Craig Lamson Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Too easy, Craig. First off, in what direction do the Stemmons signposts lean and to what degree(s)? Better yet, in what direction do the posts lean from Zappy's LOS in your opinion? I understand that the answer will necessarily be a "moving target" (no pun intended), but accounted for it needs to be. Please provide a range of spatial locations (for the signposts) and relative times (corresponding frame #'s should do nicely for these purposes). I will need that information in order to test whether or not the amount of anomaly to be measured in the film is consistent with the angle of lean you are alleging existed. While it is true that there may well have been a lean in some direction, the directional vector, degree of angle, and trajectory from the source (Zappy) to the target (JFK) by-passing the target of your study, namely, the Stemmons Fwy Signpost is fascinatingly critical. Also, the distances from the lens to the image of the Stemmons signpost(s) is important in order to truly MEASURE what is going on here. I think it will involve photogrammetry from a few sophisticated individuals. I know just the crew. A completely different question Greg. Please feel free to try and answer it if you wish. Let me remind you of the question the IS being asked and answered... 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. The FACT remains Costella got it wrong when he said a "vertical" as in the leaning posts of the Stemmons sign CANNOT change visual angles as the camera moves. If you think that is incorrect I await your rebuttal. Edited November 27, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Too easy, Craig. ... I see Indiana's flash-in-the-pan is selling *bending of light* again.... LMAO! Argument too complex for you David? You too can try and manage a rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So as Z pans his camera past this ALMOST VERTICAL POLE we SHOULD see the LOS and Angles change with respect to the background... since the CAMERA IS MOVING - at least according to CL. As I tried to show MANY times now, as one PANS the LOS onto the film itself simple moves the object ACROSS the film... I could care less about nodal points... what matters to what we see onthe FILM is what light hits the FILM and from what ANGLES. If I were to move the camera 10 inches to the right or left, the LOS changes.... If one PANS the camera arounds one's eye, the film itself also pans... The STRAIGHT LINE that is light will move from one area of the film to another while NEW LIGHT from the direction of the panning will now enter the frame.... If the Camera drops its LOS DOWN 5 inches... or LEFT 5 inches, all this of course changes... and anything that is straight IN RELATION TO THE DIRECTION THE CAMERA IS "shifted" will have changed. In the Signpost example, the posts move AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT, in this Lamppost example you can EASILY SEE how panning does not change the LOS from the film to the post to the red bushes in the background.... we know for a fact that the lamppost moves from the far right of the frame all the way across (as I keep saying) and then off frame... without changing its angles relative to the background... Please explain why this PANNING example should not produce the same results with the nearly vertical sign posts... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 27, 2012 Author Share Posted November 27, 2012 Too easy, Craig. First off, in what direction do the Stemmons signposts lean and to what degree(s)? Better yet, in what direction do the posts lean from Zappy's LOS in your opinion? I understand that the answer will necessarily be a "moving target" (no pun intended), but accounted for it needs to be. Please provide a range of spatial locations (for the signposts) and relative times (corresponding frame #'s should do nicely for these purposes). I will need that information in order to test whether or not the amount of anomaly to be measured in the film is consistent with the angle of lean you are alleging existed. While it is true that there may well have been a lean in some direction, the directional vector, degree of angle, and trajectory from the source (Zappy) to the target (JFK) by-passing the target of your study, namely, the Stemmons Fwy Signpost is fascinatingly critical. Also, the distances from the lens to the image of the Stemmons signpost(s) is important in order to truly MEASURE what is going on here. I think it will involve photogrammetry from a few sophisticated individuals. I know just the crew. A completely different question Greg. Please feel free to try and answer it if you wish. Let me remind you of the question the IS being asked and answered... 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. The FACT remains Costella got it wrong when he said a "vertical" as in the leaning posts of the Stemmons sign CANNOT change visual angles as the camera moves. If you think that is incorrect I await your rebuttal. I wasn't talking about your critique of Costella. I was talking about your own working estimates. As I said, even if there was a lean in a direction, that would yield angles, vectors, and the size and distances would also be required for precision. I am not arguing that your are incorrect about your statement. I am encouraging you to share the raw data from your experiment as it relates to the sign--not to a stick in a cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Too easy, Craig. First off, in what direction do the Stemmons signposts lean and to what degree(s)? Better yet, in what direction do the posts lean from Zappy's LOS in your opinion? I understand that the answer will necessarily be a "moving target" (no pun intended), but accounted for it needs to be. Please provide a range of spatial locations (for the signposts) and relative times (corresponding frame #'s should do nicely for these purposes). I will need that information in order to test whether or not the amount of anomaly to be measured in the film is consistent with the angle of lean you are alleging existed. While it is true that there may well have been a lean in some direction, the directional vector, degree of angle, and trajectory from the source (Zappy) to the target (JFK) by-passing the target of your study, namely, the Stemmons Fwy Signpost is fascinatingly critical. Also, the distances from the lens to the image of the Stemmons signpost(s) is important in order to truly MEASURE what is going on here. I think it will involve photogrammetry from a few sophisticated individuals. I know just the crew. A completely different question Greg. Please feel free to try and answer it if you wish. Let me remind you of the question the IS being asked and answered... 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. The FACT remains Costella got it wrong when he said a "vertical" as in the leaning posts of the Stemmons sign CANNOT change visual angles as the camera moves. If you think that is incorrect I await your rebuttal. I wasn't talking about your critique of Costella. I was talking about your own working estimates. As I said, even if there was a lean in a direction, that would yield angles, vectors, and the size and distances would also be required for precision. I am not arguing that your are incorrect about your statement. I am encouraging you to share the raw data from your experiment as it relates to the sign--not to a stick in a cup. I've shared all the data as it pertains to the question I answered. The knife in the cup is the proof of concept demonstration. If you can't relate that to the sign, and Costella's argument. I'll not be able to help you further. But hey knock yourself out trying to find the data to prove the question YOU have asked. I suspect your results will be highly entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 As I tried to show MANY times now, as one PANS the LOS onto the film itself simple moves the object ACROSS the film... I could care less about nodal points... what matters to what we see onthe FILM is what light hits the FILM and from what ANGLES. The problem is you have hot SHOWN anything. Oh you have waved your hands mightily, but you have not even come close to PROVING your claims. This is NOT rocket science. Just take some images and pan a camera like Zapruder did. No need to find an exact match to the Stemmons scene. Just do it with some objects on your desk. The principle ALWAYS works. Lets see if your claim actually WORKS. ( here is a hint, it will NOT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 Craig, You criticize David for not having SHOWN anything. I am requesting that you provide the data that demonstrates what YOU have SHOWN? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt! Let's assume you are correct. If so, please provide the RAW DATA that demonstrates how your analysis proves that the apparent anomalies, delineated by Costella, are false? Even if (emphasis on the word IF) the "blanket statement" he made is not technically correct, is it "wrong" enough to the degree that it negates the fact that the signposts move in a superlatively exaggerated manner? I don't think so. But, I don't want you or anyone else to take my word for it. I would like the actual measurements of the above items (that you surely made) in order to replicate your results. Great work, Craig! The sooner you provide the raw data upon which you based your conclusions the sooner my team can replicate your results! You'll get credit for a discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Craig, You criticize David for not having SHOWN anything. I am requesting that you provide the data that demonstrates what YOU have SHOWN? www. craigilamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt! Let's assume you are correct. If so, please provide the RAW DATA that demonstrates how your analysis proves that the apparent anomalies, delineated by Costella, are false? Even if (emphasis on the word IF) the "blanket statement" he made is not technically correct, is it "wrong" enough to the degree that it negates the fact that the signposts move in a superlatively exaggerated manner? I don't think so. But, I don't want you or anyone else to take my word for it. What a CRAPPY straw man Greg and you know it. Costella made a BLANKET statement. "It CAN'T be parallax because I say so. It MUST be alteration because I say so". My test does ONE THING and one thing only. Its tests this simple claim. 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. Got it yet Greg? I would like the actual measurements of the above items (that you surely made) in order to replicate your results. Great work, Craig! The sooner you provide the raw data upon which you based your conclusions the sooner my team can replicate your results! You'll get credit for a discovery. Its not my 'discovery' Its a very simple and basic principle of photography that is well established. The fact that Costella blew it so badly is simply amazing considering his massive appeal to authority in his claim. And since this is a BASIC PRINCIPAL there is not need for your test to be an exact duplicate of mine. Either the principle works every time or it does not. Changes in distances and so forth only change the DEGREE in which the angle changes occur, not IF they occur. The question created by Costella and HIS blanket statement was IF. Not HOW MUCH. So IF you want to try and recreate the lean of the sign in 3d and then try and PROVE that parallax cannot create what we see in Zapruder, by all means, give it a go. You might even be credited with a "discovery". Beyond that, the work I have submitted is self explanatory. if it is beyond your (and your 'team's") ken, well, that would be your problem. Edited November 28, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Cant do photogrammetery... CANT/WONT provide the data to support his black box copnclusions yet will continue to provide SHAM, OFF BASIS EXPERIMENTS that prove NOTHING other than CL knows how to misdirect. SHOW YOR WORK already CL... or it that also too hard for you? Your 45+ degree leaning exacto knife has no relation to a pole 5 degrees off vertical... Nor does it have anything to do with SHIFTING the lens left and right off LOS What I posted is a gif of the Lampost as Z pans past it... just like he is doing with the sign posts.... Yet instead of the results we see with the LAMPOST... the SIGNPOSTS move all over the place relative to the background... That you are not honest enough to provide the measurements and calculations you DIDN"T DO yet can still claim a conclusion is quite sad.... You SCREAM for others to post support for thier conclusions... While you CHANGE THE PARAMETERS of the experiment, SAY you didn't... and conclude others are wrong.... You can't even explain why the LAMPOST stays on the same LOS to the FILM & Background due to the PANNING versus SHIFTING the lens because it contradicts your experiment's conclusions.... We've been thru this... here is a camera being panned with a LOS of the image as it moves across the film... The LOS from the FILM to the OBJECT to the BACKGROUND does not change, it simply moves across the film... as it does in my LAMPOST Gif. The BLUE LOS points to one corner of the film at the beginning of the PANNING and the other corner at the end of the PANNING... LOS remains the same Prove otherwise Edited November 28, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 Well Craig, If you didn't take measurements, then you didn't take measurements. And that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) 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." 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. So this entire discussion revovles around the use of the word "MOVED" when the literally correct word would be "PANNED" CL claims that when "viewed from any other position" the pole will APPEAR to have taken on a different angle compared to the background. The question then is "Does PANNING A CAMERA constitute enough of a change in the LOS from the FILM>OBJECT>BACKGROUND to account for what we see happening to the signpost? It is clear to all of us CL that if Zapruder "moved" the film portion of the camera in ANY direction off the LOS, the angle changes.... But as this graphic shows... DURING PANNING - which is what Zapruder did.... he wasn't dancing a jig up there... the OBJECT and BACKGROUND's LOS does NOT change with respect to the film it is being captured on. There may be some optical shift due to the lens curve itself... but it simply cannot account for the poles moving as much as we see them do in Costella's analysis. CL writes: Careful examination shows that the Exacto knife changes angles as the lens is shifted right and left. Costella says this is impossible and against the laws of physics. Sadly, for him, empirical testing shows he is wrong. Why do you supoose CL chose a 10mm SHIFT from right to left to define "MOVE" as opposed to the actual physical movement seen - PANNING? Because like any school kid who has ever placed a pencil a foot in front of their nose and alternately opened and closed their eyes knows... the pencil SHIFTS back and forth! But do the SAME EXPERIMENT with the pencil except this time TURN YOUR HEAD to the right 10 degrees.... and using peripheral vision tell us that the LOS of the Object and the Background has changed... if has NOT. PANNING does not change LOS... SHIFTING does. CL needs to explain how much SHIFTING Zapruder must have done to cause the result we see from Costella... and since that involves MATH... I wouldn't hold my breath Thanks Greg... appreciate the help and clarity of the situation. DJ Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) 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." 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. So this entire discussion revovles around the use of the word "MOVED" when the literally correct word would be "PANNED" CL claims that when "viewed from any other position" the pole will APPEAR to have taken on a different angle compared to the background. The question then is "Does PANNING A CAMERA constitute enough of a change in the LOS from the FILM>OBJECT>BACKGROUND to account for what we see happening to the signpost? It is clear to all of us CL that if Zapruder "moved" the film portion of the camera in ANY direction off the LOS, the angle changes.... But as this graphic shows... DURING PANNING - which is what Zapruder did.... he wasn't dancing a jig up there... the OBJECT and BACKGROUND's LOS does NOT change with respect to the film it is being captured on. There may be some optical shift due to the lens curve itself... but it simply cannot account for the poles moving as much as we see them do in Costella's analysis. CL writes: Careful examination shows that the Exacto knife changes angles as the lens is shifted right and left. Costella says this is impossible and against the laws of physics. Sadly, for him, empirical testing shows he is wrong. Why do you supoose CL chose a 10mm SHIFT from right to left to define "MOVE" as opposed to the actual physical movement seen - PANNING? Because like any school kid who has ever placed a pencil a foot in front of their nose and alternately opened and closed their eyes knows... the pencil SHIFTS back and forth! But do the SAME EXPERIMENT with the pencil except this time TURN YOUR HEAD to the right 10 degrees.... and using peripheral vision tell us that the LOS of the Object and the Background has changed... if has NOT. PANNING does not change LOS... SHIFTING does. CL needs to explain how much SHIFTING Zapruder must have done to cause the result we see from Costella... and since that involves MATH... I wouldn't hold my breath Thanks Greg... appreciate the help and clarity of the situation. DJ All those meaningless words followed up by a graphic that in no way illustrates what Zaprudrs camera did; So tell us Dave, how exactly do Zapruder pan his camera and not move the front element of his lens? ( which is what you have depicted) Did he have that lens nailed down to that exact point in space and then rotate his ENTIRE BODY around that point? Or did he live in the real world and either rotate his head around the axis of his neck or twist his trunk to pan? BTW do you understand you have just illustrated MY point, that the only way to pan a camera WITHOUT parallax occurring is do so on the axis of the entrance pupil? ROFLMAO! Of course YOU depict a singe lens system. Zapruder had a multi element lens. Clearly this is entirely beyond your grasp even after being shown many links to provide you with the required knowledge. But hey, where are your photos to illustrate you have it correct? Am I gonna have to do THAT for you as well? Added on edit: Exactly WHY do I need to show that the is enough parallax change to show that it accounts for the movement? I make no claim one way or the other in that regard. On the other hand Costella tells us parallax can not even be considered. Now we know it can. Which means his argument no longer holds water. For HIS argument that this a case of alteration and nothing else, its incumbent upon HIM to show it can't be parallax. He failed this test the first time. Once again David has it all backwards. On edit again... Head turn pan. Parallax David? click to play Edited November 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) BTW do you understand you have just illustrated MY point, that the only way to pan a camera WITHOUT parallax occurring is do so on the axis of the entrance pupil? ROFLMAO! Of course YOU depict a singe lens system. Zapruder had a multi element lens. Do you mean rotation of the camera about the axis of the entrance pupil? Rotating around the axis of the entrance pupil? How else could you pan around that axis? Edited November 28, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 BTW do you understand you have just illustrated MY point, that the only way to pan a camera WITHOUT parallax occurring is do so on the axis of the entrance pupil? ROFLMAO! Of course YOU depict a singe lens system. Zapruder had a multi element lens. Do you mean rotation of the camera about the axis of the entrance pupil? Rotating around the axis of the entrance pupil? How else could you pan around that axis? About ? Around? ON works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Ok, where is the axis of the entrance pupil. You need to define it. 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