Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[David G. Healy]

Yea right monk, I can read your posts....and between the lines.

But hey..PROVE ME WRONG. Show my work is incorrect. So far you have failed miserabllly on both counts.

I WELCOME and strongly suggest anyone interested simply do the work themself and verify or falsify my results. It's as simple as that.

If you are not persuaded, that just fine. I never expected intellectal honestly from you anyway. You are too vested. Thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

IMO, your work was not representative of the issue being debated. Your work demonstrated parallax, which is precisely what John said could not account for the anomaly. I think you are talking about apples and oranges. Whereas you come from a vested position that the Zapruder film is authentic, I do not.

Oh sheesh, thats exactly what I'm talking about. This is over your head.

Costella says it can't be parallax, its impossible. I've proven it IS possible and in fact is EXPECTED. You or Costella can try and refute my work anytime. I've given you the process so you can test it yourself. And I have so much more of that to come...really sweet stuff

Costella says it is lack of pincushion in the extant film but as I've once again shown that cannot be what is happening because the objects in question are positioned in the lens image circle in such a manner that they will not be materially effected by pincushion. Again you can prove my work wrong.

So dr john has it wrong about parallax, and he has it wrong about pincushion. And he's going to have it even more wrong when it comes to rotational parallax because it can be shown that when you REMOVE the rotational parallax by rotating the camera on the lens entrance pupil axis, the post flopping is eliminated. It's just the final nail in the coffin of what he has called the best proof of alteration ever. Now it's just going to be the best costella blunder ever. Monumental! Forget rain sensors, Costella will forever be remembered as the phd in physics who could not understand simple photographic parallax. How sweet it is.

So listen monk. I have posted the work. Stick your handwaving bullnit back in the drawer. It's meaningless and only makes you look afraid. Refute the work, or accept it..or not.

But your words no longer carry any weight. You are gonna need to bring real work to the game if you want to play...

oh-wee, are you one of those "he who whines longest, and loudest wins the KODAK Brownie?" For a lone nut that had this case all sewed up in 1964, you sure spend a mega amount of time protecting and defending a photographic record that has been forever tarnished. Neo-defenders of Dealey Plaza photographic record need to lighten up. Breathe fresh air, buy The Great Zapruder Film HOAX.... cures all your anxiety... no need to play in your sandbox any longer Craigster...

[Craig Lamson]

Now why in the world would anyone want to actually own let alone read that silly book. After all it has your nonsense in it AND the mistakes of one dr john and david lifton to name but a few.

But I digress davie, can you refute any of the stuff that brings costella crashing down? or ar you like another member, just more hot air.

As always you bring such wonderful enlightenment into any thread. Thanks so much for your contribution.

[Greg Burnham]

Now why in the world would anyone want to actually own let alone read that silly book. After all it has your nonsense in it AND the mistakes of one dr john and david lifton to name but a few.

But I digress davie, can you refute any of the stuff that brings costella crashing down? or ar you like another member, just more hot air.

As always you bring such wonderful enlightenment into any thread. Thanks so much for your contribution.

Craig,

You use a technique called "diversion" in order to obfuscate the issues by re-directing folks attention from Costella's work to your own.

Costella's work is available for review. That is what's being studied, not your work. You claim to have refuted his findings. I reject that claim for reasons already mentioned. Instead of inviting me or anyone else to refute your claim, I invite you or anyone else to actually address John's work in a relevant manner. I understand that you believe you have done that. I think you are mistaken. We disagree. Fine.

[Craig Lamson]

Now why in the world would anyone want to actually own let alone read that silly book. After all it has your nonsense in it AND the mistakes of one dr john and david lifton to name but a few.

But I digress davie, can you refute any of the stuff that brings costella crashing down? or ar you like another member, just more hot air.

As always you bring such wonderful enlightenment into any thread. Thanks so much for your contribution.

Craig,

You use a technique called "diversion" in order to obfuscate the issues by re-directing folks attention from Costella's work to your own.

Costella's work is available for review. That is what's being studied, not your work. You claim to have refuted his findings. I reject that claim for reasons already mentioned. Instead of inviting me or anyone else to refute your claim, I invite you or anyone else to actually address John's work in a relevant manner. I understand that you believe you have done that. I think you are mistaken. We disagree. Fine.

Translated from monkspeak: I'm screwed and I can't refute Lamson's nor save Costellas work so I'll just make some silly crap up and hope no one notices.

Sheesh Monk, what exactly WOULD be a relevant manner?

I quote Costella and his work copiously and include direct links to his work in my web pages.

I have tsested his often stated claim that parallax cannot cause changes to angles. That has been proven beyond a doubt using his own constraints to be patently false. You not anyone else has been able to refute this.

I have tested his statements about pincushion distortion and again found it wanting. That has also not been refuted.

I have new testing which shows rotationl parallax also causes the sign flopping Costella claims is impossible, and also have he photo evidence that show rotation on the exit pupil ( a very common technique used in professional pano photography) ELIMINATES the pole flopping. Proving yet again in the very situation seen in the Z film that parallax does indeed cause the effect Costella claims is impossible.

There is no doubt that the Zpruder camera was NOT rotated on the entrance pupil and thus PARALLAX was present. Costella's claim is again refuted.

So tell us monk, mr expert, WHAT IS RELEVANT?

BTW, Cstella's work in NOT available for study. He has it hiddden away. He offers his handwaving and his conclusions but ther is scantg data to back his claims. To that end and despiote his promises he still remains a closed book

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Now why in the world would anyone want to actually own let alone read that silly book. After all it has your nonsense in it AND the mistakes of one dr john and david lifton to name but a few.

But I digress davie, can you refute any of the stuff that brings costella crashing down? or ar you like another member, just more hot air.

As always you bring such wonderful enlightenment into any thread. Thanks so much for your contribution.

Craig,

You use a technique called "diversion" in order to obfuscate the issues by re-directing folks attention from Costella's work to your own.

Costella's work is available for review. That is what's being studied, not your work. You claim to have refuted his findings. I reject that claim for reasons already mentioned. Instead of inviting me or anyone else to refute your claim, I invite you or anyone else to actually address John's work in a relevant manner. I understand that you believe you have done that. I think you are mistaken. We disagree. Fine.

Translated from monkspeak: I'm screwed and I can't refute Lamsson's nor save Costellas work so I'll just make some silly crap up and hope no one notices.

Sheesh Monk, what exactly WOULD be a relevant manner?

I quote Costella and his work copiously and include direct links to his work in my web pages.

I have tsested his often stated claim that parallax cannot cause changes to angles. That has been proven beyond a doubt using his own constraints to be patently false. You not anyone else has been able to refute this.

I have tested his statements about pincushion distortion and again found it wanting. That has also not been refuted.

I have new testing which shows rotationl parallax also causes the sign flopping Costella claims is impossible, and also have he photo evidence that show rotation on the exit pupil ( a very common technique used in professional pano photography) ELIMINATES the pole flopping. Proving yet again in the very situation seen in the Z film that parallax does indeed cause the effect Costella claims is impossible.

There is no doubt that the Zpruder camera was NOT rotated on the entrance pupil and thus PARALLAX was present. Costella's claim is again refuted.

So tell us monk, mr expert, WHAT IS RELEVANT?

BTW, COstella's work in NOT availab le for srtudy. He has it hiddden away. He offers his handwaving and his conclusions but ther is scantg data to back his claims. To that end and despiote his promises he still remains a closed book

So anyway, back to the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GYVmQVK35g

[Craig Lamson]

So anyway, back to the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GYVmQVK35g

Relevant eludes you????

You don't have a clue what the subject is nor do you have the first clue if costella is telling the truth. Monk ... yet another unimformed CT sheeple.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

So anyway, back to the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GYVmQVK35g

Relevant eludes you????

You don't have a clue what the subject is nor do you have the first clue if costella is telling the truth. Monk ... yet another unimformed CT sheeple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsMA5vvg3nk

[Craig Lamson]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

[Greg Burnham]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

I get it, levity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsMA5vvg3nk

[Craig Lamson]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

I get it, levity:

Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!

SOS for sure.

BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

I get it, levity:

Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!

SOS for sure.

BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!

Some of the best "supporting" evidence has to do with impossible "sharpness" --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVz545Ghts&feature=related

[David G. Healy]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

I get it, levity:

Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!

SOS for sure.

BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!

you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!

Edited July 18, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Greg Burnham]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

I get it, levity:

Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!

SOS for sure.

BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!

you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!

COSTELLA: "I'll swear to that on a witness stand -- that those three frames did not come through Zapruder's camera, in that order, one after the other. It's impossible!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmQDhWOQSg&feature=related

[Craig Lamson]

Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.

So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?

I get it, levity:

Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!

SOS for sure.

BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!

Some of the best "supporting" evidence has to do with impossible "sharpness" --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVz545Ghts&feature=related

LOL! You mean the handwaving by Costella and based on the MPI frames which are really sub par? Tell us Mork, did Costells try this with decent scans of say the preservation or archival copies of the film?

If not just HOW can he have anything correct on this handwaving exercise? Oh yea, forgot..monk don't know, woof woof.

BTW, gotta love the fact that johnboy, when writng this "supproting evidence, had no idea that prepress in those days hada handy sharpening tool called unsharp mask. all done wiht film.

Quite the researcher that johnboy...

You are quite the sos follower monk, heck your ignorance becomes you.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

LOL! You mean the handwaving by Costella and based on the MPI frames which are really sub par? Tell us Mork, did Costells try this with decent scans of say the preservation or archival copies of the film?

If not just HOW can he have anything correct on this handwaving exercise? Oh yea, forgot..monk don't know, woof woof.

BTW, gotta love the fact that johnboy, when writng this "supproting evidence, had no idea that prepress in those days hada handy sharpening tool called unsharp mask. all done wiht film.

Quite the researcher that johnboy...

You are quite the sos follower monk, heck your ignorance becomes you.

Sprocket hole supporting evidence, too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3NIGRUGZXA&feature=related