Mr. and Mrs. Hester...who were they

[Robin Unger]

To answer your question Jack.

I think the white pyramid shape seen in Bell may be a large white hand bag, she appears to be carrying it in one of the cook frames.

I disagree.

Hard to say Jack.

Do you see any sign a black bag with a white strap in any other images. ? ( Bronson etc: )

[Jerry Logan]

This thread is about THE HESTERS and seems to have gotten somewhat off course.

Beatrice Hester seen rising up from the grass.

Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic

to shoot several exposures. Some of you may find this useful for study of the "Hesters".

I think they look too small. Rick, standing by the pedestal, is only 5'7".

Jack

Jack,

If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens and place someone in both locations you'll see that the sizes are just right.

Notice how the Hesters look too small compared to Zapruder in Altgens 8?

If you're going to go through the trouble of doing these tests you might want to put a model at the location with which you are concerned.

Jerry

[Todd W. Vaughan]

To answer your question Jack.

I think the white pyramid shape seen in Bell may be a large white hand bag, she appears to be carrying it in one of the cook frames.

I disagree.

Who cares?

[B. A. Copeland]

I think they're attempting to identify certain individuals Mr. Vaughn so that we can understand their actions on the day in question. "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things."

[Jack White]

.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I think they're attempting to identify certain individuals Mr. Vaughn so that we can understand their actions on the day in question. "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things."

Yes, I know what they're trying to do. I'm just giving back to Jack exactly what he gave me in another thread.

[Jack White]

This thread is about THE HESTERS and seems to have gotten somewhat off course.

Beatrice Hester seen rising up from the grass.

Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic

to shoot several exposures. Some of you may find this useful for study of the "Hesters".

I think they look too small. Rick, standing by the pedestal, is only 5'7".

Jack

Jack,

If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens and place someone in both locations you'll see that the sizes are just right.

Notice how the Hesters look too small compared to Zapruder in Altgens 8?

If you're going to go through the trouble of doing these tests you might want to put a model at the location with which you are concerned.

Jerry

You are demonstrating a lack of photographic knowledge by saying "If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens".

The lens length used is of NO importance. All a longer lens does is magnify. The important considerations are lens location and line of sight.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Jerry Logan]

This thread is about THE HESTERS and seems to have gotten somewhat off course.

Beatrice Hester seen rising up from the grass.

Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic

to shoot several exposures. Some of you may find this useful for study of the "Hesters".

I think they look too small. Rick, standing by the pedestal, is only 5'7".

Jack

Jack,

If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens and place someone in both locations you'll see that the sizes are just right.

Notice how the Hesters look too small compared to Zapruder in Altgens 8?

If you're going to go through the trouble of doing these tests you might want to put a model at the location with which you are concerned.

Jerry

You are demonstrating a lack of photographic knowledge by saying "If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens".

The lens length used is of NO importance. All a longer lens does is magnify. The important considerations are lens location and line of sight.

Jack,

You're the one who wrote "Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic to shoot several exposures. ...."

If you'd used the longer focal length you would not have had to step off the curb and avoided the misleading suggestion that Altgens was in the street for the photo. Additionally, if you'd used the right focal length, it would not be necessary to rely on your rescaling skills to compare the size of foreground and background images. So I don't think the lens length is of NO importance. Again, there would be no room for question if you'd simply used the right focal length and placed models in both locations. If you had, the photo would look just like Altgens but you've managed to inject a note of uncertainty where none should exist.

Jerry

Edited February 17, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Jack White]

This thread is about THE HESTERS and seems to have gotten somewhat off course.

Beatrice Hester seen rising up from the grass.

Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic

to shoot several exposures. Some of you may find this useful for study of the "Hesters".

I think they look too small. Rick, standing by the pedestal, is only 5'7".

Jack

Jack,

If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens and place someone in both locations you'll see that the sizes are just right.

Notice how the Hesters look too small compared to Zapruder in Altgens 8?

If you're going to go through the trouble of doing these tests you might want to put a model at the location with which you are concerned.

Jerry

You are demonstrating a lack of photographic knowledge by saying "If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens".

The lens length used is of NO importance. All a longer lens does is magnify. The important considerations are lens location and line of sight.

Jack,

You're the one who wrote "Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic to shoot several exposures. ...."

If you'd used the longer focal length you would not have had to step off the curb and avoided the misleading suggestion that Altgens was in the street for the photo. Additionally, if you'd used the right focal length, it would not be necessary to rely on your rescaling skills to compare the size of foreground and background images. So I don't think the lens length is of NO importance. Again, there would be no room for question if you'd simply used the right focal length and placed models in both locations. If you had, the photo would look just like Altgens but you've managed to inject a note of uncertainty where none should exist.

Jerry

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the function of a lens and what it does.

The focal length is immaterial. A longer focal length does not help locate the line of sight.

The important thing is to find the LOCATION from which the picture was taken. You seem not

to understand that moving back and using a longer lens does NOT find the photo location.

Actually I found the location WITH MY BARE EYEBALLS, WITHOUT LOOKING THRU A LENS!

This was easily done BEFORE the tree grew so big. Look at "Altgens 8" (no camera is necessary)

and look at the scene. Thru an opening in the pergola is seen Bowers Tower. From only ONE

location can this be duplicated. IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED BY MOVING FARTHER BACK.

Get back to me after you take a course or two in photography.

[Jerry Logan]

This thread is about THE HESTERS and seems to have gotten somewhat off course.

Beatrice Hester seen rising up from the grass.

Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic

to shoot several exposures. Some of you may find this useful for study of the "Hesters".

I think they look too small. Rick, standing by the pedestal, is only 5'7".

Jack

Jack,

If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens and place someone in both locations you'll see that the sizes are just right.

Notice how the Hesters look too small compared to Zapruder in Altgens 8?

If you're going to go through the trouble of doing these tests you might want to put a model at the location with which you are concerned.

Jerry

You are demonstrating a lack of photographic knowledge by saying "If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens".

The lens length used is of NO importance. All a longer lens does is magnify. The important considerations are lens location and line of sight.

Jack,

You're the one who wrote "Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic to shoot several exposures. ...."

If you'd used the longer focal length you would not have had to step off the curb and avoided the misleading suggestion that Altgens was in the street for the photo. Additionally, if you'd used the right focal length, it would not be necessary to rely on your rescaling skills to compare the size of foreground and background images. So I don't think the lens length is of NO importance. Again, there would be no room for question if you'd simply used the right focal length and placed models in both locations. If you had, the photo would look just like Altgens but you've managed to inject a note of uncertainty where none should exist.

Jerry

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the function of a lens and what it does.

The focal length is immaterial. A longer focal length does not help locate the line of sight.

The important thing is to find the LOCATION from which the picture was taken. You seem not

to understand that moving back and using a longer lens does NOT find the photo location.

Actually I found the location WITH MY BARE EYEBALLS, WITHOUT LOOKING THRU A LENS!

This was easily done BEFORE the tree grew so big. Look at "Altgens 8" (no camera is necessary)

and look at the scene. Thru an opening in the pergola is seen Bowers Tower. From only ONE

location can this be duplicated. IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED BY MOVING FARTHER BACK.

Get back to me after you take a course or two in photography.

Jack,

It's surprising to me that after all the courses you've taken in photography and after all the endless Moorman in the street tests and debates you've failed to realize that your location is determined by your line of sight and by your height. Because it's true, isn't it, that everything would line up the same if you were shorter but further back - at least that's what you've seemed to say in all the Moorman discussion and it's what my mechanical drawing and art teachers said outright. You look a little taller than Altgens to me Jack! Are you sure your location was the only point with that line of sight?

I know the opportunity to insult me is nearly irresistible, but I wish you'd take the comment in the spirit in which it was offered. It would have been a better test if you'd used Altgen's lens and had a model in both locations. Then you would have had something measurable instead of eyeballing a location and saying it doesn't look right to you.

Jerry

[Jack White]

This thread is about THE HESTERS and seems to have gotten somewhat off course.

Beatrice Hester seen rising up from the grass.

Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic

to shoot several exposures. Some of you may find this useful for study of the "Hesters".

I think they look too small. Rick, standing by the pedestal, is only 5'7".

Jack

Jack,

If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens and place someone in both locations you'll see that the sizes are just right.

Notice how the Hesters look too small compared to Zapruder in Altgens 8?

If you're going to go through the trouble of doing these tests you might want to put a model at the location with which you are concerned.

Jerry

You are demonstrating a lack of photographic knowledge by saying "If you shoot the picture with a 105mm lens".

The lens length used is of NO importance. All a longer lens does is magnify. The important considerations are lens location and line of sight.

Jack,

You're the one who wrote "Rick Janowitz and I located the line of sight for "Altgens 8". I cannot find my notes on this (not unusual),

but I think I was 6 or 8 feet off of the south curb because I had to keep waiting for red lights to stop traffic to shoot several exposures. ...."

If you'd used the longer focal length you would not have had to step off the curb and avoided the misleading suggestion that Altgens was in the street for the photo. Additionally, if you'd used the right focal length, it would not be necessary to rely on your rescaling skills to compare the size of foreground and background images. So I don't think the lens length is of NO importance. Again, there would be no room for question if you'd simply used the right focal length and placed models in both locations. If you had, the photo would look just like Altgens but you've managed to inject a note of uncertainty where none should exist.

Jerry

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the function of a lens and what it does.

The focal length is immaterial. A longer focal length does not help locate the line of sight.

The important thing is to find the LOCATION from which the picture was taken. You seem not

to understand that moving back and using a longer lens does NOT find the photo location.

Actually I found the location WITH MY BARE EYEBALLS, WITHOUT LOOKING THRU A LENS!

This was easily done BEFORE the tree grew so big. Look at "Altgens 8" (no camera is necessary)

and look at the scene. Thru an opening in the pergola is seen Bowers Tower. From only ONE

location can this be duplicated. IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED BY MOVING FARTHER BACK.

Get back to me after you take a course or two in photography.

Jack,

It's surprising to me that after all the courses you've taken in photography and after all the endless Moorman in the street tests and debates you've failed to realize that your location is determined by your line of sight and by your height. Because it's true, isn't it, that everything would line up the same if you were shorter but further back - at least that's what you've seemed to say in all the Moorman discussion and it's what my mechanical drawing and art teachers said outright. You look a little taller than Altgens to me Jack! Are you sure your location was the only point with that line of sight?

I know the opportunity to insult me is nearly irresistible, but I wish you'd take the comment in the spirit in which it was offered. It would have been a better test if you'd used Altgen's lens and had a model in both locations. Then you would have had something measurable instead of eyeballing a location and saying it doesn't look right to you.

Jerry

You'll not win any arguments by further insults.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree that a given photo can only be taken FROM ONE LOCATION?

You clearly do not understand the difference between LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) and POINT OF VIEW (POV).

As their names indicate LOS is an imaginary LINE on which the camera must be.

POV is a CERTAIN POINT on which the camera must be. POV must be on the LOS. Merely finding the

LOS does not in itself determine the POV. On the other hand, finding the POV automatically finds the LOS.

LOS and POV are not synonymous.

If you knew anything about optics, you would know that replication of a photo does NOT depend on

the focal length of a lens. It depends ONLY on POV. Focal length is only for magnification purposes,

and has NO AFFECT ON EITHER POV NOR LOS.

In closing...please tell us how many photo replications have you taken in Dealey Plaza. Tell us your

methodology. What lenses did you use? Did you use a tripod? Did you take measurements?

[Jerry Logan]

You'll not win any arguments by further insults.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree that a given photo can only be taken FROM ONE LOCATION?

You clearly do not understand the difference between LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) and POINT OF VIEW (POV).

As their names indicate LOS is an imaginary LINE on which the camera must be.

POV is a CERTAIN POINT on which the camera must be. POV must be on the LOS. Merely finding the

LOS does not in itself determine the POV. On the other hand, finding the POV automatically finds the LOS.

LOS and POV are not synonymous.

If you knew anything about optics, you would know that replication of a photo does NOT depend on

the focal length of a lens. It depends ONLY on POV. Focal length is only for magnification purposes,

and has NO AFFECT ON EITHER POV NOR LOS.

In closing...please tell us how many photo replications have you taken in Dealey Plaza. Tell us your

methodology. What lenses did you use? Did you use a tripod? Did you take measurements?

Jack,

You're finally getting around to my point!

What is the easiest, clearest, most direct way of showing that two points of view are the same?

You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match. And then you can offer complicated technical reasons about why it's all really the same and and I know it's the right location because before the tree got big the switching tower was right there and I'm really good with Photoshop so pasting in a rescaled crop from a completely different photograph is is really OK even if it looks a little odd.

Or, you can use the same lens on the same format. with models in the right locations. Where all the frame edges match and everyone can see in a glance that's what a 105mm photo looks like from exactly that location.

I have never done any photo reconstructions in Dealey Plaza. I have, however, done five or six major cases a year for over thirty years with at least one photo expert on both sides. I've probably been directly involved in creating more than a hundred reconstructions and critically reviewed a couple of hundred more. To be completely honest Jack, your photo reconstructions suck. They're undocumented, they depend on undemonstrated assumptions, they rely on long chains of suspect technical argument and they're visually confusing. You've been doing Moorman in the street for nearly ten years and you haven't been able to produce a reconstruction that finishes it once and for all. You haven't even been able to to do a reconstruction that convinces John Costella.

I was offering you friendly advice about what makes for a convincing photo demonstration. If you think I'm wrong about what's persuasive that's fine. Everyone has different standards and opinion varies.

Jerry

[Jack White]

You'll not win any arguments by further insults.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree that a given photo can only be taken FROM ONE LOCATION?

You clearly do not understand the difference between LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) and POINT OF VIEW (POV).

As their names indicate LOS is an imaginary LINE on which the camera must be.

POV is a CERTAIN POINT on which the camera must be. POV must be on the LOS. Merely finding the

LOS does not in itself determine the POV. On the other hand, finding the POV automatically finds the LOS.

LOS and POV are not synonymous.

If you knew anything about optics, you would know that replication of a photo does NOT depend on

the focal length of a lens. It depends ONLY on POV. Focal length is only for magnification purposes,

and has NO AFFECT ON EITHER POV NOR LOS.

In closing...please tell us how many photo replications have you taken in Dealey Plaza. Tell us your

methodology. What lenses did you use? Did you use a tripod? Did you take measurements?

Jack,

You're finally getting around to my point!

What is the easiest, clearest, most direct way of showing that two points of view are the same?

You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match. And then you can offer complicated technical reasons about why it's all really the same and and I know it's the right location because before the tree got big the switching tower was right there and I'm really good with Photoshop so pasting in a rescaled crop from a completely different photograph is is really OK even if it looks a little odd.

Or, you can use the same lens on the same format. with models in the right locations. Where all the frame edges match and everyone can see in a glance that's what a 105mm photo looks like from exactly that location.

I have never done any photo reconstructions in Dealey Plaza. I have, however, done five or six major cases a year for over thirty years with at least one photo expert on both sides. I've probably been directly involved in creating more than a hundred reconstructions and critically reviewed a couple of hundred more. To be completely honest Jack, your photo reconstructions suck. They're undocumented, they depend on undemonstrated assumptions, they rely on long chains of suspect technical argument and they're visually confusing. You've been doing Moorman in the street for nearly ten years and you haven't been able to produce a reconstruction that finishes it once and for all. You haven't even been able to to do a reconstruction that convinces John Costella.

I was offering you friendly advice about what makes for a convincing photo demonstration. If you think I'm wrong about what's persuasive that's fine. Everyone has different standards and opinion varies.

Jerry

You STILL do not understand, when you say "You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match.

Photos taken from the SAME POV will exactly match, regardless of lens or camera. I suggest that you prove your statement or withdraw it.

Failure to acknowledge this will only accentuate your ignorance of what lenses do. It is NOT a matter of opinion as you suggest.

On the Moorman studies, they have been replicated at least a dozen times, and the Mantik/Fetzer replication was rigorously documented.

You speak without having done research on this matter. I documented my LOS studies for every 2 inches, which I considered sufficient at

a distance of 130 feet. You pay to have the test done, and I will have a professional surveyor do the test. Dr. Thompson was made the same

offer, but he failed to respond.

[Jerry Logan]

You'll not win any arguments by further insults.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree that a given photo can only be taken FROM ONE LOCATION?

You clearly do not understand the difference between LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) and POINT OF VIEW (POV).

As their names indicate LOS is an imaginary LINE on which the camera must be.

POV is a CERTAIN POINT on which the camera must be. POV must be on the LOS. Merely finding the

LOS does not in itself determine the POV. On the other hand, finding the POV automatically finds the LOS.

LOS and POV are not synonymous.

If you knew anything about optics, you would know that replication of a photo does NOT depend on

the focal length of a lens. It depends ONLY on POV. Focal length is only for magnification purposes,

and has NO AFFECT ON EITHER POV NOR LOS.

In closing...please tell us how many photo replications have you taken in Dealey Plaza. Tell us your

methodology. What lenses did you use? Did you use a tripod? Did you take measurements?

Jack,

You're finally getting around to my point!

What is the easiest, clearest, most direct way of showing that two points of view are the same?

You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match. And then you can offer complicated technical reasons about why it's all really the same and and I know it's the right location because before the tree got big the switching tower was right there and I'm really good with Photoshop so pasting in a rescaled crop from a completely different photograph is is really OK even if it looks a little odd.

Or, you can use the same lens on the same format. with models in the right locations. Where all the frame edges match and everyone can see in a glance that's what a 105mm photo looks like from exactly that location.

I have never done any photo reconstructions in Dealey Plaza. I have, however, done five or six major cases a year for over thirty years with at least one photo expert on both sides. I've probably been directly involved in creating more than a hundred reconstructions and critically reviewed a couple of hundred more. To be completely honest Jack, your photo reconstructions suck. They're undocumented, they depend on undemonstrated assumptions, they rely on long chains of suspect technical argument and they're visually confusing. You've been doing Moorman in the street for nearly ten years and you haven't been able to produce a reconstruction that finishes it once and for all. You haven't even been able to to do a reconstruction that convinces John Costella.

I was offering you friendly advice about what makes for a convincing photo demonstration. If you think I'm wrong about what's persuasive that's fine. Everyone has different standards and opinion varies.

Jerry

You STILL do not understand, when you say "You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match.

Photos taken from the SAME POV will exactly match, regardless of lens or camera. I suggest that you prove your statement or withdraw it.

Failure to acknowledge this will only accentuate your ignorance of what lenses do. It is NOT a matter of opinion as you suggest.

On the Moorman studies, they have been replicated at least a dozen times, and the Mantik/Fetzer replication was rigorously documented.

You speak without having done research on this matter. I documented my LOS studies for every 2 inches, which I considered sufficient at

a distance of 130 feet. You pay to have the test done, and I will have a professional surveyor do the test. Dr. Thompson was made the same

offer, but he failed to respond.

Jack,

At this point we're simply talking past each other. You are intent on making a technical point which I freely acknowledge in theory. I am making a point about what makes a demonstration clear and convincing.

If you think understanding what's persuasive means someone doesn't understand the basic principles of photography then you're definitely entitled to that opinion.

I have followed the Moorman in the street issue closely. Despite everything you've said and all of the careful documentation you've prepared, and all of extremely precise measurements you've taken - Dr. Costella remains unconvinced and reaches the opposite conclusion. At the very least, this should suggest to you that technical accuracy isn't always convincing - even to technicians. Unless, of course, Dr. Costella noted a technical error?

So what's the big deal? I can be convinced. Get a 105mm lens and two people. Stop by Dealey Plaza and snap some shots from Altgens location. We don't even need to pay a surveyor to tell us if the model in Hester's location looks too small or too big or just right.

Jerry

[Jack White]

You'll not win any arguments by further insults.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree that a given photo can only be taken FROM ONE LOCATION?

You clearly do not understand the difference between LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) and POINT OF VIEW (POV).

As their names indicate LOS is an imaginary LINE on which the camera must be.

POV is a CERTAIN POINT on which the camera must be. POV must be on the LOS. Merely finding the

LOS does not in itself determine the POV. On the other hand, finding the POV automatically finds the LOS.

LOS and POV are not synonymous.

If you knew anything about optics, you would know that replication of a photo does NOT depend on

the focal length of a lens. It depends ONLY on POV. Focal length is only for magnification purposes,

and has NO AFFECT ON EITHER POV NOR LOS.

In closing...please tell us how many photo replications have you taken in Dealey Plaza. Tell us your

methodology. What lenses did you use? Did you use a tripod? Did you take measurements?

Jack,

You're finally getting around to my point!

What is the easiest, clearest, most direct way of showing that two points of view are the same?

You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match. And then you can offer complicated technical reasons about why it's all really the same and and I know it's the right location because before the tree got big the switching tower was right there and I'm really good with Photoshop so pasting in a rescaled crop from a completely different photograph is is really OK even if it looks a little odd.

Or, you can use the same lens on the same format. with models in the right locations. Where all the frame edges match and everyone can see in a glance that's what a 105mm photo looks like from exactly that location.

I have never done any photo reconstructions in Dealey Plaza. I have, however, done five or six major cases a year for over thirty years with at least one photo expert on both sides. I've probably been directly involved in creating more than a hundred reconstructions and critically reviewed a couple of hundred more. To be completely honest Jack, your photo reconstructions suck. They're undocumented, they depend on undemonstrated assumptions, they rely on long chains of suspect technical argument and they're visually confusing. You've been doing Moorman in the street for nearly ten years and you haven't been able to produce a reconstruction that finishes it once and for all. You haven't even been able to to do a reconstruction that convinces John Costella.

I was offering you friendly advice about what makes for a convincing photo demonstration. If you think I'm wrong about what's persuasive that's fine. Everyone has different standards and opinion varies.

Jerry

You STILL do not understand, when you say "You can use a different lens on a different format camera and scale the the photos to sort of match.

Photos taken from the SAME POV will exactly match, regardless of lens or camera. I suggest that you prove your statement or withdraw it.

Failure to acknowledge this will only accentuate your ignorance of what lenses do. It is NOT a matter of opinion as you suggest.

On the Moorman studies, they have been replicated at least a dozen times, and the Mantik/Fetzer replication was rigorously documented.

You speak without having done research on this matter. I documented my LOS studies for every 2 inches, which I considered sufficient at

a distance of 130 feet. You pay to have the test done, and I will have a professional surveyor do the test. Dr. Thompson was made the same

offer, but he failed to respond.

Jack,

At this point we're simply talking past each other. You are intent on making a technical point which I freely acknowledge in theory. I am making a point about what makes a demonstration clear and convincing.

If you think understanding what's persuasive means someone doesn't understand the basic principles of photography then you're definitely entitled to that opinion.

I have followed the Moorman in the street issue closely. Despite everything you've said and all of the careful documentation you've prepared, and all of extremely precise measurements you've taken - Dr. Costella remains unconvinced and reaches the opposite conclusion. At the very least, this should suggest to you that technical accuracy isn't always convincing - even to technicians. Unless, of course, Dr. Costella noted a technical error?

So what's the big deal? I can be convinced. Get a 105mm lens and two people. Stop by Dealey Plaza and snap some shots from Altgens location. We don't even need to pay a surveyor to tell us if the model in Hester's location looks too small or too big or just right.

Jerry

You still don't get it.