Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

[David Josephs]

I thought I read somewhere that because school kids read this forum that we are supposed to keep the language clean.

When you have to resort to foul language you do not have much of an argument.

If you want to believe in film alteration bark up the Nix film tree.(and i do mean bark)

Challenge Lamson on the Nix film. you will have a better chance of winning and I might even help you.

Thanks for your offer Mike... yet I will pass...

There is no one hiding behind that tree... sorry, your conclusions and lack of supporting evidence, and refusal to even consider things like coroborration of an event are legendary...

your input is simply not welcome.... like the old man.... you have your agends and by God, you're gonna stick to it....

YOU want to start that thread, go right ahead. Furthermore, the old man could care less what actually happened... all he cares about is trolling and over charging his clients while he spends his time here playing the idiot.

So I keep him busy...

... as my contribution to the rest of the membership's peace of mind

The cards and letters of thanks never end....

Later

DJ

Edited November 15, 2012 by David Josephs

[Mike Rago]

You keep talking about a man hiding in the bushes that you conjure up and attribute to me. I have never said anything about a fictitious person that you created. I tried to focus your attention on the person that I see but you would not engage in that conversation. You had to invent a obviously fictitious figure and would only talk about that figure, a figure that I have never said I saw and never have seen until you created him.

That is how you argue and it is false arguments and a complete waste of time. And you always do that. Always.

I have yet to engage you when I did not come away thinking it was a complete waste of time.

Now, if you want to focus on the figure that I see then maybe. Not your obvious fake creations.

You do not focus on the problem at hand.

I now that you are going to come back with some glib remark but it will have no value and nothing will be accomplished.

If you want to prove me wrong you can prove me wrong but you are going to have to do it with the figure that I see not some fictitious figure that you create.

I see the same thing that Lamson sees in you.

You are trying to establish yourself as a photo analyst but you do have that skill and you do not appear to even want to learn it. But you do want to play in that sandbox and you are going to get your booty booted every time so you create these totally inappropriate diversions to hide your lack of skill.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

That you and Lamson see eye to eye is NO SURPRISE "Rago"...

I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together...

Blind leading the blind.

I am not trying to establish ANYTHING other than the dishonesty with which Lamson creates his experiments and proclaims every one else here photographic imbeciles...

He's a con artist and you obviously cannot tell the difference between FACT and FICTION as evidenced by your posts.

Now, do you have anything to offer related to the SHAM of an experiment and the differences between PANNING and CHANGING LOS the old man offered to counter Costella

or you just promoting the "man hiding behind the tree in nix" theory?

(btw - the kneeling man in front of the wall was done ON PURPOSE to show you that people can be created out of shadows and leaves...

Just like all the people you keep saying you are finding....)

Do you understand my post illustrating the differences and why the old man's experiment is a sham... or not?

Edited November 15, 2012 by David Josephs

[Mike Rago]

Yes you put a kneeling man in the middle of the bushes and then refused to discuss the figure that I refer to. There are no bushes in area of the figure I am referring to. When I asked to focus on the image I was interested in you refused to look at it. You ran away. Just like you run away from any challenge that Lamson presents you. I asked you what do you see and you refused to answer that question. A very simple question.

I hate to tell you this but Lamson is right on this. Lamson knows what he is talking about.

Lamson was able to figure out how to do an experiment to test the parallax question. That alone is impressive.

I have not seen you do any experiments.

You should have been impressed with his work , even if it was wrong, he deserved a compliment on the effort.

You are out of your league on this one.

This is a discussion that should be carried out between Lamson and Costella.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Craig Lamson]

Great work dave you completely described exactly what did NOT happen when Zapruder panned his camera, Instead you described and illustrated ( in very simple terms) what happens when a camera is panned AT THE ENTRANCE PUPIL.

And of course there will be NO parallax change when the camera is panned on entrance pupil. I noted that in one of my posts above and you went all crazy telling me I was using BS photographic terms. Guess you are having a change of heart now that its YOUR (even though its wrong in this instance) idea.

So instead lets look at what ACTUALLY would happen when the camera is panned by a neck turn instead of on the entrance pupil.

The camera MOVES as it must. The LOS changes, and parallax occurs. I have it correct in my argument, and I have proven Costella and now you have it wrong.

The only thing you "kicked" was yourself.

You failed to understand even the most simple of items...panning a camera. You failed to even read the paper correctly. You created straw man out of thin air and instead of 'knocking them down" you knocked yourself down.

You simply displayed your massive ignorance and arrogance. Nothing wrong with arrogance except when you are wrong, like you are. Then it only makes you look very small and petty.

Welcome to your new reality ...

Edited November 15, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Mike Rago]

I have diddled around in this thread long enough that now I have become interested in it.

Am I correct that the reason the lamposts do not appear to be completely vertical in the two views(DPD and Zapruder) is because the lampost was not exactly vertical to begin with and the parallax caused by the two different LOS just exaggerated the fact that the lampost was not exactly vertical to begin with. It took the parallax to bring to our attention that the lampost was off vertical.

Is that correct?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Craig Lamson]

I have diddled around in this thread long enough that now I have become interested in it.

Am I correct that the reason the lamposts do not appear to be completely vertical in the two views(DPD and Zapruder) is because the lampost was not exactly vertical to begin with and the parallax caused by the two different LOS just exaggerated the fact that the lampost was not exactly vertical to begin with. It took the parallax to bring to our attention that the lampost was off vertical.

Is that correct?

Yes. In fact how many lamp posts have you ever seen that were exactly vertical?

[David Josephs]

I trust the two of you will be very happy together

Rago and Lamson.... now THERE'S an exacta....

[Craig Lamson]

I trust the two of you will be very happy together

Rago and Lamson.... now THERE'S an exacta....

Thanks so much for stepping up and showing the world your ignorance. I'm sure it did not turn out the way you expected. You actually ( and wrongly) thought you were correct. We all found out you were completely clueless.

[Mike Rago]

This thread had a meaningful ending. Why did you have to get the last word. You do not recognize talent when you see it and that is a problem, a big problem.

Something you are going to have to learn is that there is truth on both sides in this case. And quite frankly, the lone nutters actually have more facts on their side than the conspiracy guys. Then lone nutters just stop asking questions. Oswald may very well have been an assassin, but the evidence is overwhelming he was not the lone assassin.

The truth is a two edge sword. It cuts both ways. To find the truth you have to follow the evidence. The photographic evidence is the most important evidence in this case. It would benefit all researchers to improve their skills at photo analysis.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19297&view=findpost&p=261642

One need only check this post for Mike's idea of photographic analysis - the man with the 16 inch gun standing just behind BDM in Willis...

And as I've asked/said before Mike... put forth any LN FACT you'd like... and we can see how "authentic" these "facts" are.

Here's one:

(f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD

Let's see your take on this FACT as presented by the LNers....

Here's mine. 60 frames or over 3 seconds prior JFK was supposedly shot from the TSBD

The SS agent MOST RESPONSIBLE for his safety is staring at him while the other is ???

Given how absurd this FACT is... and how EASY it is to refute... Are you really that confident that the LNers have ANY FACTS with which to hang their hats?

Surely not on the photographic talents of the old man here... he barely remembers which president we are talking about, let alone cares about any TRUTH.

CL has to defend the films and photos, he has no choice being a LNer and married to the WCR/HSCA....

The rest of the THINKING WORLD knows better.... Maybe you and CL should know that 1963 called and they want their conclusions back...

by 1964 the house of cards was already falling apart. All the CYA in the world can't change that.

[Mike Rago]

You have erased any doubt that I might have had to your methods. Most people of any consequence realize that Lamson knows what he is talking about. The fact that you do not see it tells me everything I need to know about you and your evaluation of my work.

I keep trying not to bring up that I put you on my ignore list but you keep saying the stupidest things and I eventually have no choice but to once again say, welcome to my ignore list.

[David Josephs]

Name a single person other than you and the old man who agrees with him and finds his experiments "honest"

{crickets chirping}

[Mike Rago]

There are 8 names at the bottom of this article. Take your pick.

http://www.assassina...g/costella.html

You are on my ignore list Please respect that and do not ask me any more stupid questions.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Craig Lamson]

I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.

Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.

I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.

Six simple questions for Costella..

1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?

2. How did it move?

3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?

4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?

5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?

6. Where are these photos?