David G. Healy

3 weeks and counting.... thank you for the long good-bye, Dr. Thompson.

the above is **precisely** the type of posts that continue the personal attacks on DP film/photo alteration researchers.... your posts included, Frank. Are you a lone nut? Frankly, I could care less who is or isn't, that's for the private eyes amongst us to determine.... Every single solitary post concerning the validity of DP films and photos takes away from exposing the conspiracy. Which is **precisely** what the preservers of DP film-photo historical record want. Why do you think we have endless threads concerning same, on ALL types of forums near and far.... wake up.... whose at the head of the pack? Well, simple, as demonstrated right here on this forum, Gary's heir-apparent Bill Miller.... Keep the debates focused on the DP film and photo researchers, maybe the rest of the world will forget about, THAT "conspiracy" none admit is starring them right in the face. How many TV programs and shows have been dedicated to the assassinations films and photos of Dealey Plaza.? At least two by my count. The ABC Myers cartoon, and at least one Gary Mack contrived (Films and Photos and Photographers including Mary Moorman and her infamous Moorman #5)for the History or Discovery Channel.... 10 years ago the film/photo evidence was sacrosanct, now its questioned at every turn...... so guys nice try, ya lost! As all with inside knowledge know, until there is forensic testing done on alleged in-camera original Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 films, **proving in-camera original status** all posting here concerning same is of little or no practical value or meaning. Less of course, having another agenda, and that of course is character assassination. As aptly demonstrated by 5-10 regular posters here. One or ALL DP films, in the event of appearing as evidence in a court of law would, under the most strenuous urgings and pleas, undergo forensic testing. Here's the reality, a reality that screwdrivers in the dirt, x'acto knives, yardsticks as props (ROTFLMFAO) can't run around, nor all the Lone Nut whining can cure: where is the chain of evidence documentation for any and all these alleged oiginal DP films and photos? (Even Groden can't or won't tell ya) So, sloppy, sloppy, sloopy, Nutters. Shame on you! Don't stand to close Frank, Lone Nutterism is catchy..... makes no difference what your ability (or what you THINK your ability level) is regarding film-photo composition. 6 years and I'm still waiting for the anti-alteration crowd to dig up a film composition artist and/or a longtime Hollywood type film optical print technician to discuss my article. Silence (other than character assassination of course), which tells me and many others, the Lone Nutters and anti-film alterationist simply don't have the horsepower to climb that mountain..... That friends and neighbors is either incompetence or willful neglect. Where-o-where have they gone! and Frank: Frank, as you infer photography is a hobby of yours, AND of course you hold no JD degree, so thanks for your amateur opinion concerning the subject matter, as that's what it is: OPINION. You've certainly not proved nor enlightened us with your quasi (to quote Wild Bill) expertise in the film photo area, which lands you square in the middle of Wild Bill Miller's camp, but we figured that months ago. and remember, I'm the one who can't prove film alteration, now THAT is keeping an open-mind Frank!

Dave, you must realize by now that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson are making you look more and more ridiculous every time they post. Even I'm beginning to pity you. Do yourself a favour and stay at ALT CONSPIRACY for a few days, at least over there you are allowed to do what you really excel at...insult and swear at people. LOL we call that shuck-n-jive Denise..... none-the-less the role of a Marily Sitzman stand-in is still open if Wild Bill Miller chooses to actually do a bit of REAL research. I'll even concede a Craig Lamson to hold jackets what with the rarefied air on top of that DP pedestal... guys are a joke! But don't let me hold you from your fun..... LMFAO!

it's called dump-n-run, Don. Wild Bill is left to clean up the thread. A distinction usually left to the lone nut newbie Considering Miller is the low man on the 6th Floor totem pole seniority list, makes sense!

Lets deal with this one first. In another thread you claimed (from the top of my head so feel free to correct me, I'm not interesting in doing the search) that the lofog wer black or at least dark. Close examination of the photographic record shows that not to be the case but rather the logos are highly reflective. When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, and its not just the sun. Exactly what is that lightsource? Why its the blue sky of course! Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all of that! Next! "When seen in the Zapruder film these logos (even those seen in the shade) are reflections a very bright lightsource, " Would that lightsource be from "Flashlight Man" hiding in the shadows? Therefore making some logo's completely disappear while others actually reflected brighter than the surrounding background of the white helmets???? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z095.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg That would most certainly amaze me, considering that there are multitudes of photographs which have a "bright lightsource" from a variety of different angles and locations, yet still manage to show the logo's on the helmet. To include the simple fact that I personally have never heard of a darker object actually reflecting light waves at a brighter intensity than a surrounding white field. Obviously, I will not convince you otherwise, and rest assured that you will not convince me that it is all merely another of those "coincidences" related to an anomoly of light reflection. First. WHAT DARKER OBJECT? Show us the dark object! Second this realloy is blowingt right over your head and your ability to read seems rather limited. You ask what is reflecting in the shield on the helmet while it is in a patch of cast shadow? As I answered before...THE WIDE OPEN BLUE SKY! As for dark reflecting pure white, even though there is no DARK OBJECT on the helmets, clearly real world observation is not your forte. Believe what you want Tom, if fantasy makes you feel better. speaking of fantasy, photographing dry goods and appliances, turning same is into objects-de-art is what I call neo-fantasy photography: presenting imagery thats as boring a popcorn fart and making the sale, yet! Your not selling refrigerators here... its film forensics of the simplest order.... could you fill us in as to what real world observation has to do with a possibly altered Zapruder film? Or is this exchange one of those photo desk two-step sales shuffle? I'll take my answer off-the-air

But yet after all Costella's addressing of concerns - YOU posted that 'you have seen no proof of Alteration ... something you claimed you had been saying for years'. Did your comment make you a LNr or a CTs ... or as most think - just a nut! I hear another .gif animation calling you........ and after 2000 of them what does that make you, son? ROTFLMFAO....

relax Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace. You'd think he'd just buy a B&H414 Producers double 8mm camera, get a few roles of film and spend an afternoon in Dealey Plaza shooting a bit of film.... but NOOOOOOO, he's going to put lurkers through a harrowing experience of viewing 50 new .gif animations, another 5000 posts <sigh>. Simply run some raw film 24 ASA through the camera, find out what we found out years ago... Any of you lone nut's ever wonder why Zapruders camera wasn't made available to Roland Zavada during his investigation, I bnet you didn't even know that did ya, Denise? Hey, if you can convince Wild Bill Miller to do the above, you can play Wild Bill's production assistant for the day, a Marilyn Sitzman stand-in (complete with pedestal) if you will..... Carry on!

The Great Zapruder Film HOAX appears to have many lone nut's working overtime these day's. And after 6 years all that I'm hearing here is Wild Bill Miller and his merry band of laws of nature and enforcement (whatever the hell that is suppose mean). This has got to be an embarassment for Craig Lamson.... Relax Barb.... google is your friend! Film camera pan rate and effects/results panning a film camera to fast.... Professional cinematographers have been battling pan smear for 100 years.... Even old Abe Zapruder.... never mind! Where's the varsity, I ask?

So David ... you thought it was our business for over a decade to hear you constantly complain about you not being able to examine the camera original Zapruder film, but think its none of our business to know whether you have written the NARA to to let them know that you wish to see the film so to authenticate it. Is it not important know that you have not been just talking smack, but were actually serious enough to do something about it. Well I for one do think that it is our business if we are being asked to take you seriously. pay attention to what Tom Purvis has to say there, Wild Bill..... Who knows, you just might learn something, that is of course if Denise Pointing allows you too

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk. Yes, your right Bill. Healy doesn't seem to like answering straight forward questions does he. I think they confuse him. I notice he never replies when you ask if his sent a request to examine the Zapruder film yet. LOL Denise, that information is none of your business, nor is it Wild Bill (our resident SPACEMAN) Millah's! (we call this post a two-fer) thanks guy's

Marina Oswald Porter, interview with author Vincent Bugliosi and lawyer Jack Duffy, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000, reported in Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 794. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...Backyard_photos The "backyard photos," which were taken by Marina Oswald, probably around Sunday, March 31, 1963, show Oswald dressed all in black and holding two Marxist newspapers—The Militant and The Worker—in one hand, a rifle in the other, and carrying a pistol in its holster. The backyard photos were shot using a camera belonging to Oswald, an Imperial Reflex Duo-Lens 620. [121] When shown the pictures at Dallas Police headquarters after his arrest, Oswald insisted they were fakes.[122] However, Marina Oswald testified in 1964,[123] 1977,[124] and 1978,[125] and reaffirmed in 2000[126] that she took the photographs at Oswald's request. These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B. CE 133-A shows the rifle in Oswald's left hand and newsletters in front of his chest in the other, while the rifle is held with the right hand in CE 133-B. Oswald's mother testified that on the day after the assassination she and Marina destroyed another photograph with Oswald holding the rifle with both hands over his head, with "To my daughter June" written on ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you can no doubt tell me "why", correct Dave? Or are you just going to insult and run as usual? not exactly hon.... ya see, those backyard photos would not even make it into a court of law if a trial were held today. Simply, fand or one reason, they're fraud. I mean, even a elementary school grader can tell that. And please, when you quote Bugliosi as the source for ANYTHING, please post your proof that it was indeed him. Ya see hon, we don't know who wrotespecific parts of Reclaiming History. The only for sure fact we know about its authorship is, David Von Pein didn't write a damn thing and he's STILL pissed.... you're the only one east of Manhattan that believes that nonsense, how long have you been at this, AGAIN?

could you expand on the above paragraph, Mr. Root? Thanks, David Healy David Thank you for taking an interest. It is very difficult to briefly explain my research, it is long, convoluted, goes off in many direction but constantly comes back to information that points primarily to two men who had both means and motive to put together the assassination of JFK. I might suggest that you read my posts from the the past 4 1/2 years to get a clearer picture of my story. Specific to your question though: As early as 1944 McCloy and Taylor were working together in Italy to control the civilian population behind the front lines of the Germans and allied forces. They came together again in post war Germany where McCloy was High Commissioner and Taylor was the Military Governor in Berlin. When the State Department found itself unable to administer liberated territories in Europe the War Department was given the task. McCloy soon found himself in charge and the use of news, radio and other various methods of what we might call propaganda were used to insure that the "liberated" populations of former hostile and allied nations were managed in the ways that suited the interest of the Allies/ i. e US Government. They went to great lenghts to learn how to manipulate and manage these peoples in order to establish governments that would be friendly to the United States. Toss in Greece and the establishment of the Truman Doctrine and we bring Walker into the picture running the Greek Desk at the Pentagon during the Greek Civil War. While most people believe that the Governments of the World try to manipulate the thoughts of their citizens most Americans, while they believe that our government does this as well, do not believe that it can be done to them. The best victim is a victim that does not know that they have been victimized....that is the perfect "STING" when the perpatrator walks away without being caught. Jim Root Thanks, Jim Root! DHealy

No, that's not the "bottom line". The real bottom line is that although Marina Oswald may have been scared and intimidated by the CIA/government agencies back in 63 that's certainly not the case today. And yet Marina still claims to have taken those photographs, even though she could now be accurately described as a CT. Why? Ahhh, before your why.... you no doubt can cite for the above, correct? Or, is this just more Lone Nut/WCR supporter opinion?

could you expand on the above paragraph, Mr. Root? Thanks, David Healy

Poor David, a chicken to the end. You seem to be confusing opinion and fact. I'm not offering an opinion, I'm producing cold hard empirical fact. What part of that don't you understand. Costella on the other hand offered OPINION. He said, given a certain set of circumstances, a camera cannot produce a specfic picture. He offers no supporting evidence, not experimental data, nothing..he just says trust me, my opinion is correct. Now you don't need to be a physicist to check out his opinion to see if it holds water. What you need is a photograph, taken with his set of circumstances perfectly met. Then you must check the results against his opinion. What good would a conflicting opinion by ANOTHER PHYSICIST BE WITHOUT EMPRICIAL DATA TO BACK IT UP? IT WOULD STILL JUST BE AN OPINION. And we would be nowhere. The good news is that ANYONE can perform the experiment and see if Costella's OPINION holds water (remember he has offered no data experimental or otherwise to back his claim, just his "trust me"). I did just that and I published the FACTUAL results. I did not offer my OPINION, I just posted the conditions of the test and results of my empirical test. The FACTS cannot be refuted. Costella's OPINION was shown to be wrong. And the really neat thing is that the results can be repeated, and confirmed by anyone who wants to know the true FACTS, not just believe in the misguided rantings of a guy with a PhD and no related experience in the field in which he offers his disinformation. And yes it IS disinformation. Costella has be told of his error for years. In this instance refuting Costell's mistaken opinion did not rely on checking his transformations of the images in question (impossible because after all of these years and in spite of his saying he would release the data, it's stilll not available, I wonder why?) or the correctness of his composites. All that was needed was to check his OPINION of how a well known photographic principal, PARALLAX, worked. Since the principal of parallex is the cornerstone of his claim, if he gets parallax wrong his claims fail. Simple, easy to test, and best of all unimpeachable. The tests PROVE, with FACT that he is wrong. Regardless of the letters behind his name, Costella shows amazing ignornace of simple physics. So WHY are you afraid of conducting this little test and seeing if your hero John P. Costella is right or wrong. You could actually be in possession of FACT for once in your ct lifetime. Or is that what really frightens you, actually knowing something FOR SURE? I know why Costella is hiding under a rock. Hes been proven wrong by a photographer once again. How many times is that now Johnboy? Getting pretty embarassing eh? I would be embarrased if I were you too. However your hiding away only erodes what little intellectual honesty you have left and quite frankly that suits me just fine. Its quite a lot of fun seeing you as a crumpled heap in the dustbin of history. Anyways back to you Healy, when you learn the difference between opinion and fact, why don't you get back to us, until then you are just an ignorant liitle boy trying to play at being a grownup, and failing. You make a lot of claims, tell us you know that the work of ther is "cow pokey" and you believe the crap youe side is shoveling. But how would you know? You don't seem have the intellect to properly vet the evidence for either side and you are either too ignorant or too afraid to undertake the empirical testing that would show you the true facts. Just another little boy trying to play at being a grownup, and failing. Get back to us when you are up to speed, or getout of the way. here's your reality, and a simple fact, you can't provide the beef. The muscle, know-how, you've been found wanting Craig Lamson.... Dr. John Costella stands unblemished, if ya can't find a peer that will cpomment, you've lost, simple as that..... your huffing and puffing not withstanding --ya still take nice shots of trailers and boats though. As far as get out of the way? LMFAO.... remember your place, son -- photogs of your standing, especially from Indiana couldn't afford a ticket to my shows..... That's how I know! Carry on xxxxx, we await your PEER Dig deep!

More on the ill-mannered - not well liked Healy .... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ef04b9c31d568d# one of these day's you, too, can grow up and be a museum curator, NOT LMFAO! He's coming for your job, Gar! He can't fool me!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the following from Dave Healy backs up your above statement very appropriately Barb. LOL quote Dave Healy: Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised. Mr. Pointing, parole? Sometimes, Lone Nut shills make life worth living.... LMFAO!

Meet the anti-alterationists... http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ As played by "Young" Mr. Thompson, "Major" Lamson, and Mrs. Slocombe... Take another look Paul, http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ isn't that you standing on the extreme left? With Jack White in the brown coat and Healy with a rose. ROTFL Ah Paul..... never fear, that's Denise's way of asking Dr. Thompson for an autograph.... he feels he needs to make himself worthy and accepted before he mounts the courage to ask. The wild and wooley ways of the Lone Nut wannabes, they never change. Actually the only thing that changes is the aliases and forum photos.... Batter up David Healy

Craig wrote: So, only "physicists" can understrand something as simple as parallax? If thats the case your dunderhead from OZ is simply NOT up to the task! If I have it so wrong then how hard would it be for dunderhead to show me the door? Clearly a man of his "intellect" (now thats funny) should be able to do this in a heartbeat. That he's in hiding speaks volumes and that he has you tring to run interference shows his utter desperation. Again, see below to find out how a "physicsist"blows at real workd physics. And the best part EVERYONE can do the simple experiment and prove it for themself. No advance degree required... BTW David I challenge YOU to do the experiment and report your findings, and give it your best shot to disprove me. ************* Craig, Read my bytes, it makes no difference what YOU or I think. O-P-I-N-I-O-N! If the Lone Nut (unaltered film-photo) side wants to make headway, the following is not only necessary but imperative. What does a Dr. John Costella-Physicist peer (specifically another Physicist) THINK, in written form. You, Dr. Thompson, Barb or what Miller thinks is irrelevant, what I'm seeing here is simply O-P-I-N-I-O-N, perhaps informed (you) but opinion none-the-less. Simply stated, during this latest round you (non-alteration) guys have had since 2003 to disprove those that have reason(s) to believe some DP assassinated related films and photos are altered. (for GAWD sakes man, you can't point to one, not one single, chain of evidence document for any of the DP films and photos. And the entire SBT/LHO case is based on one of those films...) You can go on and on and on, change the alteration argument mid stream a hundred times if you like. I'm not accepting any challenge to do this or that, fool's folly. I'm not here to debate you and certainly not here to debate those that see ghosts and gunmen in DP bushes. (honestly, I'm not paid to put up with nonsense or mounting a defense for or against the Zapruder film, can you say the same?) I'm hanging out here to see if your side of the alteration argument has anything of value to end this investigation or carry it further...... best I've seen here (and have seen for the last 6 years) is film-photo alteration researcher bashing. Cutting to the chase, which tells me this: Up to this moment all your side has is cow-pokey when it comes to preserving the official photo-film record of Nov 22nd 1963, photo-film events which transpired in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. You haven't disappointed me. DHealy edit: fix BOLD tag

Hi Don, Standards should be equal ... save that I think those who publish and promote should have at least the expected standard of having their work vetted, peer reviewed, etc before publishing and promoting claims. You said, "Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination?" I can only speak for myself, of course, and yes, I can deny that. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don't care what they believe ... but *how* they believe it ... which is the best way I can think of to describe it. A person who can engage in give and take on whatever the issue is, explain what and why they see something the way they do, who can acknowledge others perspectives even if they think they are wrong, who can run a clean discussion with reasoned give and take on both sides, I respect, I learn from hearing and understanding their perspective, and I can chalk it up to "we just disagree." Those who, as soon as someone disagrees with them, jump to the shill, disinfo agent, stupid, mental case, you're cheap and suspicious, you should be arrested route ... all the while completely ignoring issues raised, evidence pointed out, even documented evidence, and just twist words, lose context in their selective quoting and dodge points and issues and divert to other things to evade... nothing but froth and foam and repeating the same things over and over even though those things have already been addressed ... no, I don't find those types credible researchers, and the lack of scholarship in what they promote really shows when that is what they jump to anytime they are countered. If one has a sound claim, they should be able to defend it on point. When they can't, so go the uglies route, I see that as their ego needs being more important to them than accuracy. Just the way I see it. Bests, Barb :-) "I can only speak for myself, of course, and yes, I can deny that. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don't care what they believe ... but *how* they believe it ... which is the best way I can think of to describe it." Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised

Bernice, I make no apology for disagreeing with Dr. Fetzer. Honestly, I don't think his study follows a logical path. I thought the Moorman study that was presented by Josiah et al, was clear and concise, and his response to the question of the backyard photos was a fair evaluation of how he felt based on his lack of study of it. I was merely stating in my post, albeit it was not word for word, just meant by what I wrote, that the one item (his phrase "probably genuine") seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to being considered a conspiracy theorist. I don't think anyone has questioned whether Fetzer is or not. I see these as two completely different things. The underlying idea, best I can tell, is that there must exist some set of beliefs that one must ascribe to in order to be a CT, and a member in good standing of the "party line'. Evidently, if one falls short of harboring the set of beliefs, one is looked at suspiciously. I assume the backyard photos' fakery is part of that set. Kathy BTW, I have always thought that they looked fake, but I haven't really studied them either. Haven't got around to it yet. Surely you jest. You claim to be a JFK researcher and have never studied the backyard photos? Just cause to look at you suspiciously! Jack Jack, I have never claimed to be a researcher. I am a student here, with a long way to go before I'd ever consider myself a researcher. Kathy and your teachers/professors are.....?

the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement. Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls... so see below: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html Except now dr. john is hiding under a rock, afraid to show his face because the the very basis of his only two, 'scientific' arguments has been shown to be false with unimpeachable empirical proofs. He can't address this one can he dave? Nor can any of the rest of your motley crew. Hell you don't even UNDERSTAND the argument let alone have the skillset to disprove it. Besides, as this simple proof shows, dr. john is far from competent as a phyicscist. Its no wonder he is in hiding.... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm and costella failing to understand a simple shadow. www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Bring it on davie...who's running away and hiding now? LMFAO, then you should have absolutely no problem finding a Physicist (somewhere, ANYWHERE) to endorse your findings, eh? Let me know when you find one. I'll pass that bit of info on.... After all this being the Ed Forum and and all, full of teachers of every stripe, maybe Dr. Costella would make one response concerning your *Physicist* findings, provided his credentials can be confirmed of course! And btw, we got us the world's longest good-bye by DR. Thompson and Barb, what's up with that spectacle? And again, see the below, the best the Lone Nutters had then and HAVE now, for that matter! http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement. Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls... so see below: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

you have a way with words, Sir!

Is it correct the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was taken a few day's AFTER JFK's assassination, then put back up a few day's later? A simple yes or no is fine, thanks. and btw, the Lone Nut's along with the preservers of the current Dealey Plaza film-photo record might do themselves well if they could find a Physicist with a bent towards *optics* to comment concerning pedestal parallax issue(s). There seems to be a real shortage of lettered Lone Nut experts commenting on these very important issues.... TGZFH was first realeased in 2003, Dr. Thompson inadvertently came across a copy of the manuscript 6 months before that, after 6 years and counting, we still see no Lone Nut effectual scientific commentary by anyone concerning lenses and/or overlays other than Craig Lamson a commercial still photog. Mr. Lamson has been commenting on lens aberration on cameras other than B&H414 Producers series 8mm camera (used by Zapruder) and Moorman's Polaroid. I'm goiving your parallax post here a 1.5 shovel, that's shorthand for DOA! The issues here are issues as to what was captured through the lens of Marry Moorman's Polaroid, Zapruder's/Nix 8mm film cameras Heres all you will ever need to know about the parallax issue for the sign and the lamppost, and it totally buries your "physicist" who can't understand real world physics deep in the outback, where it seem he is hiding out. Its also interesting to note that the study really has nothing to do with lenses either vintage nor current, but rather the very basics of parallax. The very bedrock assumption of Costella's argument has been proven false and that destroys his whole argument. Heck I even use his own specs. It's 5 shovels and this issue is dead. You don't need "letters" to understand this one, only your own eyes and a leaning lampost.... BTW, why don't YOU comment or try and debunk David, the tv techie.... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm you're really stretching there, son...... I was a studio technical director for 6 years much the same gig as one David Blackburst performs, then it was on to field testing cameras for Japanese manufacturing concerns in the ENG (electronic news gathering) marketplace (ya can google ENG for further clarification) then producing- directing, film/video compositing -- hell son, it's lengthy... Now, I'll ask you the simple question that Dr. Thompson has yet to answer. Is it correct the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was taken a few day's AFTER JFK's assassination, then put back up a few day's later? A simple yes or no is fine, thanks! Parallax? Let's stay focused (pardon the pun)... hmm, it's apparent after all these years you can't find a physicist with a bent towards optics to talk about this, eh? Now its parallax! Ya see Craig, if one keeps asking the correct questions, the competition is left to dancing...