Greg Burnham Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Stemmons freeway sign Credit: Peter Lemkin. Both the "Stemmons sign and the support poles" were leaning sideways towards Elm St Click on image to view FULL SIZE Edited November 2, 2012 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Click on image to view FULL SIZE Edited November 2, 2012 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Both the "Stemmons sign and the support poles" were leaning sideways towards Elm St Edited November 2, 2012 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I just purchased a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera...the same one allegedly used by Zappy. I will conduct my own tests using that camera. My tests will not be conducted immediately for several reasons. However, I will report the results here if and when they are completed. OK you said your tests "will not be conducted immediately" but it's been over two years. When if ever will you conduct them? Or did you already do so but were not happy with the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Credit: Peter Lemkin. Edited November 2, 2012 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 JFK researcher Bill Miller shared this image of the Stemmons sign with me many, many years ago. I have no idea where Bill initially got the image from. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 I just purchased a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera...the same one allegedly used by Zappy. I will conduct my own tests using that camera. My tests will not be conducted immediately for several reasons. However, I will report the results here if and when they are completed. OK you said your tests "will not be conducted immediately" but it's been over two years. When if ever will you conduct them? Or did you already do so but were not happy with the results? You'll need to go back and read what I have already written about this. I don't remember which thread it is in. I did shoot nearly continuously for about 2 .5 hours (if memory serves) on November 22nd of 2010. Over 90% of the footage came out usable. However, I haven't had the time to coordinate a study of it with the proper equipment and with the proper experts yet. Hopefully that will change in the future. I just don't know when at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) On 11/2/2012 at 5:34 AM, Robin Unger said: Credit: Peter Lemkin. Thanks Robin... I hope you see that I was not challenging whether these poles were off vertical... I also hope you are illustrating here that even with the LOS change between these two images, the POLES remain in the same... the left image appears taken from further north Now, if the poles themselves barely change vertical angles with that large a movement of Line of sight... how exactly does Zapruder move the camera enough to generate the EXTREME shift we see in the Zfilm? Click to view What I am challenging is Lamson's experiment to illustrate why the poles SHOULD be different in different frames... and the fraudulent way in which he goes about it. The CAMERA is not changing its vertical or horizontal line of sight relateive to these poles... the CAMERA is panning... In Lamson's experiment he moves the camera horizontally - if we were to extrapolate the movement and the distances to Zapruder... the movement would have him fall off the pedestal. It's a dishonest experiment from a man who regularly witholds information from the presentation of his "photographic proofs" and then ad homs detractors rather than deal with his dishonesty Now, since all he does is wait for me to post so he has something to say... I'm looking forward to an insult laden response rather than an honest explanation for why he tries to deceive. So these poles are 5-10 degrees off vertical? Now take a cup and lean a pencil from the bottom on one side to the top on another... looks a whole lot like a 45 degree angle.... ANY MOVEMENT of LOS will make this pencil change its angle relative to the background. As usual, CL cannot - nor does he even try to prove the motion of his camera in the experiment relates to the movement of Z's camera thru these frames.... One of the main reasons I can barely stomach posting here is that CL's entire purpose is to xxxxx and annoy. Can anyone remember a post in which he actually proposes something HE believes other than his three little inches of cloth? Which again, when presented with the jacket and shirt and wound lining up replies he could care less... THIS is the type of person y'all want to battle with every single #$%$#@ day ?? Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics without his holier than thou, "I don't really care about the assassination anyway", "I'm just here to be amused" attitude. It finally take Greg to comment for him to finally come clean... y'all can keep him DJ Edited March 7, 2017 by David Josephs need room for new attachments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Cause putting the REPRESENTATION OF THE SIGN POSTS AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE WAS SUCH A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SIGN POSTS - RIGHT? 45 degrees? Really, you measured that HOW? Oh wait I asked you this at Duncan's forum and you ran away from the question as quick as you could. Why? Because yo have no way of know WHAT the angle is, and instead you simple make up an untruthful statement and present it as fact when you know completely that it is false. Your suggestion that this represents the signposts is a very poor strawman. The article was quite clear as to the question being asked, and what the study was trying to accomplish: Costella sez this: "So if we summarize Costella's statements they are quite clear. " if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera" "If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery." There is no ambiguity in Costella's statements. And after all he has a PhD in Physics, so he speaks from a position of authority." What was the question I clearly stated the article was trying to answer? "But a question remains, is he correct? When confronted that his statement cannot be true in the real world and asked to provide empirical proof of concept, Costella runs away. That in itself is not unusual for Costella and it's not the first time he has failed to do some simple photographic tests to see if his opinions play out in the real world. But real world empirical testing is part of science. One must question why Costella does his best to stay away from it. I can only surmise it to be fear of admitting failure. To find out if Costella is correct I decided to do some empirical testing. The question: Can the angle of vertical pole change if we move the camera? First we have to ask, what is a vertical pole? If we answer that it is a pole that is perfectly vertical and truly plumb then Costella is correct, that pole will not change angles as the camera is held perfectly horizontal no matter where you put the camera. So far so good for the Doctor. But what happens if the pole is not vertical and perfectly plumb? Does his theory still hold? The answer is a resounding no! Let's consider that leaning pole. In real life a leaning pole an appears exactly vertical when viewed for two points, one where the pole is leaning directly towards you and one when it leans directly away from you. Viewed from any other position the pole will be at varying angles from vertical depending on your viewing position. This is quite easy to test in real life by simply walking around a leaning pole and viewing the changes in angle. All of this begs the question, were the poles Costella uses in his study of the Zapruder film vertical in all axis or were they leaning? The photographic evidence says they were leaning. But does all of this translate to actual photographs. Again contrary to Costella's claim, yes it does!" With all your ability you could not reproduce the posts as they appear in REAL LIFE? Instead, knowing that a leaning representation would look even more off vertical as you moved the camera, Impossible. Unless you have the ability to perfectly position the poles in 3d space, and if you can then please provide that data. Besides the angle is immaterial to the question. 1 degree or 60, if the pole leans the angle changes as the camera moves. Costella claimed this was against the laws of physics. I simply set up an simple experiment to see it his claim held water. It did not. You set it up - the exacto knive is placed in a manner to illustrate YOUR point, rather than to reproduce the event. I can't reproduce the event. Instead I did a proof of concept demonstration to see if the claim made by Costerlla...this claim..was correct. " if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera" "If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery." There is no ambiguity in Costella's statements. And after all he has a PhD in Physics, so he speaks from a position of authority." Costella was WRONG. Proven ... unimpeachable. and you move the CAMERA relative to the knife... while in Z the camera does not move relative to the posts. If NOT VERTICAL, then the LATERAL or VERTICAL movement of the camera should reveal this lean - accepted... except the CAMERA does not move off axis relative to the sign posts and the images behind them. When the wall is lined up correctly, which means the Line of sight IS THE SAME, the post should not move... Except, as usual, given your complete ignorance of all things photographic, you get it completely wrong. There is only ONE way to pan the Zapruder camera in such a manner NOT to move the position of the lens relative to the signposts and not cause parallax. That would be rotating the camera around an axis that falls on the entrance pupil (often called the nodal point) of the lens. For the sake of the discussion the position of the axis would be the center of the length of the camera lens. The actual position may be forward or backward slightly. This is pretty standard stuff for those of us who do panorama photography. I do hundreds of 360 vr movies every year for my clients. It is well proven science. http://archive.bigbe...hoto/nodal.html http://www.vrphotogr...ptalign-tn.html So unless you think Zapruder had his camera set up in a panorama tripod head and rotated it around the nodal point, HIS CAMERA MOVED BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY as he paned, inducing PARALLAX! Like I said, as usual when you wade in half cocked into an area where you have zero knowledge, you get it TOTALLY WRONG! I do not believe your experiment accurately reproduces what Costella is saying... and once others understand you DID place the knife at such an extreme angle and didNOT move the camera similiar to Z... Your little experiment is worthless.... I followed Costella's directions to a tee... The angle is immaterial to the study. It can be 1 degree or 60...and the work stands. You got the Zapruder camera movement completely wrong. Your entire post is worthless, just like your so called knowledge of items photographic. My oh my, you do do a really good job of making yourself look foolish. Edited November 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Once again davie jo gets completely wrong and you simply tell a bunch of whopper in the process...not very honest.... "It finally take Greg to comment for him to finally come clean... y'all can keep him" It was clearly stated in the article from the day it was published years ago and I told you this on Duncan;s forum, yet you still tell this Whopper... "What I am challenging is Lamson's experiment to illustrate why the poles SHOULD be different in different frames... and the fraudulent way in which he goes about it. The CAMERA is not changing its vertical or horizontal line of sight relateive to these poles... the CAMERA is panning..." The only "fraud' here is your opinion and false claims. I"t's a dishonest experiment from a man who regularly witholds information from the presentation of his "photographic proofs" and then ad homs detractors rather than deal with his dishonesty" Again nothing dishonest at all and if you want to make a specific claim where you think I "withheld information" do so and try and prove your case. But good luck because you are destined to fail once again. "Can anyone remember a post in which he actually proposes something HE believes other than his three little inches of cloth? Which again, when presented with the jacket and shirt and wound lining up replies he could care less..." You can "believe" all you want. Ill stick to things I can PROVE and know empirically. You should try it sometime. Oh wait... "As usual, CL cannot - nor does he even try to prove the motion of his camera in the experiment relates to the movement of Z's camera thru these frames...." Of course it relates. You simply don't have what it takes to understand. "Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics without his holier than thou, "I don't really care about the assassination anyway", "I'm just here to be amused" attitude" And what forums would those be exactly davie jo? You made a very serious charge. Now prove it. Edited November 3, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Whatever you think old man.... From your posts we can tell how much you care about the assassination, learning, teaching,sharing and discovery... It's all in your posts Craig... your childish insulting, as if you've never left kindergarten... let's see math wiz... a cup with a 4" height and 4" diameter.... if you leaned a pencil from one corner to the opposite cup lid... what does your math mind tell you the angle is??? Quote 45 degrees? Really, you measured that HOW? Oh wait I asked you this at Duncan's forum and you ran away from the question as quick as you could. Why? Because yo have no way of know WHAT the angle is, and instead you simple make up an untruthful statement and present it as fact when you know completely that it is false. Finishing your cup and adding a straight edge I get almost a 50 degree angle since I don't know how wide the bottom of your cup is.... wider bottom, lower angle. Furthermore, you post how the camera does not move yet pans, while the camera in your experiment MOVE and does NOT PAN... this is you being honest? this is a representative experiment? what a joke. Quote I can't reproduce the event. Instead I did a proof of concept demonstration to see if the claim made by Costerlla...this claim..was correct. " if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera" "If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery." There is no ambiguity in Costella's statements. And after all he has a PhD in Physics, so he speaks from a position of authority." Costella was WRONG. Proven ... unimpeachable. There's nothing wrong about that statement at all... as Zapruder pans the LOS of his camera does not change with respect to these poles. If Z jumped off the pedastal, then yes.. it changes. If Z raises the camera ofer his head... change... but he is only panning... as he pans right and the sign moves LEFT in the frame, the LOS from the lens to the poles do not change... Your experiment is fundamentally flawed... your arguments weak and worthless.... but hey, at least you try. Quote So unless you think Zapruder had his camera set up in a panorama tripod head and rotated it around the nodal point, HIS CAMERA MOVED BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY as he paned, inducing PARALLAX! Fancy words for - "he turned his head to the right while filming" he neither moved the "nodal point" up or down, left or right... he simply panned right Two and a half years ago, on this same thread.... Same Sh!t, Different YEAR, Month, Week, Day, Thread, Post.... No matter how far one goes back, any ANY THREAD on ANY FORUM CL behaves the same, receives the same "praise" and believes in his bloated ego he is contributing. Good thing the man's work and posts stand on their own... Quote Posted 14 July 2010 - 03:57 AM Lampoonson is here to annoy. Ignore him. I am not questioning his motivation. It is just an observation; all of his postings are merely annoying. Jack Click gif to see how Z simply pans between these two frames.... and compare to Costella's gif http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.html CL makes these claims about nodal BS yet asks us once again to just take his word.. Well, as we continue to see... his word and work leaves a lot to be desired Edited February 10, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 My oh my davie the ignorance you display in this post is simply amazing. It is going to be SO MUCH fun showing what a complete fool you are. You have a few days to reconsider your claims here. Not that you will. I have a couple of very hot projects that require extensive post processing and it will be a few days before I can produce the materials I need to totally destroy you. Enjoy the next few days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Unlike your waiting for me old man, I dont wait around for your posts... they just show up... we all have a nice laugh... you curse and mumble, spit and drool then leave. You're just a bunch of nonsense and misdirection with a few little girl insults thrown in for good measure.. Here's an idea... go be self important, find a real reason, and then come on back and let's see more of your personal DJ obsession shine thru... Your experiment was a shame just as you are a sham... but hey... THANKS for the vacation. Maybe we all can read thru the forum threads now without getting nauseous from your presence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Unlike your waiting for me old man, I dont wait around for your posts... they just show up... we all have a nice laugh... you curse and mumble, spit and drool then leave. You're just a bunch of nonsense and misdirection with a few little girl insults thrown in for good measure.. Here's an idea... go be self important, find a real reason, and then come on back and let's see more of your personal DJ obsession shine thru... Your experiment was a shame just as you are a sham... but hey... THANKS for the vacation. Maybe we all can read thru the forum threads now without getting nauseous from your presence... Oh this will be so much fun destroying you, your ignorance and arrogance. Your reputation ends with this davie. Enjoy the next few days.... While you are waiting for your reputation to be destroyed maybe you can tell us why this statement of yours in NOT a complete falsehood... "Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics ..." Edited November 6, 2012 by Craig Lamson 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