Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[Craig Lamson]

Ok, where is the axis of the entrance pupil. You need to define it.

Been there, done that, you can google it.

[Mike Rago]

You cannot even define the axis of the entrance pupil?

I would think it would be perpindicular to the entrance pupil.

[Craig Lamson]

You cannot even define the axis of the entrance pupil?

I would think it would be perpindicular to the entrance pupil.

I suggest you read the thread. You can do that...can't you? Then do a bit of research and educate yourself.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Mike Rago]

You cannot even define the axis of the entrance pupil?

I would think it would be perpindicular to the entrance pupil.

I suggest you read the thread. You can do that...can't you? The do a bit of research and educate yourself.

Not that interested. I do not think you really know what you are talking about.

You are being too protective of your data, indicating something is not quite right.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Craig Lamson]

You cannot even define the axis of the entrance pupil?

I would think it would be perpindicular to the entrance pupil.

I suggest you read the thread. You can do that...can't you? The do a bit of research and educate yourself.

Not that interested. I do not think you really know what you are talking about.

That's your prerogative. Its pretty clear you don't have a clue. But thanks for playing. Please try again when you have purchased your first clue.

[Mike Rago]

no message

Edited November 29, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

And off he goes again....

How obvious do you need to be CL? We can SEE you moved the camera as you panned....

You have a tripod CL... put your video camera on the Tripod with the object anywhere in frame... now ROTATE the camera around the center of camera's display...

The LOS does not change.... You've once again rigged your experiment to produce false results...

I've used my cellphone camera rotated around the fixed spot and it works just fine....

http://s1233.beta.ph...eo0029.mp4.html

You will notice, as I described, how the Green marker lines up with the hole in the speaker behind it...

this is with the camera hanging from my hand and just rotating around the phone display's center... as you would follow and rotate an image in a viewfinder of a Bell and Howell Camera

LOS is a STRAIGHT LINE OF LIGHT... simple MATH tells us that three objects in a straight line remain in a straight line unless one of the three points MOVES OFF AXIS...

When the Camera PANS... there is no change in any one of the three points that create the line

Determining the Nodal Point of a Lens http://archive.bigbe...hoto/nodal.html

While it is not entirely essential to accurately position your camera for each image, it does make things a LOT easier if the lens is rotated as close as possible around its nodal point. By doing so, you remove parallax errors which may require a lot of retouching to make things look right in the finished panorama.

Determining the nodal point of a lens is quite easy to do visually. You will need two vertical features to use as reference points e.g. a doorway, flag/light pole, corner of a all etc... One must be very close to the camera, the other, far away. You will also need an adjustable tripod pano head or a focussing rail to adjust the position of the camera relative to the axis of rotation. Accuracy will be in the order of 1mm for a circular fisheye lens. Accuracy will be greater with the near object as close to the camera as possible.

The diagram below shows what happens in the three possible situations. Note that the relative positions of the objects on each side of the gap is determined from the nodal point of the lens, not the axis of rotation.

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.

So you determined the nodal point of Zapruder's camera have you?

You know for a FACT that Zapruder could not possible have rotated his camera around the actual nodal point and that what we see the Signposts do is unnatural?

Obviously with my LAMPOST GIF he rotated around the nodal point just fine... the post, Zapruder and the background stay in a perfect line.

Why is the result of my Lampost Gif and little movie I posted with the green marker - both showing no change in parallax and based on PANNING A CAMERA rather than SHIFTING IT FROM SIDE TO SIDE

not more indicative of what Zapruder does , than your SHIFTING the lens from side to side, which is not what occurred?

YOU need to account for the movement of the sign posts by relating it to the movements of Zapruder... if it requires a few feet of movement to acheive that shift, we know that did not occur.

But since you only play with knives and cups and rulers and not the actual evidence... you probably can't do these measurements and your argument falls apart once again.

How far was Zapruder from the sign post

How far from the signpost to the retaining wall corner

How much SHIFTING of the camera is necessary to produce what we see in Costella's gif

Where is the nodal point on that camera

Prove that it was impossible for Z to rotate the camera around its nodal point and not produce parallax - as I proved it IS POSSIBLE with the Lampost gif.

DO something Lamson... or are you only good for posting misleading examples, claiming victory and insulting others?

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

Let's not belabor who might be right or who might be wrong, Ok?

Instead, consider:

Even if I am willing to "take your word for it" that the amount of anomaly seen in the Zapruder film

might have a reasonably non-nefarious explanation, I still would like to see your work, specifically

measurements, that support that notion.

If you cannot--or simply will not--provide the raw data (at the very least) from which you presumably

constructed your equations, from which you then, in turn, drew your subsequent conclusions this

exercise becomes tedious.

A scientist (or any practitioner of the scientific method) willingly and eagerly supplies the information

necessary for others to replicate his results. Costella wrote what he wrote. You have challenged it

and have cited empirical information in support of that challenge.

This debate is NOT about whether or not one statement was overstated! It is about what it means

to the big picture. I am asking you to provide the data referencing the Stemmons Freeway Sign's

dimensions, distance to the lens, angle and degree of the signposts' lean [both of them], and other

relevant data.

Surely you measured before making such sweeping conclusions?

If you did not collect this information prior to writing your rebuttal then your rebuttal cannot even be

considered as "science" because it lacks the most fundamental of elements: measurements. Keep

in mind, the subject was never a stick in a cup. That analogy is meaningless without context...and

the context requires measurements.

On the other hand, if you did take these measurements, then why would a scientist--or anyone who

respects, grasps, and adheres to the Scientific Method--refuse to provide the information necessary

for others to potentially replicate, and thus validate, his thesis?

So, I'll ask you again: Why is your posted work relevant to the subject? Even if you proved one statement

to be inaccurate, who cares? Ok, sorry. Obviously you care about that or you wouldn't be defending it so

hard. But, still, you have not even addressed the measurements that are required for you to make the claim

that the anomaly seen is within expected parameters. You just keep saying: "Parallax is this that and the

other thing. And, Costella was wrong..." -- but you haven't said anything about the subject yet.

If you did not measure anything in the film frames, please just admit it.

[Craig Lamson]

And off he goes again....

How obvious do you need to be CL? We can SEE you moved the camera as you panned....

And so did Zapruder. If he turned his head or turned his trunk to pan. How totally silly are you?

You have a tripod CL... put your video camera on the Tripod with the object anywhere in frame... now ROTATE the camera around the center of camera's display...

The LOS does not change.... You've once again rigged your experiment to produce false results...

No problem Davie, lets do just that. A simple tripod pan. And once again we get parallax.

You really are beyond ignorant when it comes to this stuff.

click to play

I've used my cellphone camera rotated around the fixed spot and it works just fine....

http://s1233.beta.ph...eo0029.mp4.html

You will notice, as I described, how the Green marker lines up with the hole in the speaker behind it...

this is with the camera hanging from my hand and just rotating around the phone display's center... as you would follow and rotate an image in a viewfinder of a Bell and Howell Camera

ROFLMAO! You just complete made my case for me you silly boy. You video shows a perfect example of parallax. Watch the green led go from hidden to in view. You CHANGED the LOS. YOU INDUCED PARALLAX. YOU are so ignorant about all of this you did not even understand what you posted.

LOS is a STRAIGHT LINE OF LIGHT... simple MATH tells us that three objects in a straight line remain in a straight line unless one of the three points MOVES OFF AXIS...

When the Camera PANS... there is no change in any one of the three points that create the line

And a simple mind like yours can't understand that the only place you can rotate a camera and NOT induce parallax is at the entrance pupil. PLEASE TELL US HOW ZAPRUDER DID THAT WITHOUT A SPECIAL TRIPOD HEAD?

Inquiring minds really want to watch you continue to make a fool of your self over this very simple question.

So you determined the nodal point of Zapruder's camera have you?

You know for a FACT that Zapruder could not possible have rotated his camera around the actual nodal point and that what we see the Signposts do is unnatural?

The entrance pupil is somewhere within the length of the lens.

Now this is the tricky part for someone like you...understanding how he panned his camera.

For there to be NO PARALLAX. He MUST HAVE PANNED HIS CAMERA ON THIS VERY SPECIFIC POINT WITHIN THE LENGTH OF THE LENS.

SO how could he have done this without a tripod? He would have needed to hold his camera in this very specific location in 3d space and WALK IT AROUND THIS AXIS....THIS AXIS NEAR THE MIDDLE OF HIS LENS.

Please tell us how he did this, again inquiring minds what to see you continue to make a complete fool of yourself.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

last post continued

Obviously with my LAMPOST GIF he rotated around the nodal point just fine... the post, Zapruder and the background stay in a perfect line.

Why is the result of my Lampost Gif and little movie I posted with the green marker - both showing no change in parallax and based on PANNING A CAMERA rather than SHIFTING IT FROM SIDE TO SIDE

not more indicative of what Zapruder does , than your SHIFTING the lens from side to side, which is not what occurred?

And and the lamppost changes angles...showing parallax. You simply don't have a clue do you? He CHANGED the LOS

And both of your examples show parallax, which means once again, as is completely normal for you...you got it wrong.

YOU need to account for the movement of the sign posts by relating it to the movements of Zapruder... if it requires a few feet of movement to acheive that shift, we know that did not occur.

But since you only play with knives and cups and rulers and not the actual evidence... you probably can't do these measurements and your argument falls apart once again.

How far was Zapruder from the sign post

How far from the signpost to the retaining wall corner

How much SHIFTING of the camera is necessary to produce what we see in Costella's gif

Where is the nodal point on that camera

Prove that it was impossible for Z to rotate the camera around its nodal point and not produce parallax - as I proved it IS POSSIBLE with the Lampost gif.

DO something Lamson... or are you only good for posting misleading examples, claiming victory and insulting others?

I need to do no such thing. That is Costella's problem. Its his claim, its his problem. Take it up WITH HIM.

The educate yourself, unless you really enjoy looking so ignorant.

You have been beaten to a pulp here davie.

Welcome to reality.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Let's not belabor who might be right or who might be wrong, Ok?

Sorry that's the entire point of my work.

Instead, consider:

Even if I am willing to "take your word for it" that the amount of anomaly seen in the Zapruder film

might have a reasonably non-nefarious explanation, I still would like to see your work, specifically

measurements, that support that notion.

I've not made any such statement. The only claim I HAVE made is that you can't RULE OUT parallax as it is claimed by Costella

If you cannot--or simply will not--provide the raw data (at the very least) from which you presumably

constructed your equations, from which you then, in turn, drew your subsequent conclusions this

exercise becomes tedious.

A scientist (or any practitioner of the scientific method) willingly and eagerly supplies the information

necessary for others to replicate his results. Costella wrote what he wrote. You have challenged it

and have cited empirical information in support of that challenge.

This debate is NOT about whether or not one statement was overstated! It is about what it means

to the big picture. I am asking you to provide the data referencing the Stemmons Freeway Sign's

dimensions, distance to the lens, angle and degree of the signposts' lean [both of them], and other

relevant data.

Surely you measured before making such sweeping conclusions?

Exactly what are my "SWEEPING CONCLUSIONS" here Greg?

Again the work in question;

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

If you did not collect this information prior to writing your rebuttal then your rebuttal cannot even be

considered as "science" because it lacks the most fundamental of elements: measurements. Keep

in mind, the subject was never a stick in a cup. That analogy is meaningless without context...and

the context requires measurements.

On the other hand, if you did take these measurements, then why would a scientist--or anyone who

respects, grasps, and adheres to the Scientific Method--refuse to provide the information necessary

for others to potentially replicate, and thus validate, his thesis?

So, I'll ask you again: Why is your posted work relevant to the subject? Even if you proved one statement

to be inaccurate, who cares? Ok, sorry. Obviously you care about that or you wouldn't be defending it so

hard. But, still, you have not even addressed the measurements that are required for you to make the claim

that the anomaly seen is within expected parameters. You just keep saying: "Parallax is this that and the

other thing. And, Costella was wrong..." -- but you haven't said anything about the subject yet.

If you did not measure anything in the film frames, please just admit it.

What a charming and silly strawman Greg.

Lets review once again what his is about. Its about how PARALLAX works. PERIOD.

That's it.

Now if you believe Costella can incorrectly dismiss the well documented effects of how the principle of parallax works in his claim...the one he says is the most bullet proof of all, then that is clearly your decision.

My work addresses a single point. And it does that unimpeachable manner.

It invalidates Costella's claim as he has written it. NOW it is incumbent upon HIM to find a way to remove parallax other than his bogus 'angles can't change nonsense" from the picture if he wants his claim to survive.

That is not my problem. I have not nor will I try and solve it. In fact I don't believe there is enough data to do so reliably.

That ball is in Costella's court if he intends for his claim to be valid.

You are talking to the wrong guy.

But you already knew that before you coughed up your straw man nonsense.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

Let's not belabor who might be right or who might be wrong, Ok?

Sorry that's the entire point of my work.

Instead, consider:

Even if I am willing to "take your word for it" that the amount of anomaly seen in the Zapruder film

might have a reasonably non-nefarious explanation, I still would like to see your work, specifically

measurements, that support that notion.

I've not made any such statement. The only claim I HAVE made is that you can't RULE OUT parallax as it is claimed by Costella

If you cannot--or simply will not--provide the raw data (at the very least) from which you presumably

constructed your equations, from which you then, in turn, drew your subsequent conclusions this

exercise becomes tedious.

A scientist (or any practitioner of the scientific method) willingly and eagerly supplies the information

necessary for others to replicate his results. Costella wrote what he wrote. You have challenged it

and have cited empirical information in support of that challenge.

This debate is NOT about whether or not one statement was overstated! It is about what it means

to the big picture. I am asking you to provide the data referencing the Stemmons Freeway Sign's

dimensions, distance to the lens, angle and degree of the signposts' lean [both of them], and other

relevant data.

Surely you measured before making such sweeping conclusions?

Exactly what are my "SWEEPING CONCLUSIONS" here Greg?

Again the work in question;

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

If you did not collect this information prior to writing your rebuttal then your rebuttal cannot even be

considered as "science" because it lacks the most fundamental of elements: measurements. Keep

in mind, the subject was never a stick in a cup. That analogy is meaningless without context...and

the context requires measurements.

On the other hand, if you did take these measurements, then why would a scientist--or anyone who

respects, grasps, and adheres to the Scientific Method--refuse to provide the information necessary

for others to potentially replicate, and thus validate, his thesis?

So, I'll ask you again: Why is your posted work relevant to the subject? Even if you proved one statement

to be inaccurate, who cares? Ok, sorry. Obviously you care about that or you wouldn't be defending it so

hard. But, still, you have not even addressed the measurements that are required for you to make the claim

that the anomaly seen is within expected parameters. You just keep saying: "Parallax is this that and the

other thing. And, Costella was wrong..." -- but you haven't said anything about the subject yet.

If you did not measure anything in the film frames, please just admit it.

What a charming and silly strawman Greg.

Lets review once again what his is about. Its about how PARALLAX works. PERIOD.

That's it.

Now if you believe Costella can incorrectly dismiss the well documented effects of how the principle of parallax works in his claim...the one he says is the most bullet proof of all, then that is clearly your decision.

My work addresses a single point. And it does that unimpeachable manner.

It invalidates Costella's claim as he has written it. NOW it is incumbent upon HIM to find a way to remove parallax other than his bogus 'angles can't change nonsense" from the picture if he wants his claim to survive.

That is not my problem. I have not nor will I try and solve it. In fact I don't believe there is enough data to do so reliably.

That ball is in Costella's court if he intends for his claim to be valid.

You are talking to the wrong guy.

But you already knew that before you coughed up your straw man nonsense.

So, you didn't take any measurements, did you? A simple yes or no will do.

Did you take any measurements?

[Craig Lamson]

So, you didn't take any measurements, did you? A simple yes or no will do.

Did you take any measurements?

So you can't read can you?

And what exactly do measurements have to do with the principle of parallax?

Edited November 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

So, you didn't take any measurements, did you? A simple yes or no will do.

Did you take any measurements?

So you can't read can you?

And what exactly do measurements have to do with the principle of parallax?

I'll take that as a "no." You took no measurements. Thank you for your admission.

[Craig Lamson]

Burnham sez:

"Surely you measured before making such sweeping conclusions?"

What "sweeping conclusions" were those again?