Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cemetery for Z-film alteration claims: A Beginning


Recommended Posts

I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?

Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax

Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”

Date: 2003 - 2004

Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_23.jpg

White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_22.jpg

White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_24.jpg

Debunking:

The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called parallax.”

Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?

Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax

Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”

Date: 2003 - 2004

Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_23.jpg

White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_22.jpg

White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_24.jpg

Debunking:

The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called parallax.”

Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?

Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax

Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”

Date: 2003 - 2004

Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_23.jpg

White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_22.jpg

White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_24.jpg

Debunking:

The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called parallax.”

Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.

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

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?

Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax

Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”

Date: 2003 - 2004

Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_23.jpg

White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_22.jpg

White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_24.jpg

Debunking:

The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called parallax.”

Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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!"

I don't know. Why don't you find out?

Josiah Thompson

I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?

Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax

Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”

Date: 2003 - 2004

Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_23.jpg

White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_22.jpg

White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_24.jpg

Debunking:

The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called parallax.”

Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all should have more fun in doing research on the Kennedy assassination. I've had a little fun over the last hour or so putting together what might be a template of future debunkings of the many claims concerning Z-film alteration. They are all over the place and not restricted just to the books of Fetzer. I offer the following as the first in what could become a very funny series. Care to join?

Burial #1: Perplexed by Parallax

Location: “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”

Date: 2003 - 2004

Claim: Jack White modestly claims, “2 DPD photos crucial to proving Z film is fake!” The two photos were taken by the DPD crime lab from Zapruder’s pedestal on 11/27/63. One shows the area immediately across Elm Street from the pedestal. White believes this one has something to do with the “yellow curb stripes [being].. lengthened to make photo replications difficult.” [We’ll leave this little beauty for later debunking!] The other photo shows a familiar shot of the northern end of Elm Street with the Stemmons Freeway sign in place.

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_23.jpg

White intends to compare this photo taken on November 27, 1963 by Pete Barnes of the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab with a frame from the Zapruder film. Here is frame 200:

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_22.jpg

White published the DPD photo with this commentary: “This photo can be overlaid with Zapruder frames to show that the Zapruder sign and the lamppost are not placed correctly. Dr. John Costella has done an extensive scientific analysis of the Stemmons sign and declares it the most important ‘smoking gun’ of Zapruder film alteration.” A few pages later, White goes on to say that “this photo taken from the pedestal by the Dallas police is the smoking gun when it comes to proof that the Z film is a fake. It can be shown scientifically that the back view of the Stemmons sign does not match the Zapruder film – absolute proof of fakery!” Later in Fetzer’s book, John Costella jumps aboard, publishing an overlay of the Zapruder film on the DPD photo and declaring: “This comparison confirms a discrepancy that has been recognized for many years: that between the extant film and Dallas Police Department photographs taken five days after the assassination.”

Pict_essay_BedrockEvidence_24.jpg

Debunking:

The discrepancy may “have been recognized for many years” by its purported “discoverer,” Jack White. But that is as far as it goes. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a photographer for the Dallas Times-Herald actually snapped a couple of shots of Pete Barnes standing on the pedestal taking his DPD photos. Comparing these with any number of November 22nd photos of Zapruder on the pedestal, we can see that Zapruder was filming from the front of the pedestal while Barnes was taking his photos from the back of the pedestal. The difference in position accounts for the discrepancy in the sign’s position. It’s called parallax.”

Shovels: Five (5) shovels are awarded for a truly outstanding piece of analysis that yields a deliciously funny debunking. Lesser numbers of shovels are awarded for lesser achievements. I propose that this burial be awarded three (3) shovels in light of the deliciousness of the debunking moderated by the sheer luck of there existing photos of Barnes taking his photos. Once these photos were discovered, the debunking was quite simple.

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...

I have no idea what happened to the sign, not that it matters a whit for the dedunking of the Costella sign and lamposts errors. You really are clueless.

Yep, you are a tv techie, and crappy at compositing, if we consider your 9th grade example of a computer altered Zapruder frame.

The argument is beyond you David and my study is unimpeachable, which is why Costella is in hiding. And in this instance its ALWAYS been about parallax.

The really cool thing is that you don't even need any "optics" other than your eyes to see how much of a fool Costella made of himself on this one. Par for the course as it appears simple observation is simply beyond his ability.

Get up to speed or get out of the way....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So David has your side been able to "find a physicist with a bent towards optics to talk about this"? Costella has a BS in electrical engineering and his PhD thesis and published scientific* papers have all about particle physics. Nothing in his bio or CV suggests an expertise in optics. Even if he did have such experience he's wrong, do you really think paralax can't explain the difference. I note that no one from your camp even tried to debunk Craig's study or a less elegant one a I did a few years ago. Sorry your buddy blundered once again.

* For the sake of accuracy he published some papers about teaching physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah,

Once again, it is painfully obvious that you relish doing this. I can perhaps understand why you might thoroughly enjoy puncturing a truly huge ego lke Bugliosi's, but this is clearly personal, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do enjoy puncturing pomposity. Always have. And Fetzer is a huge target. So I guess it's obvious. But why is it "painfully obvious?" Shouldn't we enjoy what we do?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Once again, it is painfully obvious that you relish doing this. I can perhaps understand why you might thoroughly enjoy puncturing a truly huge ego lke Bugliosi's, but this is clearly personal, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I am curious about something, David ... Four years after 'Hoax' came out you posted that you have seen no proof of alteration - something you said you have been saying for years. Can you tell us who besides Lamson's "comentary" that you relied on in helping come to the conclusion that you had seen no proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...