Pamela Brown Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Go see for yourself, if you have not by now........and tell us, you are a member. B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Pamela, This is simple - post a url that shows someone, anyone other than John Hunt comparing HSCA/FBI crack patterns. What's new is the analysis - not the photos. Since we know you would never just make something up - it would be helpful for you to offer all the evidence you have that John Hunt borrowed his photos from Mr. Marsh's site. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt has spent substantial time at the Archives - and in light of the fact that those images are available in countless other locations. So how, exactly, do you know that the 1978 images were "borrowed" from Mr. Marsh? Finally, I know that versions of some of Mr. Marsh's enlargements have appeared on your own website without acknowledgement. I'm just wondering when the "new" requirement that every photo has to carry a full pedigree everytime it's used went into effect. And I'm wondering when you expect to comply with the new rules. Everyone gets that you don't feel like Pamela's work got enough credit. Can you move beyond that? Hunt's comparisons raise interesting questions and suggest the possibility of applying a new methodology to the windshield issues. I solicited Martin's opinion on the assassinationforum because it's possible to apply well established principles of photometry to the question and get answers that are more than just gut reactions. I'm sorry that isn't "new" enough for you. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? Edited July 22, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Pamela, This is simple - post a url that shows someone, anyone other than John Hunt comparing HSCA/FBI crack patterns. What's new is the analysis - not the photos. Since we know you would never just make something up - it would be helpful for you to offer all the evidence you have that John Hunt borrowed his photos from Mr. Marsh's site. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt has spent substantial time at the Archives - and in light of the fact that those images are available in countless other locations. So how, exactly, do you know that the 1978 images were "borrowed" from Mr. Marsh? Finally, I know that versions of some of Mr. Marsh's enlargements have appeared on your own website without acknowledgement. I'm just wondering when the "new" requirement that every photo has to carry a full pedigree everytime it's used went into effect. And I'm wondering when you expect to comply with the new rules. Everyone gets that you don't feel like Pamela's work got enough credit. Can you move beyond that? Hunt's comparisons raise interesting questions and suggest the possibility of applying a new methodology to the windshield issues. I solicited Martin's opinion on the assassinationforum because it's possible to apply well established principles of photometry to the question and get answers that are more than just gut reactions. I'm sorry that isn't "new" enough for you. Jerry As Jerry is certainly aware, because he contributed to it, there is a spirited discussion going on at aaj over what your group borrowed without giving credit. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...?scoring=d& Anthony Marsh said the version John Hunt used of the later cracks was one he sharpened up and would appreciate being given credit for. That is a simple request, one usually accorded in any academic environment. So it seems to be Jerry that wants to make up some new rules. The photo of the second windshield is momentarily without its longstanding acknowledgment to Anthony, who was indeed the one who first found it at the JFK Library. This has also already been discussed on aaj. I have focused on the limo for the last 10 years. I brought forth the FBI photos and dated them for the first time in my 98NID presentation. I have discussed the issues of the windshield bullet-hole witnesses and my first interview with Nick Prencipe was published in "SS-100-X" of CAR CRASH CULTURE. I brought forth the Ferguson memo and interviews regarding his involvement with the limo after the assassination. In part, because of those things, and also the 2004 SPEED Channel documentary, it is almost common knowledge that the limo is the primary crime scene. Even the DC realized that, and so ITTC was made. Jerry can dismiss my contributions or acknowledge them; that is his choice. What is at my website, though it is copyrighted, is available for use in moving research forward. Whenever anybody want to make false claims that things are 'new' when they are not, however, or attempt to use that information to block research in an appeal to authority, you can be very sure that my voice will be heard. Live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Pamela, This is simple - post a url that shows someone, anyone other than John Hunt comparing HSCA/FBI crack patterns. What's new is the analysis - not the photos. Since we know you would never just make something up - it would be helpful for you to offer all the evidence you have that John Hunt borrowed his photos from Mr. Marsh's site. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt has spent substantial time at the Archives - and in light of the fact that those images are available in countless other locations. So how, exactly, do you know that the 1978 images were "borrowed" from Mr. Marsh? Finally, I know that versions of some of Mr. Marsh's enlargements have appeared on your own website without acknowledgement. I'm just wondering when the "new" requirement that every photo has to carry a full pedigree everytime it's used went into effect. And I'm wondering when you expect to comply with the new rules. Everyone gets that you don't feel like Pamela's work got enough credit. Can you move beyond that? Hunt's comparisons raise interesting questions and suggest the possibility of applying a new methodology to the windshield issues. I solicited Martin's opinion on the assassinationforum because it's possible to apply well established principles of photometry to the question and get answers that are more than just gut reactions. I'm sorry that isn't "new" enough for you. Jerry As Jerry is certainly aware, because he contributed to it, there is a spirited discussion going on at aaj over what your group borrowed without giving credit. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...?scoring=d& Anthony Marsh said the version John Hunt used of the later cracks was one he sharpened up and would appreciate being given credit for. That is a simple request, one usually accorded in any academic environment. So it seems to be Jerry that wants to make up some new rules. The photo of the second windshield is momentarily without its longstanding acknowledgment to Anthony, who was indeed the one who first found it at the JFK Library. This has also already been discussed on aaj. I have focused on the limo for the last 10 years. I brought forth the FBI photos and dated them for the first time in my 98NID presentation. I have discussed the issues of the windshield bullet-hole witnesses and my first interview with Nick Prencipe was published in "SS-100-X" of CAR CRASH CULTURE. I brought forth the Ferguson memo and interviews regarding his involvement with the limo after the assassination. In part, because of those things, and also the 2004 SPEED Channel documentary, it is almost common knowledge that the limo is the primary crime scene. Even the DC realized that, and so ITTC was made. Jerry can dismiss my contributions or acknowledge them; that is his choice. What is at my website, though it is copyrighted, is available for use in moving research forward. Whenever anybody want to make false claims that things are 'new' when they are not, however, or attempt to use that information to block research in an appeal to authority, you can be very sure that my voice will be heard. Live with it. Pamela, First, I take this reply to mean that you were unable to find anyone else who has compared the FBI/HSCA crack patterns. Second, I take this reply to mean that you have no evidence whatsoever that John Hunt "borrowed" the 1978 HSCA photos from Mr. Marsh or anyone else. Third, reading comprehension - Mr. Marsh made a copy negative of CE350 and made an enlargement of the crack pattern in CE350. Those are the photos that are the subject of the usenet discussion, not the HSCA photo. Mr. Marsh did not "sharpen the HSCA photo, he enlarged and "enhanced" the FBI photo. So again, because I'm sure you want to be completely accurate, - what is your evidence that Hunt "borrowed" the 1978 HSCA photo from Mr. Marsh - as opposed to hundreds of other web sites or making copies for himself while he was at the archives. Fourth, your website does not credit Mr. Marsh for the FBI photos. You've said that this is "momentary" - yet the internet archive shows no credit for Mr. Marsh going back to 2005. Moreover, there are several additional photos on your website that were "discovered" or brought to public attention by Mr. Marsh or others, yet there's no indication that someone other than Pamela found those pictures. So again, when do you think you're going to start complying with the new rules for photo use you've decided we violated? Fifth, your injured pride has blinded you to the potential of Hunt's new (yes, new) analysis. As you yourself said on usenet " I was initially so put off by the arrogance and cut + paste areas that I have not been able to go back to it." That's unfortunate because, as I wrote, Hunt's work suggests the possibility of applying new methods to old materials and generating real answers. I've searched and searched and I can't find a single place where I've "dismissed" your contributions. I did find a paragraph where I wrote that you were rightly proud of your accomplishments. So, do you think it's time to focus on what the evidence tells us - or do we need another round of "everything they wrote is trivial, stolen and an insult to human decency"? Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 So, do you think it's time to focus on what the evidence tells us I find this comment curious given its context. I wonder if you would be so kind as to indulge the following multiple choice? The wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was: 1) A wound of entrance, as established by "the authority of evidence." 2) A wound of exit, as established by "the authority of evidence." 3) Unknown, evidence not dispositive. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) So, do you think it's time to focus on what the evidence tells us I find this comment curious given its context. I wonder if you would be so kind as to indulge the following multiple choice? The wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was: 1) A wound of entrance, as established by "the authority of evidence." 2) A wound of exit, as established by "the authority of evidence." 3) Unknown, evidence not dispositive. Thanks in advance. Cliff, a)I have no idea, in this context, what you mean by "the authority of evidence". Therefore you need to clarify or revise your question before I can answer. b)Since the context here is "hole in the windshield", I'm not sure why the nature of the throat wound is an appropriate question. It doesn't help us resolve the "hole" issue. An entrance wound in the throat is possible with or without a hole in the windshield. An exit wound in the throat is possible with or without a hole in the windshield. So why would we want to add an extra layer of complexity that doesn't bring anything additional to the table? Jerry Edited July 23, 2009 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Under ordinary circumstances I'd let this slide because it's just a snide comment that doesn't address the substantive issue raised in Bernice's post. However, in this case Pamela's drive-by character assassination shot was aimed at a third party - John Hunt. John was generous enough to offer us some of his materials and I'm not going to let Pamela slip off into the night leaving doubts about John hanging in the air thanks to her dark innuendo. I've asked Pamela twice now for evidence to support her attack and she hasn't produced it. She's going to have a hard time doing that because I know that John created the graphic comparison from his own scans of the original FBI/HSCA photos at the National Archives. To be clear - John made the scans of both photos he used. Nothing was borrowed from Mr. Marsh and John owes no credit to Pam, Mr. Marsh or anyone else for his own work. So let's not slink off and hope this fades away. Pamela should post a retraction and apology - or she should post the evidence that proves her right. Silence is not an option. Jerry Edited July 23, 2009 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO! Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him? Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO! Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him? Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here? Wow David you are a bit behind the storyliine. Do you need a cartooish storyboard to follow along? A few PhD's in Physics, one silly PhD in bullsnit and their trusty sidkick the "photoexpert who can't understand shadows" are stumped by these uimpeachable proofs that John P. Costella, PhD in physics, does not understand physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com.coatella2.htm John P Costella and company are losing the PR war, the Photo/film war, and for sure Costella has lost face because he has been reduced to hiding under a rock down there in OZ. You need to get out more davie, you have lost touch with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'? Pamela, This is simple - post a url that shows someone, anyone other than John Hunt comparing HSCA/FBI crack patterns. What's new is the analysis - not the photos. Since we know you would never just make something up - it would be helpful for you to offer all the evidence you have that John Hunt borrowed his photos from Mr. Marsh's site. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt has spent substantial time at the Archives - and in light of the fact that those images are available in countless other locations. So how, exactly, do you know that the 1978 images were "borrowed" from Mr. Marsh? Finally, I know that versions of some of Mr. Marsh's enlargements have appeared on your own website without acknowledgement. I'm just wondering when the "new" requirement that every photo has to carry a full pedigree everytime it's used went into effect. And I'm wondering when you expect to comply with the new rules. Everyone gets that you don't feel like Pamela's work got enough credit. Can you move beyond that? Hunt's comparisons raise interesting questions and suggest the possibility of applying a new methodology to the windshield issues. I solicited Martin's opinion on the assassinationforum because it's possible to apply well established principles of photometry to the question and get answers that are more than just gut reactions. I'm sorry that isn't "new" enough for you. Jerry As Jerry is certainly aware, because he contributed to it, there is a spirited discussion going on at aaj over what your group borrowed without giving credit. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...?scoring=d& Anthony Marsh said the version John Hunt used of the later cracks was one he sharpened up and would appreciate being given credit for. That is a simple request, one usually accorded in any academic environment. So it seems to be Jerry that wants to make up some new rules. The photo of the second windshield is momentarily without its longstanding acknowledgment to Anthony, who was indeed the one who first found it at the JFK Library. This has also already been discussed on aaj. I have focused on the limo for the last 10 years. I brought forth the FBI photos and dated them for the first time in my 98NID presentation. I have discussed the issues of the windshield bullet-hole witnesses and my first interview with Nick Prencipe was published in "SS-100-X" of CAR CRASH CULTURE. I brought forth the Ferguson memo and interviews regarding his involvement with the limo after the assassination. In part, because of those things, and also the 2004 SPEED Channel documentary, it is almost common knowledge that the limo is the primary crime scene. Even the DC realized that, and so ITTC was made. Jerry can dismiss my contributions or acknowledge them; that is his choice. What is at my website, though it is copyrighted, is available for use in moving research forward. Whenever anybody want to make false claims that things are 'new' when they are not, however, or attempt to use that information to block research in an appeal to authority, you can be very sure that my voice will be heard. Live with it. Pamela, First, I take this reply to mean that you were unable to find anyone else who has compared the FBI/HSCA crack patterns. Second, I take this reply to mean that you have no evidence whatsoever that John Hunt "borrowed" the 1978 HSCA photos from Mr. Marsh or anyone else. Third, reading comprehension - Mr. Marsh made a copy negative of CE350 and made an enlargement of the crack pattern in CE350. Those are the photos that are the subject of the usenet discussion, not the HSCA photo. Mr. Marsh did not "sharpen the HSCA photo, he enlarged and "enhanced" the FBI photo. So again, because I'm sure you want to be completely accurate, - what is your evidence that Hunt "borrowed" the 1978 HSCA photo from Mr. Marsh - as opposed to hundreds of other web sites or making copies for himself while he was at the archives. Fourth, your website does not credit Mr. Marsh for the FBI photos. You've said that this is "momentary" - yet the internet archive shows no credit for Mr. Marsh going back to 2005. Moreover, there are several additional photos on your website that were "discovered" or brought to public attention by Mr. Marsh or others, yet there's no indication that someone other than Pamela found those pictures. So again, when do you think you're going to start complying with the new rules for photo use you've decided we violated? Fifth, your injured pride has blinded you to the potential of Hunt's new (yes, new) analysis. As you yourself said on usenet " I was initially so put off by the arrogance and cut + paste areas that I have not been able to go back to it." That's unfortunate because, as I wrote, Hunt's work suggests the possibility of applying new methods to old materials and generating real answers. I've searched and searched and I can't find a single place where I've "dismissed" your contributions. I did find a paragraph where I wrote that you were rightly proud of your accomplishments. So, do you think it's time to focus on what the evidence tells us - or do we need another round of "everything they wrote is trivial, stolen and an insult to human decency"? Jerry What color is the sky in your world, Jerry? Anthony Marsh did not bring forward the FBI photos -- I did that and dated them for the first time, based on the statements of Robert Frazier to me in 1999. What Anthony gave to the community was the first photo of the second windshield of the limo -- the fact that there was one in the first place (removed three months later)was research that I brought forward. http://in-broad-daylight.com/LIMO1961.jpg. I am not aware of any other photos that Anthony was the first to present. Since you seem to be an expert on my website, I am sure you will be able to provide names for them to share with us? You might try reading for comprehension too. How can I have a case of 'wounded pride' when I have already stated that it is your choice to dismiss or not contributions that I have made? I am not comfortable with your article's dismissal of all of the windshield-hole witnesses, as you undoubtedly know. When I get over that I will go back to it and look at John Hunt's section. I seem to be repeating myself here too, however -- if Hunt is using a version of a photo that Anthony Marsh sharpened or enlarged or whatever it would be courteous to acknowledge that. In fact, I thought based on the aaj thread that you were updating the article to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO! Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him? Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here? Wow David you are a bit behind the storyliine. Do you need a cartooish storyboard to follow along? A few PhD's in Physics, one silly PhD in bullsnit and their trusty sidkick the "photoexpert who can't understand shadows" are stumped by these uimpeachable proofs that John P. Costella, PhD in physics, does not understand physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com.coatella2.htm John P Costella and company are losing the PR war, the Photo/film war, and for sure Costella has lost face because he has been reduced to hiding under a rock down there in OZ. You need to get out more davie, you have lost touch with reality. I'm here to serve you lone nut-trollsters there Craig. My one true function in life, to show how misguided your film-photo perceptions are.... now you keep coming back ya'll hear? And, when you find a Physicist willing to debunk Dr. John Costella work you get right back to us (been 6 years now.... tick-tock, still waiting).... This recent nonsense of throwing up a retired word merchant (lawyer) is rather childish and trite, if you catch my drift.... Lone Nutter-trolls, you're running out of time... P.S. I'm out for hours, on a daily basis, son.... retirement is wonder-bar.... and what better place than in Las Vegas.... think you'll retire someday or have current conditions forced you there already...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum.. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html B...... UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison? can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO! Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him? Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here? Wow David you are a bit behind the storyliine. Do you need a cartooish storyboard to follow along? A few PhD's in Physics, one silly PhD in bullsnit and their trusty sidkick the "photoexpert who can't understand shadows" are stumped by these uimpeachable proofs that John P. Costella, PhD in physics, does not understand physics! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com.coatella2.htm John P Costella and company are losing the PR war, the Photo/film war, and for sure Costella has lost face because he has been reduced to hiding under a rock down there in OZ. You need to get out more davie, you have lost touch with reality. I'm here to serve you lone nut-trollsters there Craig. My one true function in life, to show how misguided your film-photo perceptions are.... now you keep coming back ya'll hear? And, when you find a Physicist willing to debunk Dr. John Costella work you get right back to us (been 6 years now.... tick-tock, still waiting).... This recent nonsense of throwing up a retired word merchant (lawyer) is rather childish and trite, if you catch my drift.... Lone Nutter-trolls, you're running out of time... P.S. I'm out for hours, on a daily basis, son.... retirement is wonder-bar.... and what better place than in Las Vegas.... think you'll retire someday or have current conditions forced you there already...? Translated from healyspeak: Costella can't show his face becaause his grasp of the basic physics of photographic parallax is...well..nonexistant. I'm too stupid to even understand why Costella got creamed so I'll post some nonsense and try and convince myself I'm actually somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I am mixed up about the debate within a debate regarding the hole (or alleged hole) in the front windshield. The pictures that I have seen posted look authentic. Apparently, someone thinks they have been altered. Assuming the pics are authentic, from what shooting position do you think they originate? 1. Overpass (this seems most likely); 2. TBSD (the missed/Teague shot?); 3. DalTex Bldg (possible); or 4. GK (this seems like an odd (or impossible) angle)? 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