Jack White Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Since Einstein couldn’t figure out how to balance his checkbook nobody should be surprised Costella has trouble understanding things like parallax. He couldn’t even figure out that a high velocity bullet would accelerate blood splatter faster than free fall speed. Nothing in his CV or published papers suggests any special expertise in optics or anything else especially relevant to his alteration theories. One may recall that before Costella found religion and realized that Moorman's photo showed her to be in the grass ... he created an image of Moorman barely coming up to his chest in a side by side comparison as if to say that Mary was too short in the Zapruder film. Costella didn't check his idea against Brehm who in reality was Costella height, nor did Costella use anything for scale when he merely pasted Moorman next to him on the south pasture. Now that was some mighty fine research!!! Miller can't even keep his enemies straight. He is referring to me. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 One may recall that before Costella found religion and realized that Moorman's photo showed her to be in the grass ... he created an image of Moorman barely coming up to his chest in a side by side comparison as if to say that Mary was too short in the Zapruder film. Costella didn't check his idea against Brehm who in reality was Costella height, nor did Costella use anything for scale when he merely pasted Moorman next to him on the south pasture. Now that was some mighty fine research!!![/b] Miller can't even keep his enemies straight. He is referring to me. Jack The enemy is 'poor research practices' ... not you or Costella. Later today I will try and find the picture used in 'Hoax' showing exactly what I posted and you can explain how that is not Costella, but rather you instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Update on the old timers list and ages ... David Mantik is 68, David Lifton is 70, Harrison Livingstone is 72, and Noel Twyman is 83.[/b] Meet the anti-alterationists... http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ As played by "Young" Mr. Thompson, "Major" Lamson, and Mrs. Slocombe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Update on the old timers list and ages ... David Mantik is 68, David Lifton is 70, Harrison Livingstone is 72, and Noel Twyman is 83.[/b] 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 Edited March 31, 2009 by Denis Pointing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) 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 Edited April 1, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Update on the old timers list and ages ... David Mantik is 68, David Lifton is 70, Harrison Livingstone is 72, and Noel Twyman is 83.[/b] 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Update on the old timers list and ages ... David Mantik is 68, David Lifton is 70, Harrison Livingstone is 72, and Noel Twyman is 83.[/b] 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 Ahh its really sweet the way you always rush to protect the boy Dave. LOL What exactly does "batter up" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ahh its really sweet the way you always rush to protect the boy Dave. LOL What exactly does "batter up" mean? More on the ill-mannered - not well liked Healy .... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ef04b9c31d568d# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Ahh its really sweet the way you always rush to protect the boy Dave. LOL What exactly does "batter up" mean? 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 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 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 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 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! How would YOU know davie, that Costella stands unblemished? Hell you don't even understand the ARGUMENT! Who found me wanting? YOU? Thats a laugh. Your horde? They are in hiding, can't refute my simple tests to save Costella. Anyone else been able to refute my study? Nope. Wanting? Not hardly. As for finding a PEER..I have found one...ME! The ARGUMENT is about a principal of PHOTOGRAPHY, in case you missed it. YOU guys are the ones that need to find a peer. Got one? Costella has beeen shown and branded, now and forever as a kook, and ignorant of a very basic principal of photography...PARALLAX. The empirincal proof is unimpeachable, which is why all you have left (or ever had for that matter ) is ad homs. You nor ANYONE on your team can refute my simple and FACTUAL tests. Thats why Costella is in hiding and afraid to show his face. He had his chance to be intellectually honest and failed. Unblemished? Hell this has finished him. You on the other hand have been finished for years. Stand aside, or get run over...the bus is coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) 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... 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! Edited April 1, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.Josiah Thompson Well I still have many rebuttals that were on Lancer at one time. Like below with the 'Seven Foot Tall Woman' claim. What is interesting is that a simple 'law of nature' was ignored once again and not one Ph.D or contributor involved with 'Hoax' (with the exception of David Healy who while knowing what was in the book had later said that he had seen no proof of alteration) caught the failed logic of the claim. Jack White took two 14' tall lamppost and marked their 7' half-way point where he then passed a line from post to post through a more recent image of the south pasture taken from atop Zapruder's pedestal. He then placed 5' tall Toni Foster in the image and claimed that the Zapruder film showed her to be 7' tall because her figure filled the space between the ground and the line. White claimed that this observation proved Zapruder film alteration had taken place and it appears that no one (even Healy) bothered to tell White that he was missing a simple piece of information in his illustration that would show White wrong. What White didn't consider was 'perspective' and how Zapruder's elevated view looking downward effected how tall Foster would look against the 7' tall line. It also seems that Mantik, Costella, Fetzer, Lifton, nor Healy ever bothered to point this out for if they had, then I am sure that Fetzer wouldn't have allowed it to remain in the book if he knew it to be a flawed claim. Below is a simple test that I conducted in about 3 to 5 minutes. This is a photo of two sticks in the ground with a piece of tape between the two forming a line from stick to stick. A screw driver was stuck in the ground to represent Toni Foster. Note that the top of the screw driver is slightly above the line when seen from this angle ... much like Foster is in White's illustration. Here is a picture taken on an even plane and it shows that in reality the screw driver was below the line all the time. This demonstrates that it is Zapruder's elevated angle that only makes Jack think that Toni Foster was seven feet tall on the Zapruder film. It is amazing that Jack White missed this, but what is even more amazing is that in the decade that I have known about this claim ... there is no record that any of the three Ph.Ds ever saw the error and reported it so to prevent a known erred claim from going into 'Hoax'. I keep this particular claim in mind each time Fetzer refers someone to one of the other participants in 'Hoax' for their analysis on the photographic record. Bill Miller Edited April 3, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.Josiah Thompson The 'Franzen Grows' claim ... I am not sure why Jack was even fooling with these two particular frames to start with because someone would certainly have to already of been comparing still frames so to even think to ask how Ms. Franzen grew between Z360 and Z367. On the other hand, if one was watching the same frames in motion, then they would already know the answer to how Mrs. Franzen grew in Zapruder's field of view. The Jack White illustration stating that Mrs. Franzen grew taller in seven frames. If some differences were not noticeable enough in the stills such as leg posture changes with the Franzen's, then they certainly are when put in motion. What appears to have happened was that Mr. Franzen shifted from one leg to another as his wife (Mrs. Franzen) took a step backwards, which when seen from an elevated angle as Zapruder had ... it will cause Mrs. Franzen to be higher in Zapruder's field of view. This too is a simple 'law of nature' and really needs no enforcement and yet again I have not seen where any of the three Ph.Ds who participated in 'Hoax' had ever pointed out that someone should view the moving film and see if Mrs. Franzen moved between the two chosen Zapruder frames. I am stunned as to how something so simple had slipped past all these published researchers except David Healy, who also doesn't appear to have posted any corrections to any of the claims in 'Hoax' that didn't prove alteration in his view - something he had been saying for years. Bill Miller Edited April 3, 2009 by Bill Miller 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