Craig Lamson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Spot on, thumbs up from me. I have done that, though independently using perspective corrected 3D modelling, with the same conclusion. (ImageAnalyzer, an amazing freebie with incredible features packed into a very compact little utility (Michael Vinther provides numerous postcard/donation/thankyou ware and plugins as a sideline to his major works with MeeSoft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side. When taking a picture of the actual camera positions, shouldn't a tripod have been used, so the only movement shown is the len's movement? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.When taking a picture of the actual camera positions, shouldn't a tripod have been used, so the only movement shown is the len's movement? chris I guess that fact that its just an illustration to show how the lens works escaped you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.When taking a picture of the actual camera positions, shouldn't a tripod have been used, so the only movement shown is the len's movement? chris I guess that fact that its just an illustration to show how the lens works escaped you? Apparently it's just too simple, Craig. Your work here is not being acknowledged as it should. It is indeed in the lens. That's the most difficult aspect IMO. I've worn glasses most of my life. I've also worked in the building industry on a number of occasions. In construction, plumb and level are paramount fundamentals. As I swing my head and look at a vertical line, independent of where I stand in relation to a vertical line or with the plane of my glasses at any angle, invariably the line distorts as your photographic experiment shows. Anyone wearing glasess can do a simple experiment. Next time you approach a doorway (which you know is a rectangle, observe the vertical and horizontal lines while moving your head in any way as you approach and pass through the door opening. IMO your study is the final word on this matter. ___________________ The only concern, (which has nothing to do with the results), is seeming to state at one point that that is what parallax is. That I'm not so sure about, or I'm reading you wrongly, or my understanding of parallax is flawed. I think it's redundant in this case. In my understanding parallax can be understood independent of any lens. Could you comment on this and correct me/you if necessary, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm methinks you should retire and take this endeavour up full-time. And a few of us do understand why J.Dolva is at extreme odds with John Costella Ph.D Physics... and by the way: your sig on your website says "30 years of real world experience", have any un-world experience? Frankly, I find these blistering attacks on John Costella ludicrous, much ado about nothing... the GANG was soundly defeated in 2003-04, on the 3D front to boot (you do remember Dave Wimp and company regarding the PovRay fiasco?) Unless you can come up with someone w/credentials from the professional film industry, who'll counter whats already out there concerning possible film alteration and the Zapruder film, your simply blowing smoke. Your website is nice, graphics fair, but completely irrelevant as to whether the Z-film is altered or not.... so get back on point, man. If anyone is tired of this nonsense its me, you Lone Nutters have flounder all over the place and have achieved nothing. Wasting bandwidth while playing to your choir. B-O-R-I-N-G. Who cares about Elm St. poles, street signs, highway directions, yellow curb stripes, ghost in bushes..... man, circa. 1963-64 Hollyweird Special Effects is in town, best film compositors, glass painters and matte artists in the world. Anything goes champ..... You spent way to long in that still studio, the craft went flying by you.... And for the record, the 20 second Zapruder film isn't a 208 minute, King Vidor directed War and Peace! Piece of cake with the adequate time.... Say, when did FBI/SA Shaneyfelt number those Z-frames, again? Ya wanna debunk Z-film alteration, start there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 ''...understand why J.Dolva is at extreme odds with John Costella Ph.D Physics...'' well, at least you think I am and that you understand what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm methinks you should retire and take this endeavour up full-time. And a few of us do understand why J.Dolva is at extreme odds with John Costella Ph.D Physics... and by the way: your sig on your website says "30 years of real world experience", have any un-world experience? Frankly, I find these blistering attacks on John Costella ludicrous, much ado about nothing... the GANG was soundly defeated in 2003-04, on the 3D front to boot (you do remember Dave Wimp and company regarding the PovRay fiasco?) Unless you can come up with someone w/credentials from the professional film industry, who'll counter whats already out there concerning possible film alteration and the Zapruder film, your simply blowing smoke. Your website is nice, graphics fair, but completely irrelevant as to whether the Z-film is altered or not.... so get back on point, man. If anyone is tired of this nonsense its me, you Lone Nutters have flounder all over the place and have achieved nothing. Wasting bandwidth while playing to your choir. B-O-R-I-N-G. Who cares about Elm St. poles, street signs, highway directions, yellow curb stripes, ghost in bushes..... man, circa. 1963-64 Hollyweird Special Effects is in town, best film compositors, glass painters and matte artists in the world. Anything goes champ..... You spent way to long in that still studio, the craft went flying by you.... And for the record, the 20 second Zapruder film isn't a 208 minute, King Vidor directed War and Peace! Piece of cake with the adequate time.... Say, when did FBI/SA Shaneyfelt number those Z-frames, again? Ya wanna debunk Z-film alteration, start there. Well David, Costella has just had his hat handed to him...shown to be the kook he really is. The empirical evidence is unimpeachable, and thats why he is in hiding. He's done, his "expertise" shown to be nothing of the sort. Interestingly Wimp and Durnavich have now been vindicated. Costella's ego driven drool has now been shown to be false, his positions to be a simple fraud. Either that or the man is simply ignorant...you choose. He can't nor can any of your "horde" refute three simple photographs. Thats really quite amazing don't you think David. After all of these years, after all of Costella's posturing, your blind and ignorant cheerleading and Fetzers pimping...including the publishing of this very flawed work in Hoax, it was just three simple photos that brought you all down. How did you get sucked in David? Did you guys just close you eyes and BELIEVE? Were you seduced by Costella's PhD? Hell by YOUR OWN STANDARDS Costella has NO CREDENTIALS to speak on any of this. You are a garden variety hypocrite David, how does it feel? You make loads of claims that Hollywood could do this and that in '63. Time and time again you have been asked to back it up by producing some footage, and yet we are STILL waiting for you or your horde to provide anything. Lets see it stand up to frame by frame INTENSIVE inspection. Produce something...anything besides that cribbing you did for Hoax. OH wait, you guys tried that with your Marry Poppins thing. That kind of blew up in your face. Then YOU made that epic fail attempt to create a composite Zapruder frame with a computer and boy you blew that one as well. Who is blowing smoke David? Oh yea, its YOU. You are all noise, no substance. Time to man up Healy. Stake a position and defend it. Refute my empirical evidence. Costella is scared to death by it. He sees his credibilty circling down the drain and there is nothing he can do to stop it. No wonder he is in hiding. So give it a go Healy. Impress us with your skills. Or slink away into the night like your buddy Costella..... Edited March 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.When taking a picture of the actual camera positions, shouldn't a tripod have been used, so the only movement shown is the len's movement? chris I guess that fact that its just an illustration to show how the lens works escaped you? Apparently it's just too simple, Craig. Your work here is not being acknowledged as it should. It is indeed in the lens. That's the most difficult aspect IMO. I've worn glasses most of my life. I've also worked in the building industry on a number of occasions. In construction, plumb and level are paramount fundamentals. As I swing my head and look at a vertical line, independent of where I stand in relation to a vertical line or with the plane of my glasses at any angle, invariably the line distorts as your photographic experiment shows. Anyone wearing glasess can do a simple experiment. Next time you approach a doorway (which you know is a rectangle, observe the vertical and horizontal lines while moving your head in any way as you approach and pass through the door opening. IMO your study is the final word on this matter. ___________________ The only concern, (which has nothing to do with the results), is seeming to state at one point that that is what parallax is. That I'm not so sure about, or I'm reading you wrongly, or my understanding of parallax is flawed. I think it's redundant in this case. In my understanding parallax can be understood independent of any lens. Could you comment on this and correct me/you if necessary, please? John, yes, you don't need a lens to see and understand parallax. Hold a finger a few feet from your face and close one eye and observe the finger in relationship to the background. Close the eye and open the other, and observe the change in relationship between the finger and the background...parallax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.When taking a picture of the actual camera positions, shouldn't a tripod have been used, so the only movement shown is the len's movement? chris I guess that fact that its just an illustration to show how the lens works escaped you? Apparently it's just too simple, Craig. Your work here is not being acknowledged as it should. It is indeed in the lens. That's the most difficult aspect IMO. I've worn glasses most of my life. I've also worked in the building industry on a number of occasions. In construction, plumb and level are paramount fundamentals. As I swing my head and look at a vertical line, independent of where I stand in relation to a vertical line or with the plane of my glasses at any angle, invariably the line distorts as your photographic experiment shows. Anyone wearing glasess can do a simple experiment. Next time you approach a doorway (which you know is a rectangle, observe the vertical and horizontal lines while moving your head in any way as you approach and pass through the door opening. IMO your study is the final word on this matter. ___________________ The only concern, (which has nothing to do with the results), is seeming to state at one point that that is what parallax is. That I'm not so sure about, or I'm reading you wrongly, or my understanding of parallax is flawed. I think it's redundant in this case. In my understanding parallax can be understood independent of any lens. Could you comment on this and correct me/you if necessary, please? John, yes, you don't need a lens to see and understand parallax. Hold a finger a few feet from your face and close one eye and observe the finger in relationship to the background. Close the eye and open the other, and observe the change in relationship between the finger and the background...parallax. There's something going on with the idea of parallax and the assassination, but I'm not sure what it is. Collins Radio, who I write about in the Collins Radio Connections to the assassination, seems to crop up in a number of relevant areas, so I obtained copies of their annual reports for 1962, 63 and 64. One of the reports mentions that Collins Radio had either received a contract for or issued a contract for the study of parallax, apparently in relation to aeronitics and flying. The Parallex View, the book, was said to be written by Alan Singer (?), but I think that's a pen name. In any case, the book, not the movie (with Warren Beaty), has a slightly different ending, but the same theme as the film - about the Parallex corporation, which recruits and trains/programs assassins. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 The actual camera never moved during the test. Only the lens was moved a total of 20mm from side to side.When taking a picture of the actual camera positions, shouldn't a tripod have been used, so the only movement shown is the len's movement? chris I guess that fact that its just an illustration to show how the lens works escaped you? Apparently it's just too simple, Craig. Your work here is not being acknowledged as it should. It is indeed in the lens. That's the most difficult aspect IMO. I've worn glasses most of my life. I've also worked in the building industry on a number of occasions. In construction, plumb and level are paramount fundamentals. As I swing my head and look at a vertical line, independent of where I stand in relation to a vertical line or with the plane of my glasses at any angle, invariably the line distorts as your photographic experiment shows. Anyone wearing glasess can do a simple experiment. Next time you approach a doorway (which you know is a rectangle, observe the vertical and horizontal lines while moving your head in any way as you approach and pass through the door opening. IMO your study is the final word on this matter. ___________________ The only concern, (which has nothing to do with the results), is seeming to state at one point that that is what parallax is. That I'm not so sure about, or I'm reading you wrongly, or my understanding of parallax is flawed. I think it's redundant in this case. In my understanding parallax can be understood independent of any lens. Could you comment on this and correct me/you if necessary, please? John, yes, you don't need a lens to see and understand parallax. Hold a finger a few feet from your face and close one eye and observe the finger in relationship to the background. Close the eye and open the other, and observe the change in relationship between the finger and the background...parallax. That's it, thank you Craig. Though strictly the eye has a lens but I understand what you mean. Pedantically, perhaps a camera obscura concept is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Well David, Costella has just had his hat handed to him...shown to be the kook he really is. It appears that David only wanted to be sure that you remembered him as a kook, as well. You must admit that he is the man to go to for non-real world experience. Now don't hold him up ... he needs to get that request to examine the said in-camera original film turned in so we can put to rest the alteration nonsense. You see, he tends to get easily distracted. This causes him to forget that he has said that he has not seen any proof of alteration, which by using his warped logic - it makes him a 4 star General for LNrs. (sigh~) Edited March 24, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Well David, Costella has just had his hat handed to him...shown to be the kook he really is. It appears that David only wanted to be sure that you remembered him as a kook, as well. You must admit that he is the man to go to for non-real world experience. Now don't hold him up ... he needs to get that request to examine the said in-camera original film turned in so we can put to rest the alteration nonsense. You see, he tends to get easily distracted. This causes him to forget that he has said that he has not seen any proof of alteration, which by using his warped logic - it makes him a 4 star General for LNrs. (sigh~) I love it, the only one around who says he can't prove a film is altered is me.... and all you pantywaist WCR supporting tarts start moaning and heading for the Lone Nut Heights, meaning Super Barb, Josiah, Mack the Craigster. FWIW, I think I do a fine job dragging some of you dufuses out of the woodwork for all to see. Especially the one that still sees ghosts growing in Dealey Plaza bushes... (even Gary gave up on that..... ) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie? LMAO, So Wild Bill ya can stop trying to impress the girls, we know how Craig has lambasted you on more than one occasion, and on more than one board about cameras, lenses AND film makeup... So sit quietly at the knee of the masters, we'll ring when ready for you! Carry on, hon! Edited March 24, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I love it, the only one around who says he can't prove a film is altered is me.... and all you pantywaist WCR supporting tarts start moaning and heading for the Lone Nut Heights, meaning Super Barb, Josiah, Mack the Craigster. FWIW, I think I do a fine job dragging some of you dufuses out of the woodwork for all to see. Especially the one that still sees ghosts growing in Dealey Plaza bushes... (even Gary gave up on that..... ) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie? LMAO, So Wild Bill ya can stop trying to impress the girls, we know how Craig has lambasted you on more than one occasion, and on more than one board about cameras, lenses AND film makeup... So sit quietly at the knee of the masters, we'll ring when ready for you! Carry on, hon! So, master, whatcha got to say about Jack & Fetzer's latest "powerful proof" based on their claim that Zapruder and Sitzman are at varying heights up on the pedestal? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) I love it, the only one around who says he can't prove a film is altered is me.... and all you pantywaist WCR supporting tarts start moaning and heading for the Lone Nut Heights, meaning Super Barb, Josiah, Mack the Craigster. FWIW, I think I do a fine job dragging some of you dufuses out of the woodwork for all to see. Especially the one that still sees ghosts growing in Dealey Plaza bushes... (even Gary gave up on that..... ) Now THAT friends and neighbors is yanking Lone Nutter C-H-A-I-N. As Wild Bill Miller knows quite well when he don's one of his alt.conspiracy.jfk aliases (of which he has 4 or 5) dontcha there laddie? LMAO, So Wild Bill ya can stop trying to impress the girls, we know how Craig has lambasted you on more than one occasion, and on more than one board about cameras, lenses AND film makeup... So sit quietly at the knee of the masters, we'll ring when ready for you! Carry on, hon! So, master, whatcha got to say about Jack & Fetzer's latest "powerful proof" based on their claim that Zapruder and Sitzman are at varying heights up on the pedestal? :-) Hon, ask Wild Bill Miller, he be yo-leada AND self-acclaimed expert photo analyst... Jack White and Dr. Jim Fetzer have been batting you Lone Nut preservers of DP history -- protectors of the DP assassination photo record guys around, for years, why should I intrude or take away from their fun. What I really think is this Barb: you'd get much more mileage getting to the bottom of the DP rain sensor mystery, perhaps Bill Miller can finally deal with a DP sidebar mystery he can handle.... I'll also tell ya, I withdrew his nomination for entry level production assistant at ADOBE (Photoshop) Software. The Chairman of the Board always a nice guy over these many years felt he could find a spot for the lad. Had to tell John, "forget the reccommendation, the lad bought a house and went over to the darkside, he now lives in Dallas, scared to fly." So much for public service! Edited March 24, 2009 by David G. Healy 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