Craig Lamson Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Frank,How about this comparison instead? chris good job, Chris! Good job, at what? Showing that the Groden clip looks like it s a bit warped as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Warping which causes the shadow area of the window to disappear. They both appear to be full frames. RGB readings very similar in common areas of each photo. (red boxes). The color holds in Groden's, not in Z. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Of course one could also cut Groden's frame into vertical strips, resize them "horizontally only", merge them back to a complete frame and see if some of that warping disappears. Which doesn't put that window shadow back in, among other things. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Chris, From the look of the comparison, it appears that the copy with the missing shadow (Groden?) is slightly cropped in the vertical direction -- at least relative to the copy that contains the shadow. How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. BINGO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. BINGO! especially, if the "Zapruder film" is altered... BINGO-BINGO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. BINGO! especially, if the "Zapruder film" is altered... BINGO-BINGO? Got any evidence of that? Of course not and the closest thing to "scientific" evidence was produced by a physicist who fails physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Found that peer yet, or can we expect YOU to take on the challenge? Got the balls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. BINGO! especially, if the "Zapruder film" is altered... BINGO-BINGO? Got any evidence of that? Of course not and the closest thing to "scientific" evidence was produced by a physicist who fails physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Found that peer yet, or can we expect YOU to take on the challenge? Got the balls? just in case you don't see the 'other' thread, this response will work here, too! Craig, you're no match for me when it comes to making film or video mattes, so xxxxx for another subject elsewhere! Or, at the very least, find someone, ANYONE that'll publish you and your professional opinions! Then I'll spend some time discussing the subject with ya! Ya know, peer review and such.... Btw, are you a physicist? Ph.D. type? For that matter is John Dolva, is he qualified to render (pardon the pun) a professional critique of Dr. John Costellas' work? You certainly are not. How can some Lone Nut folks be so stupid as to think anyone, ANYONE in the know will take you seriously? Without one peer to Dr. John Costella, yet? Where are those peers, Craigster? 6 years and counting, son! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. BINGO! especially, if the "Zapruder film" is altered... BINGO-BINGO? Got any evidence of that? Of course not and the closest thing to "scientific" evidence was produced by a physicist who fails physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm Found that peer yet, or can we expect YOU to take on the challenge? Got the balls? just in case you don't see the 'other' thread, this response will work here, too! Craig, you're no match for me when it comes to making film or video mattes, so xxxxx for another subject elsewhere! Or, at the very least, find someone, ANYONE that'll publish you and your professional opinions! Then I'll spend some time discussing the subject with ya! Ya know, peer review and such.... Btw, are you a physicist? Ph.D. type? For that matter is John Dolva, is he qualified to render (pardon the pun) a professional critique of Dr. John Costellas' work? You certainly are not. How can some Lone Nut folks be so stupid as to think anyone, ANYONE in the know will take you seriously? Without one peer to Dr. John Costella, yet? Where are those peers, Craigster? 6 years and counting, son! You can read it and weep on the other thread davie. BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work? Oh since Costella has no real photographic experience and his worklon the z film is ...well...photographic, just who shall we find to review his work? I'm sure we can find a JANITOR with more photographic experience than old dr john.. But of course there is always this: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamosn.com/apollo.htm dr. john is a quack. Edited April 13, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Chris,From the look of the comparison, it appears that the copy with the missing shadow (Groden?) is slightly cropped in the vertical direction -- at least relative to the copy that contains the shadow. How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. Frank, Any idea why this wouldn't appear in the Z frame? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Chris,From the look of the comparison, it appears that the copy with the missing shadow (Groden?) is slightly cropped in the vertical direction -- at least relative to the copy that contains the shadow. How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess. Frank, Any idea why this wouldn't appear in the Z frame? chris Of course the question you SHOULD have asked is why is that object in the GRODEN frame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work? The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'. The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded. Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is. 1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale. 2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned. 3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset. It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work? The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'. The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded. Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is. 1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale. 2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned. 3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset. It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs. Bill Miller I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game! But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game!But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance.... Not sure what all your psychotic ramblings are supposed to mean, so let me give you the long and short of it ... It is your water pail I am carrying after you said that 'you did not see any proof of alteration ... something you had been saying for years'. In other words ... I agree with you, David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 BTW, WHO peer reviewed Costella's work? The most obvious answer would be Costella's partner - Bud Abbott! One of my all time favorites of theirs was 'Who's on the pedestal'. The other person who we must assume has peer-reviewed Costella's work would be David Healy. Since Healy has long since claimed to 'have not seen any proof of alteration', then is it not fair to say that he/himself had investigated and reviewed Costella's claims and found them unfounded. Below is one of Costella's examples of his work. He merely pasted his body seen in profile next to Moorman and Hill and scaled them to his liking. His technique seems to be lacking something and he doesn't seem to understand what it is. 1) There is nothing in the photo that shows how he scaled the two. In fact, Costella doesn't mention anything in this illustration where he used any object within the Zapruder film to show that something was not in scale. 2) He doesn't see that Hill and Moorman in the Zapruder film are in line proportionately with Brehm who is just a few feet east of their location. This also means that he didn't consider that if everyone within the film is proportionate to each other according to known data that it may be that he has a flaw in his approach ... one obvious one already mentioned. 3) Costella has since re-tracted his conclusion that Moorman was standing in the street and was in the grass above the curb. This means that the data he used to create his illustration was born from an error he had originally made from the onset. It is these things in my view is why Costella doesn't seek peer review ... because he couldn't get the support he needs. Bill Miller I hope you were sitting down when you typed that, wouldn't want you to strain yourself...... now, as far as peers go: listen son, you're not in the league with anyone that familiar with the Zapruder film, not even in a minor league ballpark. Best if you continue to carry Gary Mack water pail and wallet 'nother 5 years. Then you'll be ready to assist Kathy, that's if you stay on your game! But we already know the ruse..... You're not running from the Daryll Weatherly quote too, are you? Last chance.... Is the fetzer cabal running from the documentation that their "star" PhD in Theoretical Physics, can't even understand the simple REAL WORLD physics as it pertains to the photographic principle of parallax? Really embarassing eh? Is that why your "star" is hiding under a rock somewhere in the outback? www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Byt even better, why don't YOU try and take it apart David? You are a self proclaimed expert. Show us your stuff. It will however require more than just cutting a pasting some images into powerpoint. BTW, can we see the proof that you did not violate the copyright of someone else when you used published images. Inquiring minds want to know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now