Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread


Recommended Posts

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- The Queen in Hamlet

Translated from monkspeak...I'm screwed.

LOL!

Indeed, you are!

I see reading is beyond your grasp as well.

Still awaiting for your rebuttal that involves actual fact and not ignorant handwaving. However given your lack of mental capacity in this regard I'll not be holding my breath.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it beyond your mental capacity to understand Costella screwed the pooch? You can post his silly work until the cows come home and it still won't change the fact that he did not know how to use the very principle on which he based his claims.

His claim is busted...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm.

You will never defeat it.

Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will never defeat it.

Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice.

LOL

Lamson redefines the word "bombast".

Come on jimbo, lets see what you are made of? Are you more than just hot air?

Give it a shot, debunk these....

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Oh wait, you don't have the first clue...all hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bombast:

As I said, I don't get into Zapruder alteration. But from your other pompous declarations--like comparing yourself with someone the stature of David Eisendrath--I take everything you write with a large grain of salt.

Let me know when you find those missing post office forms Craig. You didn't even know they were missing. WHen you do, I might take a new look at the BYP.

Until then, adieu.

Mr. Speculation,

Well at least we now know you are nothing but hot air. Let me file that away for future reference

My work and my accomplishmets stand on their merits jimbo. There is no way in heck you can even begin understand the work let alone refute it. Just like you can't refute Farid. Instead you hide behind speculation. What's really in the Eisendrath report jimbo? Why not post a copy here. You know the one you like to pimp when you don't have the first clue what it really contains or even if the conclusions are correct. How very CT of you jimbo.

And please DO go away, you add nothing of value to the discussion of the photgraphy. Not that I expect you to keep your word.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it beyond your mental capacity to understand Costella screwed the pooch? You can post his silly work until the cows come home and it still won't change the fact that he did not know how to use the very principle on which he based his claims.

His claim is busted...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm.

You will never defeat it.

Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice.

Craig,

It is you who are not understanding what John proved. As an example, when asked the following question a long time ago, you failed to respond. Do you even understand what it means and why it's important?

QUESTION: "What is the first-order transformation of an image when the image plane is subjected to an infinitesimal transformation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it beyond your mental capacity to understand Costella screwed the pooch? You can post his silly work until the cows come home and it still won't change the fact that he did not know how to use the very principle on which he based his claims.

His claim is busted...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm.

You will never defeat it.

Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice.

Craig,

It is you who are not understanding what John proved. As an example, when asked the following question a long time ago, you failed to respond. Do you even understand what it means and why it's important?

QUESTION: "What is the first-order transformation of an image when the image plane is subjected to an infinitesimal transformation?

Sheesh. your density is simply overwhelming.

Do you understand that the parallax effect Costella quotes FAILS when the subject is LEANING? Clearly it blew right past dr john.

I clearly understand what John has failed to prove, which is why this is STILL unimpeached. Clearly YOU don't understand.....

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

As to Costella's question, What is the actual transformaion of the image plane? Lots of ways to transform the image plane while using a view camera for example. Costella ever had his hands on one? Of course it's this crutch of theory that screws the pooch for Costella. Real life tripped him up AGAIN....

Get back to us when Costella tells you he can't refute the work.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it beyond your mental capacity to understand Costella screwed the pooch? You can post his silly work until the cows come home and it still won't change the fact that he did not know how to use the very principle on which he based his claims.

His claim is busted...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm.

You will never defeat it.

Retire while you can or continue to lose. Your choice.

Craig,

It is you who are not understanding what John proved. As an example, when asked the following question a long time ago, you failed to respond. Do you even understand what it means and why it's important?

QUESTION: "What is the first-order transformation of an image when the image plane is subjected to an infinitesimal transformation?

Sheesh. your density is simply overwelming.

I clearly understand what John has failed to prove, which is why this is STILL unimpeached. Clearly YOU don't understand.....

www.craiglmanson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Get back to us when Costella tells you he can't refute the work.

I'll take that non-responsiveness to the question to mean that either you don't understand what it means, or you don't know why it's important, or you do understand those things, but are perhaps unwilling to admit error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try again "monk".

You went back and edited your original post which was ENTIRELY non-responsive to the question. And, even after having done that, still you fail to answer the question. The question is NOT about the transformation of the image plane. The question is about the first order transformation of the "IMAGE" itself, when the "image plane" has been infintesimaly transformed.

Try again, brainiac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try again "monk".

You went back and edited your original post which was ENTIRELY non-responsive to the question. And, even after having done that, still you fail to answer the question. The question is NOT about the transformation of the image plane. The question is about the first order transformation of the "IMAGE" itself, when the "image plane" has been infintesimaly transformed.

Try again, brainiac.

Yes I did edit my post, you have a problem with that?

Whats the matter monk? Still awaiting you marching orders from Costella?

So you want to know how the image is changed when you move the image plane (do you even know what any of this means or are you just a mouthpiece?) So the question remains, HOW are you moving the image plane? Since the image is formed and recorded at the image plane (thats the piece of film of silicon monk), HOW you move the image plane has a direct effect on the resulting image. Pretty simple question.

Of course that begs the question of you (or is that dr. john) of what is the transformation of the image if the lens is moved but NOT the image plane?

Tell you what, instead of pimping for Costella, just tell him to drop by and we can settle this once and for all. He's a member here and he can just as easily answer the questions directly as he can pimping the answers to you.

Hey. let him know I have some great new photos to share when the time is right. I'm sure he will love them [/sacrasm}

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha Ha Ha

I'm speculating about the post office regulations which I actually quoted section numbers off of and read the text of one? Only someone who thought Bush was too liberal could say such a thing.

No you are SPECULATING about the outcome. Whats worse you state your speculation as FACT! Not very scholarly

You did not know about this problem Craig. And a scholarly researcher would have. To at least protect himself. You didn't because, for political reasons, you are so intent on being a xxxxx. So much for the "merits" of your arguments.

The merits of my argument stand REGARDLESS of the other aspects. Since photographic principle does not rest on "historical context" your objection fails.

You can't read very well either. What I said was comparing the 'credentials' of EIsendrath with yours. Which you incredibly did, WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING THE GUY UP ON THE WEB! This is show sloppy and arrogant you are. Why not compare yourself with Avedon or Penn next, Mr. Bombast.

I love to when so called historians just make stuff up and call it fact. It's even better when they are such an azz like you are. First you have NO idea of my browsing habits so there is no way possible for you to make this stupid claim WITHOUT JUST MAKING IT UP FROM THIN AIR

DiEugenio sez:

"You can't read very well either. What I said was comparing the 'credentials' of EIsendrath with yours. Which you incredibly did, WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING THE GUY UP ON THE WEB! This is show sloppy and arrogant you are."

Are you really Fetzer with another username?

In a wonderful stroke of irony, your snipe about not being able to read kinda bit you in your azz. You see I never DID compare my credentials to that of Eisendrath.

Here is the exact exchange:

"CL - I have excelllent photographic credentials and more to the point I'm quite willing to do the required testing to check a claim.

JD - Better than Eisendrath's? I doubt it.

CL - Hard to say. Eisenrdrath was accomplished. So am I. I don't care to speculate. However my work both in the industry and this entertainment venue can withstand inspection. Why not give it a go, prove my work wrong, if you have it in you that is."

So in other words, you just made crap up and and pimped it as fact. And you consider yourself to be a scholarly researcher? Now that is roflmao funny.

As per the report, the quotes about Eisendrath and Goldsmith are on Rossley's site. Maybe someone made up a declassified file? But then, John Hunt read the report at NARA. He summed it up at Lancer and then scanned in the front page. Maybe he made that up also? Its all a hoax?

Never said it's a hoax. See there you go just making stuff up again. I asked you to publish a copy so we can all read it. Have YOU actually read the entire document DiEugenio? Or are you just pimping second hand information and calling it fact? Have you even checked to see if Eisendrath's conclusions were CORRECT...whatever they might be? You consider this to be scholarly research on YOUR part? Now that is roflmao funny.

Incredible the way you use rhetorical tricks to disguise your own scholarly failings. It shows you don't care about anything except being a Krazy Kid Oswald fanatic and backing that nutty Commission conclusion.

There you go again making assumptions that only make an azz of you. I don't care about the "commission" nor do I care about Oswald. What I 'care' about is busting people like you and having fun doing it. It's great entertainment. After all, in my opinion, the so called 'research' into the assassination is nothing more that a 40+ year old parlor game.

But your own rhetoric makes really great cannon fodder. Consider this. You seem to think that being a scholarly researcher is important. You go to great lengths to impress others with this turn of a phrase. The question however now becomes does Jim DiEugenio meet his own expectations? Lets rewiew and see shall we?

In his article on the Backyard Photos DiEugenio sez:

"To show just how eager he was to make his above dubious declaration, Farid apparently does not know that besides not doing a comparison study, the shadows are only one of many problems with the photos. To mention just three others, there is the problem of comparing the relative heights and lengths of Oswald versus the rifle and the two papers he has in his hands; plus the problem of the line across the top of his chin; and the fact that the square chin in the photo is not like Oswald's rather pointed chin. (For two interesting studies of the photos click here and here.)"

The second "here" is a link to this webpage.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread411261/pg1

The scholarly researcher DiEugenio, directs his readers to and endorses a study that FAILS ON IT'S FACE due to inproper application of technique. All of this raises grave doubts about the quality and scholarly nature of DiEugenio, He appears easily fooled or easily warped by his own worldview. Can you say hypocrite? I knew that you could.

You belong at alt.conspiracy.jfk with your soulmate John M.

I've no use for either, but thanks anyway.

BTW you just could not keep you word, could you?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try again "monk".

You went back and edited your original post which was ENTIRELY non-responsive to the question. And, even after having done that, still you fail to answer the question. The question is NOT about the transformation of the image plane. The question is about the first order transformation of the "IMAGE" itself, when the "image plane" has been infintesimaly transformed.

Try again, brainiac.

Yes I did edit my post, you have a problem with that?

Whats the matter monk? Still awaiting you marching orders from Costella?

So you want to know how the image is changed when you move the image plane (do you even know what any of this means or are you just a mouthpiece?) So the question remains, HOW are you moving the image plane? Since the image is formed and recorded at the image plane (thats the piece of film of silicon monk), HOW you move the image plane has a direct effect on the resulting image. Pretty simple question.

Of course that begs the question of you (or is that dr. john) of what is the transformation of the image if the lens is moved but NOT the image plane?

Tell you what, instead of pimping for Costella, just tell him to drop by and we can settle this once and for all. He's a member here and he can just as easily answer the questions directly as he can pimping the answers to you.

Hey. let him know I have some great new photos to share when the time is right. I'm sure he will love them [/sacrasm}

First, the above question was asked years ago on this very forum, so no, I'm not pimping. Second, John won't waste his time on you. Third, you appear to know lenses well, but not optics. Fourth, I'm no expert in this field, but it doesn't take an expert to sense when a question is being avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...