming and silly strawman Greg. Lets review once again what his is about. Its about how PARALLAX works. PERIOD. That's it. Now if you believe Costella can incorrectly dismiss the well documented effects of how the principle of parallax works in his claim...the one he says is the most bullet proof of all, then that is clearly your decision. My work addresses a single point. And it does that unimpeachable manner. It invalidates Costella's claim as he has written it. NOW it is incumbent upon HIM to find a way to remove parallax other than his bogus 'angles can't change nonsense" from the picture if he wants his claim to survive. That is not my problem. I have not nor will I try and solve it. In fact I don't believe there is enough data to do so reliably. That ball is in Costella's court if he intends for his claim to be valid. You are talking to the wrong guy. But you already knew that before you coughed up your straw man nonsense. So, you didn't take any measurements, did you? A simple yes or no will do. Did you take any measurements?

Craig, Let's not belabor who might be right or who might be wrong, Ok? Instead, consider: Even if I am willing to "take your word for it" that the amount of anomaly seen in the Zapruder film might have a reasonably non-nefarious explanation, I still would like to see your work, specifically measurements, that support that notion. If you cannot--or simply will not--provide the raw data (at the very least) from which you presumably constructed your equations, from which you then, in turn, drew your subsequent conclusions this exercise becomes tedious. A scientist (or any practitioner of the scientific method) willingly and eagerly supplies the information necessary for others to replicate his results. Costella wrote what he wrote. You have challenged it and have cited empirical information in support of that challenge. This debate is NOT about whether or not one statement was overstated! It is about what it means to the big picture. I am asking you to provide the data referencing the Stemmons Freeway Sign's dimensions, distance to the lens, angle and degree of the signposts' lean [both of them], and other relevant data. Surely you measured before making such sweeping conclusions? If you did not collect this information prior to writing your rebuttal then your rebuttal cannot even be considered as "science" because it lacks the most fundamental of elements: measurements. Keep in mind, the subject was never a stick in a cup. That analogy is meaningless without context...and the context requires measurements. On the other hand, if you did take these measurements, then why would a scientist--or anyone who respects, grasps, and adheres to the Scientific Method--refuse to provide the information necessary for others to potentially replicate, and thus validate, his thesis? So, I'll ask you again: Why is your posted work relevant to the subject? Even if you proved one statement to be inaccurate, who cares? Ok, sorry. Obviously you care about that or you wouldn't be defending it so hard. But, still, you have not even addressed the measurements that are required for you to make the claim that the anomaly seen is within expected parameters. You just keep saying: "Parallax is this that and the other thing. And, Costella was wrong..." -- but you haven't said anything about the subject yet. If you did not measure anything in the film frames, please just admit it.

Well Craig, If you didn't take measurements, then you didn't take measurements. And that's that.

Craig, You criticize David for not having SHOWN anything. I am requesting that you provide the data that demonstrates what YOU have SHOWN? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt! Let's assume you are correct. If so, please provide the RAW DATA that demonstrates how your analysis proves that the apparent anomalies, delineated by Costella, are false? Even if (emphasis on the word IF) the "blanket statement" he made is not technically correct, is it "wrong" enough to the degree that it negates the fact that the signposts move in a superlatively exaggerated manner? I don't think so. But, I don't want you or anyone else to take my word for it. I would like the actual measurements of the above items (that you surely made) in order to replicate your results. Great work, Craig! The sooner you provide the raw data upon which you based your conclusions the sooner my team can replicate your results! You'll get credit for a discovery.

A completely different question Greg. Please feel free to try and answer it if you wish. Let me remind you of the question the IS being asked and answered... So if we summarize Costella's statements they are quite clear. " if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera" "If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery." There is no ambiguity in Costella's statements. And after all he has a PhD in Physics, so he speaks from a position of authority. The FACT remains Costella got it wrong when he said a "vertical" as in the leaning posts of the Stemmons sign CANNOT change visual angles as the camera moves. If you think that is incorrect I await your rebuttal. I wasn't talking about your critique of Costella. I was talking about your own working estimates. As I said, even if there was a lean in a direction, that would yield angles, vectors, and the size and distances would also be required for precision. I am not arguing that your are incorrect about your statement. I am encouraging you to share the raw data from your experiment as it relates to the sign--not to a stick in a cup.

Too easy, Craig. First off, in what direction do the Stemmons signposts lean and to what degree(s)? Better yet, in what direction do the posts lean from Zappy's LOS in your opinion? I understand that the answer will necessarily be a "moving target" (no pun intended), but accounted for it needs to be. Please provide a range of spatial locations (for the signposts) and relative times (corresponding frame #'s should do nicely for these purposes). I will need that information in order to test whether or not the amount of anomaly to be measured in the film is consistent with the angle of lean you are alleging existed. While it is true that there may well have been a lean in some direction, the directional vector, degree of angle, and trajectory from the source (Zappy) to the target (JFK) by-passing the target of your study, namely, the Stemmons Fwy Signpost is fascinatingly critical. Also, the distances from the lens to the image of the Stemmons signpost(s) is important in order to truly MEASURE what is going on here. I think it will involve photogrammetry from a few sophisticated individuals. I know just the crew.

Craig, please clarify how your posted demonstration pertains to the problem of the shifting angle of the sign posts as observed by John Costella? Can you provide us with some good working estimates of: 1) how much the camera shifted as Zapruder panned and 2) the distance from Zapruder to the sign and 3) the height of the body of the sign

Agreed, Michael. Today there is clear evidence that the Dallas Police Department was convinced "beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" NOT that Oswald was guilty of killing the president, but were convinced--in the heat of the moment--that Oswald had killed one of their own: Officer J. D. Tippit. Therein lay the ease by which Ruby gained access to the accused and the willingness of the DPD to cooperate in the deed. After all, the feds had been able to remove the President's body from their jurisdiction just a few days before. The DPD was not going to allow "the killer of one of their own" to be removed from them so easily.

FDR. The answer to the other question is a mixed bag. But, after the smoke clears, mostly no.

As most of you know, Jim Fetzer and I were once very close friends. This friendship began nearly two decades ago because we both were involved in several JFK seminars and conferences together. We remained close until I began to notice a pattern of disturbing behavior. While Jim has never been very accepting of the dissenting opinions of others, until recently he wasn't willing to abandon critical thinking in order to prove his point or best an opponent. Sure, sometimes he'd stretch it pretty thin, but not abandon it. However, that show of self-restraint apparently had been dwindling for quite some time. I missed its decline because I had not been visiting the forums for over 2 years and I wasn't a member of Lancer, the Education Forum (EF), or the Deep Politics Forum (DPF) where he regularly contributed. When I joined EF at Jim's request, in order to share my impression of (and report the content of my interview with) Judyth Vary Baker, I witnessed a continuing pattern of disturbing behavior, namely: a growing disregard and indeed disdain for fellow researchers with whom he disagreed, irrespective of the good faith shown by select opposing researcher(s). I addressed this behavior in several private emails and telephone conversations with Jim to no avail. Eventually, we had a semi-public meltdown on this forum, as I, like others before me, increasingly became a target of his ire. Today, as the result not only of the personally insulting manner in which I was treated, but more importantly, due to his apparent complete disregard for the "rules of engagement" to which he once pledged allegiance, we have no contact at all beyond an occasional group email that he carbon copies to me. Having said that, I still wish him the best. My current concern has to do with the health of the research community. Every once in a while an individual comes along that has a tremendous amount to offer toward the discovery of truth in the JFK assassination case. These rare individuals are able to help to bring about a unification of efforts between practitioners of disparate disciplines. Such leadership has the potential to ultimately yield corroborative results and profound discoveries. Jim Fetzer is, or at least once was, one such individual. His knowledge of the facts of the case is nearly encyclopedic in scope, his analytical ability second to none, and his ability to articulate the salient points is unmatched. His past contribution has been nothing less than outstanding. Emphasis on the word: past. It is for this reason that I am gravely concerned when I read the volumes of his recent writings. I have rejected the unfounded claim by many in the mainstream media that those of us who study the history and politics of conspiracy are therefore conspiracy theorists. A conspiracy theorist offers speculation, a “theory” if you will, as to what happened. The authors of conspiracy theories share a universal trait: They are absolutely convinced of their theory to the exclusion of all else notwithstanding the discovery of evidence to the contrary. In the world of science and of law such a self-centered predilection is counterintuitive to the discovery of the truth. Many of us in the research community have taken considerable care and have exerted great attention to this detail. It is all too easy to fall in love with one’s own pet theory in a narcissistically delusional and ultimately self-defeating exercise in futility. Because we do not know exactly what happened, we should not claim to know exactly what happened. However, we DO know what did NOT happen. This is an important distinction. When it is demonstrable that not only is the official story false, but that the officials themselves knew that the story was false and continued to promote it: That is a deep political conspiracy—with no “theory” involved. I am not suggesting that a degree of healthy exploration is unwarranted. Indeed, go to where the evidence leads, but remain open minded. As a rule of thumb, a great researcher does not fall in love with the image of their conspiracy theory to the exclusion of compelling evidence to the contrary. Rather, compelling evidence--contrary or otherwise--should appropriately modify our beliefs. The most recent work by Jim Fetzer reflects his lack of willingness to consider evidence that runs contrary to his thesis. Instead, he dismisses inconvenient facts out of hand. As the 50th anniversary rapidly approaches I regret that I find myself in the awkward position of having to publically denounce the recent work of Jim Fetzer in order to distance myself from it and not be unduly associated with it. This especially includes his: “Oswald was in the doorway after all!” … And much more. I do not wish to trample on my former friend’s reputation. I simply will not be associated with it or him any longer. Greg Burnham November 4, 2012

OK you said your tests "will not be conducted immediately" but it's been over two years. When if ever will you conduct them? Or did you already do so but were not happy with the results? You'll need to go back and read what I have already written about this. I don't remember which thread it is in. I did shoot nearly continuously for about 2 .5 hours (if memory serves) on November 22nd of 2010. Over 90% of the footage came out usable. However, I haven't had the time to coordinate a study of it with the proper equipment and with the proper experts yet. Hopefully that will change in the future. I just don't know when at this time.

No need to apologize. Your language was fine by me. I was just curious as to your "end game" in this matter. Thanks for your response.

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.

No offense intended, but what is the point to this exercise? IOW: If we assume you are correct, why exactly does this matter to you? What does it mean to the case?

If the camera indeed ran at 18.3 FPS then the time interval between these frames is extremely small (1/18 of a second) and the total time of this entire sequence less than .45 of one second. It is difficult if not impossible, IMO, to make definitive judgments about what occurred in such brief intervals from one frame to the next particularly considering the amount of blur present. The time duration from your presumed "uninjured JFK frame" @ Z-200 to the "injured JFK frame" @ Z-204 is less than 1/5th of one second and the evidence being studied contains so much blur that I find it anything but dispositive.

The reason for my question, JIm, is to suggest that it may be neither man, Novel nor Witt. Indeed, TUM need not be Witt in order to prove Novel is not TUM. I know your second comment was for Stephen, but... Prior to Mongoose there were plenty of anti-Castro Cuban activities that were being regularly conducted with support from CIA--most often without official sanction from the USGOV. Although Mongoose may have "legitimized" the effort, accelerated its pace, and placed its coordination under Lansdale, it doesn't mean Mongoose was the start of such activities.

I apologize for the stupid tone in my last post. A question: Is it more important to you to convince us that Novel was not TUM... or is it more important to you that we are convinced that TUM was Witt? Or, better yet: Does it NEED to be Witt in order to support your claim that it is definitely NOT Novel?

Re-read what I wrote and try to grasp it. I said that I do not know who was TUM. I said that I do not know if it was or was not Gordon Novel. I said neither do you. If you are certain that Witt was TUM then show us compelling evidence in support of your position. More than just his word. You might be convinced that Novel was not TUM. Fine with me. I simply can't tell. But, for you to categorically claim that TUM is definitely Witt makes enquiring minds want to know. After all: Extraordinary claims... BTW: I don't think Novel was TUM... for other reasons.

Thanks, Michael.

As I said elsewhere: There you go again, hanging your hat on specious supposition when responsible analysis would have sufficed. I do not know who TUM was and neither do you. I do not know if he was Novel or not. I can make no reliable determination based on the less than clear photographic evidence. As for Witt...I really doubt his story. It simply makes no sense: He brought an umbrella with him to send Kennedy a message related to events more than 20 years old involving Chamberlain? Pure, unadulterated BS. I do agree that Novel was involved in the Bay of Pigs and certainly involved in attempting to derail Garrison's investigation.

I saw O'Reilly this morning on NBC. When asked if he thought the idea of conspiracy was supported he replied, Yes. Then he was asked if Oswald did it and he said, Yes. Although those two conclusions--technically--are not mutually exclusive, the fact that he acknowledges that the evidence supports conspiracy but does not acknowledge that the evidence tends to exonerate Oswald is mind boggling and essentially intellectually dishonest.

The blind cannot see.

I'm way too cynical these days.