Greg Burnham

I get it, levity: Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK! SOS for sure. BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope! you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime! COSTELLA: "I'll swear to that on a witness stand -- that those three frames did not come through Zapruder's camera, in that order, one after the other. It's impossible!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmQDhWOQSg&feature=related

I get it, levity: Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK! SOS for sure. BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope! Some of the best "supporting" evidence has to do with impossible "sharpness" -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVz545Ghts&feature=related

I get it, levity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsMA5vvg3nk

Then im against you/them I dont believe one word Judyth Baker says So it looks to me that you agree with half of what I do. What is significant in my mind is that this was not disclosed in the Warren or any other government report. Someone who worked with the alleged assassin of JFK has a lot to contribute and should have been questioned long ago. She goes a long way in making the "lone nut loser" myth seem absurd, and I think those who are covering this up know that as well. Judyth went into hiding after the assassination. There is no evidence that her name came up. However, you are correct in that the FBI should have questioned those who worked at Reily at the same time as LHO. However, since they were intent on shutting doors to conspiracy and not opening them, this did not take place. As you know, I have admitted my state of "cognitive dissonance" on this subject. This is because my "instincts" after having interviewed her, tell me she is not lying. However, much of what she claims has not been verified--and some claims may not be accurate, IMO. That does NOT necessarily mean they are lies, just unproven. However, since even her detractors agree that she worked at Reilly's concurrently with Oswald, it seems suspect that none of them were interviewed by the FBI. One possible explanation is that if her information was "too hot to handle" it would have been too blatant an ommission--had all employees been interviewed EXCEPT her. So perhaps they skipped all of them over. I don't know. The offer to question her on Black Op Radio remains on the table.

Relevant eludes you???? You don't have a clue what the subject is nor do you have the first clue if costella is telling the truth. Monk ... yet another unimformed CT sheeple. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsMA5vvg3nk

Craig, You use a technique called "diversion" in order to obfuscate the issues by re-directing folks attention from Costella's work to your own. Costella's work is available for review. That is what's being studied, not your work. You claim to have refuted his findings. I reject that claim for reasons already mentioned. Instead of inviting me or anyone else to refute your claim, I invite you or anyone else to actually address John's work in a relevant manner. I understand that you believe you have done that. I think you are mistaken. We disagree. Fine. Translated from monkspeak: I'm screwed and I can't refute Lamsson's nor save Costellas work so I'll just make some silly crap up and hope no one notices. Sheesh Monk, what exactly WOULD be a relevant manner? I quote Costella and his work copiously and include direct links to his work in my web pages. I have tsested his often stated claim that parallax cannot cause changes to angles. That has been proven beyond a doubt using his own constraints to be patently false. You not anyone else has been able to refute this. I have tested his statements about pincushion distortion and again found it wanting. That has also not been refuted. I have new testing which shows rotationl parallax also causes the sign flopping Costella claims is impossible, and also have he photo evidence that show rotation on the exit pupil ( a very common technique used in professional pano photography) ELIMINATES the pole flopping. Proving yet again in the very situation seen in the Z film that parallax does indeed cause the effect Costella claims is impossible. There is no doubt that the Zpruder camera was NOT rotated on the entrance pupil and thus PARALLAX was present. Costella's claim is again refuted. So tell us monk, mr expert, WHAT IS RELEVANT? BTW, COstella's work in NOT availab le for srtudy. He has it hiddden away. He offers his handwaving and his conclusions but ther is scantg data to back his claims. To that end and despiote his promises he still remains a closed book So anyway, back to the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GYVmQVK35g

Craig, You use a technique called "diversion" in order to obfuscate the issues by re-directing folks attention from Costella's work to your own. Costella's work is available for review. That is what's being studied, not your work. You claim to have refuted his findings. I reject that claim for reasons already mentioned. Instead of inviting me or anyone else to refute your claim, I invite you or anyone else to actually address John's work in a relevant manner. I understand that you believe you have done that. I think you are mistaken. We disagree. Fine.

IMO, your work was not representative of the issue being debated. Your work demonstrated parallax, which is precisely what John said could not account for the anomaly. I think you are talking about apples and oranges. Whereas you come from a vested position that the Zapruder film is authentic, I do not.

This is really beyond you monk. The only claim I'm making and PROVING is that costella's "very best proof of alteration" is pure bunk. There is nothing internally inconsistant in the frames in question. They exhibit the natural effects of parallax. There is no inconsistancy in the pincushion. The parts of the sign in question are both small enough and fall in the correct areas of the frame to NOT show substantial visual distortion. Costella the wonderboy simple screwed the pooch on this one. No wonder he is in hiding. as for you, I see your shucking and jiveing has not changed over he years. When you have your back in a corner the bullsnit flows. Its clear you are out of your depth. But at least you are a laugh a minute! Thanks for that. Over the years I've mellowed, Craig. And, I'm not tasked with enforcing the rules of engagement for this forum. So, my approach to those of your ilk is different here than it was at JFKresearch. I display a lot more patience and tolerance. Moreover, I'm never convinced that I am "right" -- and I remain open to information and correction. However, what you have offered so far doesn't persuade. You are free (apparently the rules don't apply to you) to continue to attempt to ridicule those who disagree with you. You are free to launch personal insults and call into question other member's intelligence. That probably will make your arguments more credible...

Craig, Your claim of superiority or that John is wrong--does not make it so. It is the INTERNAL inconsistency of these frames that are at issue. It has nothing to do with "visuals" per se. By definition: If the film was indeed altered by employing a method designed to prevent discovery of the alteration, then the evidence of alteration of the film would be obscured. Your argument is fallacious as it "begs the question".

Craig, Pincushion distortion within a "real" image is "graduated" throughout the image obtained from a lens. It is self consistent. It is measurable and the "graduation" from center to edge is mathematically predictable. Abrupt additions of curvature or abrupt subtractions of curvature are "red flags" -- as is the absence of proportionate pincushion distortion. Parallax refers to a change in "subjective" perspective. John's findings have NOTHING to do with anything "subjective" or based on the relative "position" of the observer. It has to do with the internal self consistency (or lack thereof) within the "closed system" of the image in the frame.

You went back and edited your original post which was ENTIRELY non-responsive to the question. And, even after having done that, still you fail to answer the question. The question is NOT about the transformation of the image plane. The question is about the first order transformation of the "IMAGE" itself, when the "image plane" has been infintesimaly transformed. Try again, brainiac. Yes I did edit my post, you have a problem with that? Whats the matter monk? Still awaiting you marching orders from Costella? So you want to know how the image is changed when you move the image plane (do you even know what any of this means or are you just a mouthpiece?) So the question remains, HOW are you moving the image plane? Since the image is formed and recorded at the image plane (thats the piece of film of silicon monk), HOW you move the image plane has a direct effect on the resulting image. Pretty simple question. Of course that begs the question of you (or is that dr. john) of what is the transformation of the image if the lens is moved but NOT the image plane? Tell you what, instead of pimping for Costella, just tell him to drop by and we can settle this once and for all. He's a member here and he can just as easily answer the questions directly as he can pimping the answers to you. Hey. let him know I have some great new photos to share when the time is right. I'm sure he will love them [/sacrasm} First, the above question was asked years ago on this very forum, so no, I'm not pimping. Second, John won't waste his time on you. Third, you appear to know lenses well, but not optics. Fourth, I'm no expert in this field, but it doesn't take an expert to sense when a question is being avoided.

You went back and edited your original post which was ENTIRELY non-responsive to the question. And, even after having done that, still you fail to answer the question. The question is NOT about the transformation of the image plane. The question is about the first order transformation of the "IMAGE" itself, when the "image plane" has been infintesimaly transformed. Try again, brainiac.

Is it beyond your mental capacity to understand Costella screwed the pooch? You can post his silly work until the cows come home and it still won't change the fact that he did not know how to use the very principle on which he based his claims. His claim is busted... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm. You will never defeat it. Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice. Craig, It is you who are not understanding what John proved. As an example, when asked the following question a long time ago, you failed to respond. Do you even understand what it means and why it's important? QUESTION: "What is the first-order transformation of an image when the image plane is subjected to an infinitesimal transformation? Sheesh. your density is simply overwelming. I clearly understand what John has failed to prove, which is why this is STILL unimpeached. Clearly YOU don't understand..... www.craiglmanson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm Get back to us when Costella tells you he can't refute the work. I'll take that non-responsiveness to the question to mean that either you don't understand what it means, or you don't know why it's important, or you do understand those things, but are perhaps unwilling to admit error.

Is it beyond your mental capacity to understand Costella screwed the pooch? You can post his silly work until the cows come home and it still won't change the fact that he did not know how to use the very principle on which he based his claims. His claim is busted... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm. You will never defeat it. Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice. Craig, It is you who are not understanding what John proved. As an example, when asked the following question a long time ago, you failed to respond. Do you even understand what it means and why it's important? QUESTION: "What is the first-order transformation of an image when the image plane is subjected to an infinitesimal transformation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lbIZLDBojQ&feature=related

Well, Pat--I don't claim to know what this means either. Steve Gaal sent the info to me to post as he is having some technical difficulties. Note that I haven't accused anyone of anything. I'm just "reporting" an anomaly.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!! Check it out: Smells like the work of a Varnell... LOL. What about it, Cliff? I dislike talk of "CIA disinfo" agents. Don't put this xxxx on me, pal. I think the powers that be learned decades ago that the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community would generate vast mis-information out of ridiculous pet theories (like your T1 back wound, Pat) and thoroughly obfuscate the crucial evidence in the case with the best of intentions. With guys like you around, Pat, the government can save the money. Well, I do wonder what that was all about. Colby and Lamson on the same blog; same page; same day...and Colby claiming to be a paid government conspiracy forum buster employed by the CIA. I appreciate your dislike of talk about this subject, Cliff. However, I wonder what those posts meant? If he wasn't being impersonated, then he either is what he claimed to be or he was lying about it. Either way, it's disturbing. On the other hand, if he was being impersonated, he potentially has more things to worry about than this forum--like identity theft, defamation of character etc.

Translated from monkspeak...I'm screwed. LOL! Indeed, you are!

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- The Queen in Hamlet

The pincushion distortion issue is unrelated to the "leaning" of the sign, even if it was, in fact, leaning.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!! Check it out:

What are the odds of: 1) this being the same Len Colby? 2) this claim being true? 3) this having NO MEANING at all? I would think that CIA agents would not "out" themselves for obvious reasons. Valerie Plame is a case in point. But, in this case, the self described "profile" bears a remarkable resemblance to the subject. This is not an accusation, rather it is a report. A "Len Colby" claimed: "As an undercover CIA agent, I professionally debunk government conspiracies on discussion forums. It's my profession to lie and to know when other people are lying. Sarah Palin, like most Republicans, is a xxxx." Is this the same guy? Was this a joke? Thanks to Steve Gaal for the heads up... CIA Agent Len Colby

Your thread, your question, your ignorance... So can you refute the work or are you just hot air? Yes, it is my thread, my game, my question, and no legitimate answer has come from you. However, you are not required to answer my question. You are also not required to embarrass yourself any further. The links you provided are rife with irrelevance. Really? Just for some education here "monk". the studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Costella's claim is bogus, proven via some very sweet empricial evidence. So far NO ONE can refute it. Your ignonorace in the matter has been duly noted. However if you can bring some skin to the game and prove WHY you think the work is "rife with irrelevance" then please feel free to do so. As it stands your reply simply reeks of ignorant handwaving. Quite an embarassment for you I might add. I admitted my error regarding shadows on the moon. To err is human--to admit it shows integrity. To deny it, even in the face of irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty, demonstrates cognitive challenge beyond your scope, dis-honesty, or vanity. Then PLEASE show us the "irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty. So far the ONLY thing that is certain is that Costella blew it. Craig, Why is this anomaly absent from every other feature of these frames? Why is there no such "rotation" anywhere else besides that which exists on the right post and side of the Stemmon's Sign? This is significant, Craig. It is not as easily dismissed as you would have us believe. What you posted in your link is not relevant. We are dealing with a "closed system" here--a system for which an outside analogy need not be inappropriately employed. It is not valid to use a "real world" example to attempt to prove that an "artificial world" was not created. In such an attempt the experimenter will invariably delude themselves due to ascertainment bias. The "sample" from which they derive their conclusion is not representative of the subject being studied--and therefore, it is inadequate to the task. Can we refrain from vitriolic exchanges and opt for cordial discussion? I will agree to do that. Will you?

Thanks Jim. I know we have had our differences in the past--Farewell America--but we also share a passion for the truth. For this quality alone--I'm glad to know you. You claim to have a "passion" for the truth, yet here you are pimping the Costella falsehoods. You don't even understand how wrong he is. It seems that your "passion" is more about protecting your worldview. Can you refute my studies? So Dolva adds a [ b ] and a [ /b ] to emphasize words in another's message and passes THAT off as a "post" ???