Say bye bye to the paper bag size claims.....

[Craig Lamson]

Speer says the bag in the FBI photos is not s wide as the bag in the press photos. Two simple photographs proves him wrong....again. An 8.5 inch by 38 inch sample bag photographed as it was by Allen.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Speer says the bag inthe FBI photos is not s wide as the bag in the press photos. Two simple photographs proves him wrong....again. An 8.5 inch by 38 inch sample bag photographed as it was by Allen.

Okay, Craig, now that you've "established" what distances were involved...for THAT lens, it should be a simple matter of 1) your having Gary Mack, or some other believer in your research take a similar picture on the front steps, with people in the background, so we can see whether that lens/distance combo would look as natural and undistorted as the Allen photo, or 2) you taking such a picture by a similar set of steps.

I, for one have strong doubts that such a picture would pass muster.

By your own admission, the bag at eye level was 20 inches in from a figure 68 inches from the camera. In other words you're claiming that the bag at that level was only 48 inches--4 feet from the plane of the camera. I don't buy this for a second. For one, such a strong forward lean would cause the bag to crumple forward, as it is in the Smith photo. For two, that would place the bag within Allen's reaching distance after a simple forward lean and an outstretch of the arm.

I think it's readily obvious to anyone without an agenda that the bag is nearly vertical, and several steps away from Allen, and that, in order to make your point, you've used a lens that a news photographer would be unlikely to use, at least outside.

[Craig Lamson]

Speer says the bag inthe FBI photos is not s wide as the bag in the press photos. Two simple photographs proves him wrong....again. An 8.5 inch by 38 inch sample bag photographed as it was by Allen.

Okay, Craig, now that you've "established" what distances were involved...for THAT lens, it should be a simple matter of 1) your having Gary Mack, or some other believer in your research take a similar picture on the front steps, with people in the background, so we can see whether that lens/distance combo would look as natural and undistorted as the Allen photo, or 2) you taking such a picture by a similar set of steps.

No Pat, thats how the perspective would look from that distance with any lens and any camera. Have you forgotten perspective 101 already? If Beers were shooting his pictures from about the same distance (he was, you can see his shadow including his camera in Allen) and was using a 65mm lens on his Mamyiaflex camera, do you think the lens or camara would have produced a different perspective than Allen or would the only change be a change in FOV? And is my image distorted and un-natural in the test photo? Of course not.

I, for one have strong doubts that such a picture would pass muster.

Based on what experience? It's pretty clear by now to anyone paying attention you can't grasp how perspective works. You are simply blowing smoke instead of dealing with your failures.

By your own admission, the bag at eye level was 20 inches in from a figure 68 inches from the camera. In other words you're claiming that the bag at that level was only 48 inches--4 feet from the plane of the camera. I don't buy this for a second.

Why? It's a PERFECT fit for both the shadow evidence, and of course the empirical evidence produced by testing. And its amazing but at this distance and angles the sample 8.5 inch bag is a superb fit for the bag seen in the Allen photo. Nevermind Pat says, it MUST be a mistake since my faulty resizing exercise tells me the bag CAN'T be the same....lets just ignore the empirical data and go with the stuff Pat Speer made up from whole cloth..

For one, such a strong forward lean would cause the bag to crumple forward, as it is in the Smith photo.

Yea it CRUMPLED over. You think some pro photogrpahers might have caught a decisive and dramatic moment on film? I though thats what they got paid to do?

For two, that would place the bag within Allen's reaching distance after a simple forward lean and an outstretch of the arm.

So?

I think it's readily obvious to anyone without an agenda that the bag is nearly vertical, and several steps away from Allen,

Again, BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? And you are STILL stuck with the problem that the photo Allen captured from around than 6 feet away ( the shadow evidence fixes his position) in which the framing matches the FOV of a 24mm lens from that distance...is a near perfect match to experimental photos of an 8.5 inch bag taken with the same specs.

and that, in order to make your point, you've used a lens that a news photographer would be unlikely to use, at least outside.

Again, based on WHAT EVIDENCE? Oh yea, Hinrichs told you so...sheesh what a source. Allen USUALLY had the 24mm with him. Obviousily he liked using it. In fact it would be a GREAT choice for a presser like the one that produced the bag photos. All the press was crowded tightly around Montgomery. Being that close with a longer lens would have produced a tightly cropped shot...like Smiths... rather boring. No, the 24 was a superb choice by the photographer.

Your claim is TOAST Pat. Is time to quit trying to make excuses for your failure.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Speer says the bag inthe FBI photos is not s wide as the bag in the press photos. Two simple photographs proves him wrong....again. An 8.5 inch by 38 inch sample bag photographed as it was by Allen.

Okay, Craig, now that you've "established" what distances were involved...for THAT lens, it should be a simple matter of 1) your having Gary Mack, or some other believer in your research take a similar picture on the front steps, with people in the background, so we can see whether that lens/distance combo would look as natural and undistorted as the Allen photo, or 2) you taking such a picture by a similar set of steps.

No Pat, thats how the perspective would look from that distance with any lens and any camera. Have you forgotten perspective 101 already? If Beers were shooting his pictures from about the same distance (he was, you can see his shadow including his camera in Allen) and was using a 65mm lens on his Mamyiaflex camera, do you think the lens or camara would have produced a different perspective than Allen or would the only change be a change in FOV? And is my image distorted and un-natural in the test photo? Of course not.

I, for one have strong doubts that such a picture would pass muster.

Based on what experience? It's pretty clear by now to anyone paying attention you can't grasp how perspective works. You are simply blowing smoke instead of dealing with your failures.

By your own admission, the bag at eye level was 20 inches in from a figure 68 inches from the camera. In other words you're claiming that the bag at that level was only 48 inches--4 feet from the plane of the camera. I don't buy this for a second.

Why? It's a PERFECT fit for both the shadow evidence, and of course the empirical evidence produced by testing. And its amazing but at this distance and angles the sample 8.5 inch bag is a superb fit for the bag seen in the Allen photo. Nevermind Pat says, it MUST be a mistake since my faulty resizing exercise tells me the bag CAN'T be the same....lets just ignore the empirical data and go with the stuff Pat Speer made up from whole cloth..

For one, such a strong forward lean would cause the bag to crumple forward, as it is in the Smith photo.

Yea it CRUMPLED over. You think some pro photogrpahers might have caught a decisive and dramatic moment on film? I though thats what they got paid to do?

For two, that would place the bag within Allen's reaching distance after a simple forward lean and an outstretch of the arm.

So?

I think it's readily obvious to anyone without an agenda that the bag is nearly vertical, and several steps away from Allen,

Again, BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? And you are STILL stuck with the problem that the photo Allen captured from around than 6 feet away ( the shadow evidence fixes his position) in which the framing matches the FOV of a 24mm lens from that distance...is a near perfect match to experimental photos of an 8.5 inch bag taken with the same specs.

and that, in order to make your point, you've used a lens that a news photographer would be unlikely to use, at least outside.

Again, based on WHAT EVIDENCE? Oh yea, Hinrichs told you so...sheesh what a source. Allen USUALLY had the 24mm with him. Obviousily he liked using it. In fact it would be a GREAT choice for a presser like the one that produced the bag photos. All the press was crowded tightly around Montgomery. Being that close with a longer lens would have produced a tightly cropped shot...like Smiths... rather boring. No, the 24 was a superb choice by the photographer.

Your claim is TOAST Pat. Is time to quit trying to make excuses for your failure.

Craig, as someone supposedly interested in the photographic aspects of the assassination, you should be more interested than I in whether or not your photo actually re-creates the Allen photo. Instead, you keep wanting to stop short. Clearly, you believe that if you are able to re-create the proportions of the bag using a certain lens at a certain angle than you've proved that the Allen photo was taken with that kind of lens and at that angle, when all you've proved is that it was POSSIBLE the photo was taken from such an angle IF that kind of lens was used.

No one looks at that photo and says, yeah the top of the bag is only a foot or so away from Allen should he stretch out his arm. No one looks at it and says yeah that 38 inch bag is leaning forward 25 degrees or so. It appears to everyone (with whom I've discussed the photo, approximately 10 people) that Montgomery is several steps away from Allen, and that the bag is fairly vertical. So there are reasons to doubt your re-enactment from the get-go.

When one looks at your re-enactment photo, moreover, the door frame on the left side is distorted. This leads me to suspect there would be more distortion on the outside of the Allen photo should a 24mm lens have been used, as you claim.

We should all here remember that, while trying to make this same point, you previously posted a photo taken with a 21mm lens. The background in this photo appeared far more distant than the background in the 40mm and 50mm shots taken of the same subject. My amateur photographer friend, after looking at the Beers photo, told me that it seemed pretty clear that that photo, which looked natural to the eye, was taken with a 50mm lens. The background in your photo taken with a 50mm lens looked much more like the background in the Beers photo than the background in your 21mm shot.

I suspect that you will have a similar problem with an outdoor photo taken with a 24mm lens.

While you like to complain I have no sense of perspective, etc, I have never disputed that it would be possible to re-create the proportions of the bag using an 8.5 inch bag. I have proposed, however, that,in doing so, the background of the image would be distorted, and appear differently than it does in the photos.

If anyone in Dallas is following this dispute, and is willing to run over and take some 24mm photos on the front steps, this probably can be settled.

Here are Craig's photos with the different lenses and backgrounds.

If the background of a photo taken with a 24mm lens on the front steps looks like the background in the Allen photo, I'll be surprised.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

The man is supposed to have put a disassembled 8 lb rifle

into one of these paper bags

and not leave a single trace of oil, a scratch, NOTHING that indicates a rifle was ever in the bag they tested and claim was a 24" x 8" flat paper sack.

Obviously an assembled rifle wwould have fit in that bag.... yet how is it that frazier cannot see the bag as Oswald walks away from him? DPD Montgomery was no doubt larger than Oswald and that bag almost dwarfs his upper body.

and finally... the bag you two are discussing isn't the bag Frazier says he saw... and I believe that is Pat's entire point. Recreating photos like this is imo a bit absurd. You can never get it exactly right and measurements cannot possibly make any sense as a comparison. How about trying to figure out how Oswald took a 24" wide piece of paper and created a two and a quater fold bag that was 8" wide? Was there a 32" x 6" piece of paper found anywhere indicating he had cut it to size?

If it was folded over and about 24" long... you want to explain how he fit that rifle in there to begin with?

Probably not.

[Craig Lamson]

Speer says the bag inthe FBI photos is not s wide as the bag in the press photos. Two simple photographs proves him wrong....again. An 8.5 inch by 38 inch sample bag photographed as it was by Allen.

Okay, Craig, now that you've "established" what distances were involved...for THAT lens, it should be a simple matter of 1) your having Gary Mack, or some other believer in your research take a similar picture on the front steps, with people in the background, so we can see whether that lens/distance combo would look as natural and undistorted as the Allen photo, or 2) you taking such a picture by a similar set of steps.

No Pat, thats how the perspective would look from that distance with any lens and any camera. Have you forgotten perspective 101 already? If Beers were shooting his pictures from about the same distance (he was, you can see his shadow including his camera in Allen) and was using a 65mm lens on his Mamyiaflex camera, do you think the lens or camara would have produced a different perspective than Allen or would the only change be a change in FOV? And is my image distorted and un-natural in the test photo? Of course not.

I, for one have strong doubts that such a picture would pass muster.

Based on what experience? It's pretty clear by now to anyone paying attention you can't grasp how perspective works. You are simply blowing smoke instead of dealing with your failures.

By your own admission, the bag at eye level was 20 inches in from a figure 68 inches from the camera. In other words you're claiming that the bag at that level was only 48 inches--4 feet from the plane of the camera. I don't buy this for a second.

Why? It's a PERFECT fit for both the shadow evidence, and of course the empirical evidence produced by testing. And its amazing but at this distance and angles the sample 8.5 inch bag is a superb fit for the bag seen in the Allen photo. Nevermind Pat says, it MUST be a mistake since my faulty resizing exercise tells me the bag CAN'T be the same....lets just ignore the empirical data and go with the stuff Pat Speer made up from whole cloth..

For one, such a strong forward lean would cause the bag to crumple forward, as it is in the Smith photo.

Yea it CRUMPLED over. You think some pro photogrpahers might have caught a decisive and dramatic moment on film? I though thats what they got paid to do?

For two, that would place the bag within Allen's reaching distance after a simple forward lean and an outstretch of the arm.

So?

I think it's readily obvious to anyone without an agenda that the bag is nearly vertical, and several steps away from Allen,

Again, BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? And you are STILL stuck with the problem that the photo Allen captured from around than 6 feet away ( the shadow evidence fixes his position) in which the framing matches the FOV of a 24mm lens from that distance...is a near perfect match to experimental photos of an 8.5 inch bag taken with the same specs.

and that, in order to make your point, you've used a lens that a news photographer would be unlikely to use, at least outside.

Again, based on WHAT EVIDENCE? Oh yea, Hinrichs told you so...sheesh what a source. Allen USUALLY had the 24mm with him. Obviousily he liked using it. In fact it would be a GREAT choice for a presser like the one that produced the bag photos. All the press was crowded tightly around Montgomery. Being that close with a longer lens would have produced a tightly cropped shot...like Smiths... rather boring. No, the 24 was a superb choice by the photographer.

Your claim is TOAST Pat. Is time to quit trying to make excuses for your failure.

Craig, as someone supposedly interested in the photographic aspects of the assassination, you should be more interested than I in whether or not your photo actually re-creates the Allen photo. Instead, you keep wanting to stop short. Clearly, you believe that if you are able to re-create the proportions of the bag using a certain lens at a certain angle than you've proved that the Allen photo was taken with that kind of lens and at that angle, when all you've proved is that it was POSSIBLE the photo was taken from such an angle IF that kind of lens was used.

No Pat, what I have proven is that the proof of concept photo is a percet fit to the Allen photo. And I've NOT stopped short. You see its not htat hard to acltul PLOT what would beseen in the Allen photo using different lenses and distances. Finding the angle for view for a lens is quite easy. Your vaunted 50mm lens in portrait mode has an vertical AOV of 39.6 degrees. The 24mm in the same mode has and AOV. Wiht this simpel information we can plot the fov of the Allen photo for different lenses and distances. FOr example your 50mmm at 10 feet from Montogomery crops his off at the knees. Allen does not show that at all. In fact Allen plots EXACTLY for a 24mm lens at approx 5 feet from the subject.. ANd gee, thats also the exact distance needed to create the perspective shown in the bag. No Pat, Ive proven that the ONLY way to take the Allen photo is to be about 5 feet from the subject using a 24mm lens. I've also proved the bag is not any differently sized than the bag seen in the FBI photos.

No one looks at that photo and says, yeah the top of the bag is only a foot or so away from Allen should he stretch out his arm. No one looks at it and says yeah that 38 inch bag is leaning forward 25 degrees or so. It appears to everyone (with whom I've discussed the photo, approximately 10 people) that Montgomery is several steps away from Allen, and that the bag is fairly vertical. So there are reasons to doubt your re-enactment from the get-go.

Doubt it all you want but to impeach the work you actually have to PROVE it wrong. And I must say I love watching you move the goalposts. First it was 15 feet away then 10 feet away and now you are down to "several steps". Thats LOL funny! But lets review your new claim. The bag is near vertical. For that to be true you must claim that the bag is actually and physically

tapered by over 35% from top to bottom! Once again thats LOL funny! And lets not forget your lens and distance selection crops Montogomery off at the knees, and would not have enough vertical view to see to the top of the stairwell opening on the TBD. Sorry but your theory does not fit the evidence and the 10 people you talked to know as little as you do about all of this.

What does fit ALL he evidence and has been proven with solid experimental data is that thee Allen photo was taken with a 24mm lens from about 5 feet from Montgomery. teh 8.5" inch bag wsa leaning forward about 25 degrees and it is size consistant with the bag in hte FBI photos. What also fits all the evidecne is that Pat Speer is wrong and simply cannot admit his error.

When one looks at your re-enactment photo, moreover, the door frame on the left side is distorted. This leads me to suspect there would be more distortion on the outside of the Allen photo should a 24mm lens have been used, as you claim.

Its not "disorted" at all after the lens abberations are removed. We simply see the effects of perspective, and as we all know (or should you can't seem to remember)that a lens does not change perspective. All lens show the SAME perspecive. Perspective changes are induced by camera to subject distance. What you "suspect" is meaning loes wiht out proof, and you have provied none. All you offer is your decidedly uninformed opinion. Thats not going to cut it any longer Pat. You have been proven wrong. If you thnk you can chage that, you must prove actual PROOF for a change.

We should all here remember that, while trying to make this same point, you previously posted a photo taken with a 21mm lens. The background in this photo appeared far more distant than the background in the 40mm and 50mm shots taken of the same subject.

And the background in the Allen photos apears FAR more distant that is would if it had been taken wiht a 50mm lens. The 50mm lens cannot show all the TSD as see inhte Allen photo froma distance of 10 feet from Montgomery. You know Pat wave your hand a lot but you bring NOTHING of substance to the table. Until you can show my work is WRONG with direct proofs you theory is disproven.

My amateur photographer friend, after looking at the Beers photo, told me that it seemed pretty clear that that photo, which looked natural to the eye, was taken with a 50mm lens. The background in your photo taken with a 50mm lens looked much more like the background in the Beers photo than the background in your 21mm shot.

DO you know if the Beers photo is full frame or if it has been cropped? I don't.

I suspect that you will have a similar problem with an outdoor photo taken with a 24mm lens. And neither does you play-photographer friend. Lens don't create perspective ( for the 100th time, maybe it will sink in someday) DISTANCES do. A photo taken wiht a 50mm lens and a 12 mm lens fomr hte same camera to subject distances have the EXACT same perspective. Crop the 12mm shot and it will be exactly the same as the 50mm shot. You friend does not have aclue what he is talking about.

While you like to complain I have no sense of perspective, etc, I have never disputed that it would be possible to re-create the proportions of the bag using an 8.5 inch bag. I have proposed, however, that,in doing so, the background of the image would be distorted, and appear differently than it does in the photos.

And yet you offer ZERO proof to back your claims...again....

If anyone in Dallas is following this dispute, and is willing to run over and take some 24mm photos on the front steps, this probably can be settled.

Here are Craig's photos with the different lenses and backgrounds.

If the background of a photo taken with a 24mm lens on the front steps looks like the background in the Allen photo, I'll be surprised.

The Allen photo IS taken with a 24mm lens, its the ONLY way to get that image...

[Craig Lamson]

The man is supposed to have put a disassembled 8 lb rifle

into one of these paper bags

and not leave a single trace of oil, a scratch, NOTHING that indicates a rifle was ever in the bag they tested and claim was a 24" x 8" flat paper sack.

Obviously an assembled rifle wwould have fit in that bag.... yet how is it that frazier cannot see the bag as Oswald walks away from him? DPD Montgomery was no doubt larger than Oswald and that bag almost dwarfs his upper body.

and finally... the bag you two are discussing isn't the bag Frazier says he saw... and I believe that is Pat's entire point. Recreating photos like this is imo a bit absurd. You can never get it exactly right and measurements cannot possibly make any sense as a comparison. How about trying to figure out how Oswald took a 24" wide piece of paper and created a two and a quater fold bag that was 8" wide? Was there a 32" x 6" piece of paper found anywhere indicating he had cut it to size?

If it was folded over and about 24" long... you want to explain how he fit that rifle in there to begin with?

Probably not.

Not my problem not my interest. There is however no doubt that the bag in the press photos is not a different size than the bag in the FBI photos, and that is the point of Pats I'm addressing.

And I don't do recreations..exaclty because you can't ever get it all correct. I'll gladly do proof of concept experiments which is exactly what I have done.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Oh no, Lammy never gives up.

Oh my aching back.

Do you have a lucid comment Jim or can you provide proof that my work is incorrect?

[Craig Lamson]

Oh no, Lammy never gives up.

Oh my aching back.

Do you have a lucid comment Jim or can you provide proof that my work is incorrect?

You always come back with that ploy don't you?

Go after the work.

Yes, if you can't impeach the work it stands. Thats how it works Jim. I'm sorry it destroys so many of your long held beliefs. I take taht bck, I'm not sorry inthe least.

WHen people do that, you make up these strained and incredible arguments that are supposed to, like the neuromusuclar reaction or jet effect, tell people they should not believe what they see.

No, its just the opposite. I don't want people to believe, I want them to KNOW. I want them to do the work themself and find the answers THEMSELF. These are complex arguments becausde they are complex matters. Of course thats the problem wiht most CT's and LN's too. The do like Speer and just make up some "process" and claim some fantistic resluts. Never mind, like Speer, the process they used are totally faulty and the results too, many like oyu, blinded by idealogy, just believe.

The complex quite often cannot be reduced to second grade level. Many times its not intutive, nor does "common sense apply.

So if you can refutethe work, then please do so. or just trot along because you are out of your depth here and show zero desire to actually learn.

Or you also say, Not my field of interest.

This is the question: How can that bag be the one Frazier describes? It cannot be. Period.

I don't care. its not related to my area of interest.So where did it come from?

Was there an endless supply of sacks in the TSBD?

I don't know and I don't care. It's not my area of interest.

And that is the main point. Everything that you reply with here is a diversion that makes you look weirder and weirder.

And that does not seem to matter to you one iota.

Think what you will Jim, your appproval is not a concern of mine. Now either comment on the WORK, or move along. You have nothing of value to add.

And btw, like it or not Speers complaint about the size of the bag is busted and my work stands unimpeached.

[Pat Speer]

Oh no, Lammy never gives up.

Oh my aching back.

Do you have a lucid comment Jim or can you provide proof that my work is incorrect?

You always come back with that ploy don't you?

Go after the work.

Yes, if you can't impeach the work it stands. Thats how it works Jim. I'm sorry it destroys so many of your long held beliefs. I take taht bck, I'm not sorry inthe least.

WHen people do that, you make up these strained and incredible arguments that are supposed to, like the neuromusuclar reaction or jet effect, tell people they should not believe what they see.

No, its just the opposite. I don't want people to believe, I want them to KNOW. I want them to do the work themself and find the answers THEMSELF. These are complex arguments becausde they are complex matters. Of course thats the problem wiht most CT's and LN's too. The do like Speer and just make up some "process" and claim some fantistic resluts. Never mind, like Speer, the process they used are totally faulty and the results too, many like oyu, blinded by idealogy, just believe.

The complex quite often cannot be reduced to second grade level. Many times its not intutive, nor does "common sense apply.

So if you can refutethe work, then please do so. or just trot along because you are out of your depth here and show zero desire to actually learn.

Or you also say, Not my field of interest.

This is the question: How can that bag be the one Frazier describes? It cannot be. Period.

I don't care. its not related to my area of interest.So where did it come from?

Was there an endless supply of sacks in the TSBD?

I don't know and I don't care. It's not my area of interest.

And that is the main point. Everything that you reply with here is a diversion that makes you look weirder and weirder.

And that does not seem to matter to you one iota.

Think what you will Jim, your appproval is not a concern of mine. Now either comment on the WORK, or move along. You have nothing of value to add.

And btw, like it or not Speers complaint about the size of the bag is busted and my work stands unimpeached.

Come on, Craig, you know you've not proven what you claim you have. Your "proof of concept" photo shows that, in order for an 8.5 inch bag to look like the bag in the Allen photo, some mighty strange things--counter-intuitive things--must be true.

For the bag to be 8.5 inches, the bag would have to be barely out of the reach of the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

According to your research, it would also have to be leaning sharply away from Montgomery and toward the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

According to your research, the top of the bag, which appears to be held far over Montgomery's head, is really at the level of his head. And this even though the Beers photo I discovered in an old rare book, which was taken within seconds of the Allen photo, shows the top of the bag clearly above his head. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

I don't see how you can claim that determining how a photo of a bag would have to be taken IF the bag was a certain size PROVES it was actually that size.

That's silly, IMO. If I had told you that the bag was 9.8 inches wide, you almost certainly would have found a way to recreate the photo under the proviso it was 9.8 inches wide.

P.S. Your assertion that the lens size has nothing to do with your re-enactment, and that all that matters is perspective, is really quite misleading. We've been over this enough now where even a non-shutterbug like myself knows that using a wide-angle lens allows a photographer to take a photo from much closer to the subject, and that taking this photo from much closer in alters the camera to subject ratios, which can cause a certain amount of distortion of the background of the image when compared to the naked eye. (This is why the backgrounds changed so much in the photos of your wife with the ruler.) In your re-enactment of the Allen photo, for example, the camera is less than 6 feet from Montgomery, and 5 feet from the bag. This means that an object 9 feet or so beyond Montgomery, and 10 feet from the bag, such as, for example, the newsman to the left of Johnson, SHOULD appear to be more than twice as far from the camera as Montgomery. Well, this can be tested. Does an object 15 feet from a 24mm lens look 2/3 or so (the approximate relative size of the newsman to Montgomery) the size it appears at 6 feet? I'm betting it does not.

The thought occurs that with your wizard-like skills you can measure the size of the newsman in comparison to Montgomery, and then, under the assumption the men are the same size, tell us EXACTLY how far beyond Montgomery this man would have to be. We can then all decide if this makes sense.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Come on, Craig, you know you've not proven what you claim you have. Your "proof of concept" photo shows that, in order for an 8.5 inch bag to look like the bag in the Allen photo, some mighty strange things--counter-intuitive things--must be true.

YOU come on PAt, you are the one that has used proven faulty mehtonds to produce faulty claims and have been proven wrong. When are you going to man up and admit your error. Strange and counter intuitive things happen all the time.

For the bag to be 8.5 inches, the bag would have to be barely out of the reach of the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

And yet the evidence...yet unimpeached...shows us thats exactly what happened. Amazing how that works.

According to your research, it would also have to be leaning sharply away from Montgomery and toward the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

And yet the evidence...yet unimpeached...shows us thats exaclty what happened. What you or others "believe" is meaningless. If you think I am wrong...PROVE it.

According to your research, the top of the bag, which appears to be held far over Montgomery's head, is really at the level of his head. And this even though the Beers photo I discovered in an old rare book, which was taken within seconds of the Allen photo, shows the top of the bag clearly above his head. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

Life is not STATIC. Things MOVE. Things CHANGE. Your argument is silly and what you BELIEVE is meaningless. If you think I'm wrong....PROVE IT!

I don't see how you can claim that determining how a photo of a bag would have to be taken IF the bag was a certain size PROVES it was actually that size.

I proved the bag...based on YOUR specs I might add, was not larger than the bag in the FBI photots, using YOUR specs.

That's silly, IMO. If I had told you that the bag was 9.8 inches wide, you almost certainly would have found a way to recreate the photo under the proviso it was 9.8 inches wide.

I did not "find a way". I checked the existing evidence against established photographic principles and found your claim was wrong. Your original work was based on your ignorance of established photographic fact. The only thing that is silly in this whole sorted affair is your continued reluctance to actually LEARN anything about the subject you are arguing.

P.S. Your assertion that the lens size has nothing to do with your re-enactment, and that all that matters is perspective, is really quite misleading.

No, its EXACTLY what happens.

We've been over this enough now where even a non-shutterbug like myself knows that using a wide-angle lens allows a photographer to take a photo from much closer to the subject, and that taking this photo from much closer in alters the camera to subject ratios, which can cause a certain amount of distortion of the background of the image when compared to the naked eye. (This is why the backgrounds changed so much in the photos of your wife with the ruler.)

Once more...take a photo from any distance with any lens and then take the same photo from the same distance wiith any OTHER lens and hte perspective will remain exactly the same. all that will change is the framing. Once again. the LENS does not induce perspective. This islong established photographic FACT.

In your re-enactment of the Allen photo, for example, the camera is less than 6 feet from Montgomery, and 5 feet from the bag. This means that an object 9 feet or so beyond Montgomery, and 10 feet from the bag, such as, for example, the newsman to the left of Johnson, SHOULD appear to be more than twice as far from the camera as Montgomery. Well, this can be tested. Does an object 15 feet from a 24mm lens look 2/3 or so (the approximate relative size of the newsman to Montgomery) the size it appears at 6 feet? I'm betting it does not.

It can also be calculated. So do the math and prove your point. That would be called "Photogrammetry".

Why bet...do something for a change and actually PROVE yor clains and statements.

The thought occurs that with your wizard-like skills you can measure the size of the newsman in comparison to Montgomery, and then, under the assumption the men are the same size, tell us EXACTLY how far beyond Montgomery this man would have to be. We can then all decide if this makes sense.

It all DOES make sense, and you cba do the math if you like. Remember, its called Photogrammetry. Be my guest. Ive given oy all the data you need...data thatsa perfcet fit wihtthe phto in evidence. If you want to try and PROVE me wrong, have at it. Your handwaving is just making you look silly. Whats that sound I hear? Oh yea, its Speer, in desperation, moving the goalposts once again....

I'll look forward to your proofs or your admission of error.[/color}

Edited December 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Come on, Craig, you know you've not proven what you claim you have. Your "proof of concept" photo shows that, in order for an 8.5 inch bag to look like the bag in the Allen photo, some mighty strange things--counter-intuitive things--must be true.

YOU come on PAt, you are the one that has used proven faulty mehtonds to produce faulty claims and have been proven wrong. When are you going to man up and admit your error. Strange and counter intuitive things happen all the time.

For the bag to be 8.5 inches, the bag would have to be barely out of the reach of the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

[And yet the evidence...yet unimpeached...shows us thats exactly what happened. Amazing how that works.[/color]

According to your research, it would also have to be leaning sharply away from Montgomery and toward the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

And yet the evidence...yet unimpeached...shows us thats exaclty what happened. What you or others "believe" is meaningless. If you think I am wrong...PROVE it.

According to your research, the top of the bag, which appears to be held far over Montgomery's head, is really at the level of his head. And this even though the Beers photo I discovered in an old rare book, which was taken within seconds of the Allen photo, shows the top of the bag clearly above his head. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

Life is not STATIC. Things MOVE. Things CHANGE. Your argument is silly and what you BELIEVE is meaningless. If you think I'm wrong....PROVE IT!

I don't see how you can claim that determining how a photo of a bag would have to be taken IF the bag was a certain size PROVES it was actually that size.

I proved the bag...based on YOUR specs I might add, was not larger than the bag in the FBI photots, using YOUR specs.

That's silly, IMO. If I had told you that the bag was 9.8 inches wide, you almost certainly would have found a way to recreate the photo under the proviso it was 9.8 inches wide.

[i did not "find a way". I checked the existing evidence against established photographic principles and found your claim was wrong. Your original work was based on your ignorance of established photographic fact. The only thing that is silly in this whole sorted affair is your continued reluctance to actually LEARN anything about the subject you are arguing.[color]

P.S. Your assertion that the lens size has nothing to do with your re-enactment, and that all that matters is perspective, is really quite misleading.

No, its EXACTLY what happens.

We've been over this enough now where even a non-shutterbug like myself knows that using a wide-angle lens allows a photographer to take a photo from much closer to the subject, and that taking this photo from much closer in alters the camera to subject ratios, which can cause a certain amount of distortion of the background of the image when compared to the naked eye. (This is why the backgrounds changed so much in the photos of your wife with the ruler.)

Once more...take a photo from any distance with any lens and then take the same photo from the same distance wiith any OTHER lens and hte perspective will remain exactly the same. all that will change is the framing. Once again. the LENS does not induce perspective. This islong established photographic FACT.

In your re-enactment of the Allen photo, for example, the camera is less than 6 feet from Montgomery, and 5 feet from the bag. This means that an object 9 feet or so beyond Montgomery, and 10 feet from the bag, such as, for example, the newsman to the left of Johnson, SHOULD appear to be more than twice as far from the camera as Montgomery. Well, this can be tested. Does an object 15 feet from a 24mm lens look 2/3 or so (the approximate relative size of the newsman to Montgomery) the size it appears at 6 feet? I'm betting it does not.

It can also be calculated. So do the math and prove your point. That would be called "Photogrammetry". {color}

Why bet...do something for a change and actually PROVE yor clains and statements.

The thought occurs that with your wizard-like skills you can measure the size of the newsman in comparison to Montgomery, and then, under the assumption the men are the same size, tell us EXACTLY how far beyond Montgomery this man would have to be. We can then all decide if this makes sense.

It all DOES make sense, and you cba do the math if you like. Remember, its called Photogrammetry. Be my guest. Ive given oy all the data you need...data thatsa perfcet fit wihtthe phto in evidence. If you want to try and PROVE me wrong, have at it. Your handwaving is just making you look silly. Whats that sound I hear? Oh yea, its Speer, in desperation, moving the goalposts once again....

I'll look forward to your proofs or your admission of error.[/color}

Note to self... It's not the perspective of Craig's re-enactment that is provably wrong, it's the framing. Got it.

So, if I'm to read you right, you're saying that, IF an object presumably 6 feet from you appears to be more than twice as big as a similar-sized object 15 feet from you, with the naked eye, it should also do so when viewed through a camera.

Well, I've already done this. I lined up two books of the same size, one at 6 feet and one at 15, and the front book appeared to be more than twice as large as the book in the distance. I had to back up about 12 feet before the book in the distance appeared to be about 2/3 the height of the front book. Which only makes sense... It was now 9 feet further away than something 18 feet away...

Now, according to what YOU'VE been saying, this alone disproves YOUR "proof." The lens of my eye would not change the perspective of the image, which is determined solely by the camera to subject distance and angle. And the relative size of the newsman to the left of Johnson to Montgomery proves the photograph was taken from much further away than you've been claiming. In order for your "proof" to withstand scrutiny, after all, the newsman 2/3 the size of Montgomery, who's only 6 feet away, would have to be about 9 feet away, and that's impossible, seeing as he's far to the left of Johnson, who, himself, would have to be at least 3-4 feet away from Montgomery.

So now it's just a matter of gussying up my original observations with impressive sounding photog words, and submitting it as a proof, that even LN shutterbugs as yourself will immediately recognize as a fact. Thanks.

Thanks. We nailed it down. You've helped me prove my point.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Come on, Craig, you know you've not proven what you claim you have. Your "proof of concept" photo shows that, in order for an 8.5 inch bag to look like the bag in the Allen photo, some mighty strange things--counter-intuitive things--must be true.

YOU come on PAt, you are the one that has used proven faulty mehtonds to produce faulty claims and have been proven wrong. When are you going to man up and admit your error. Strange and counter intuitive things happen all the time.

For the bag to be 8.5 inches, the bag would have to be barely out of the reach of the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

[And yet the evidence...yet unimpeached...shows us thats exactly what happened. Amazing how that works.[/color]

According to your research, it would also have to be leaning sharply away from Montgomery and toward the photographer. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

And yet the evidence...yet unimpeached...shows us thats exaclty what happened. What you or others "believe" is meaningless. If you think I am wrong...PROVE it.

According to your research, the top of the bag, which appears to be held far over Montgomery's head, is really at the level of his head. And this even though the Beers photo I discovered in an old rare book, which was taken within seconds of the Allen photo, shows the top of the bag clearly above his head. Few, if any, believe such a thing.

Life is not STATIC. Things MOVE. Things CHANGE. Your argument is silly and what you BELIEVE is meaningless. If you think I'm wrong....PROVE IT!

I don't see how you can claim that determining how a photo of a bag would have to be taken IF the bag was a certain size PROVES it was actually that size.

I proved the bag...based on YOUR specs I might add, was not larger than the bag in the FBI photots, using YOUR specs.

That's silly, IMO. If I had told you that the bag was 9.8 inches wide, you almost certainly would have found a way to recreate the photo under the proviso it was 9.8 inches wide.

[i did not "find a way". I checked the existing evidence against established photographic principles and found your claim was wrong. Your original work was based on your ignorance of established photographic fact. The only thing that is silly in this whole sorted affair is your continued reluctance to actually LEARN anything about the subject you are arguing.[color]

P.S. Your assertion that the lens size has nothing to do with your re-enactment, and that all that matters is perspective, is really quite misleading.

No, its EXACTLY what happens.

We've been over this enough now where even a non-shutterbug like myself knows that using a wide-angle lens allows a photographer to take a photo from much closer to the subject, and that taking this photo from much closer in alters the camera to subject ratios, which can cause a certain amount of distortion of the background of the image when compared to the naked eye. (This is why the backgrounds changed so much in the photos of your wife with the ruler.)

Once more...take a photo from any distance with any lens and then take the same photo from the same distance wiith any OTHER lens and hte perspective will remain exactly the same. all that will change is the framing. Once again. the LENS does not induce perspective. This islong established photographic FACT.

In your re-enactment of the Allen photo, for example, the camera is less than 6 feet from Montgomery, and 5 feet from the bag. This means that an object 9 feet or so beyond Montgomery, and 10 feet from the bag, such as, for example, the newsman to the left of Johnson, SHOULD appear to be more than twice as far from the camera as Montgomery. Well, this can be tested. Does an object 15 feet from a 24mm lens look 2/3 or so (the approximate relative size of the newsman to Montgomery) the size it appears at 6 feet? I'm betting it does not.

It can also be calculated. So do the math and prove your point. That would be called "Photogrammetry". {color}

Why bet...do something for a change and actually PROVE yor clains and statements.

The thought occurs that with your wizard-like skills you can measure the size of the newsman in comparison to Montgomery, and then, under the assumption the men are the same size, tell us EXACTLY how far beyond Montgomery this man would have to be. We can then all decide if this makes sense.

It all DOES make sense, and you cba do the math if you like. Remember, its called Photogrammetry. Be my guest. Ive given oy all the data you need...data thatsa perfcet fit wihtthe phto in evidence. If you want to try and PROVE me wrong, have at it. Your handwaving is just making you look silly. Whats that sound I hear? Oh yea, its Speer, in desperation, moving the goalposts once again....

I'll look forward to your proofs or your admission of error.[/color}

Note to self... It's not the perspective of Craig's re-enactment that is provably wrong, it's the framing. Got it.

The framing is wrong? I can't wait to see your proof of that one...

So, if I'm to read you right, you're saying that, IF an object presumably 6 feet from you appears to be more than twice as big as a similar-sized object 15 feet from you, with the naked eye, it should also do so when viewed through a camera.

Try again....

W

ell, I've already done this. I lined up two books of the same size, one at 6 feet and one at 15, and the front book appeared to be more than twice as large as the book in the distance. I had to back up about 12 feet before the book in the distance appeared to be about 2/3 the height of the front book. Which only makes sense... It was now 9 feet further away than something 18 feet away...

Great, lets see your photos...you do have photos, don't yuo?

Now, according to what YOU'VE been saying, this alone disproves YOUR "proof." The lens of my eye would not change the perspective of the image, which is determined solely by the camera to subject distance and angle.

Funny thing about an eye. its connected to a brain (some more better than others) So show us what the purely optical device...a CAMERA recorded. You do have photos...right?

And the relative size of the newsman to the left of Johnson to Montgomery proves the photograph was taken from much further away than you've been claiming. In order for your "proof" to withstand scrutiny, after all, the newsman 2/3 the size of Montgomery, who's only 6 feet away, would have to be about 9 feet away, and that's impossible, seeing as he's far to the left of Johnson, who, himself, would have to be at least 3-4 feet away from Montgomery.

Is it impossble? Please show us the math that proves your handwaving analysis? You dod have so calculations..right. And if this phots was taken farther than 6 feet away. waht lens would provide the correctr angles of view to produce the framing seen in Allen. Your 50mm at 10 feet crops him off at the knees and we KNOW thats not what Allen shows?

So now it's just a matter of gussying up my original observations with impressive sounding photog words, and submitting it as a proof, that even LN shutterbugs as yourself will immediately recognize as a fact. Thanks.

I can't WAIT to see it. I'm sure it will be as totally wrong as all the other bs your posted no your website in this regard.

Thanks. We nailed it down. You've helped me prove my point.

Only in your wildest dreams Pat...

[Craig Lamson]

Now, according to what YOU'VE been saying, this alone disproves YOUR "proof." The lens of my eye would not change the perspective of the image, which is determined solely by the camera to subject distance and angle. And the relative size of the newsman to the left of Johnson to Montgomery proves the photograph was taken from much further away than you've been claiming. In order for your "proof" to withstand scrutiny, after all, the newsman 2/3 the size of Montgomery, who's only 6 feet away, would have to be about 9 feet away, and that's impossible, seeing as he's far to the left of Johnson, who, himself, would have to be at least 3-4 feet away from Montgomery.

Actually, for a 6 foot person to be shown 1/3 less tall that an 6 foot person 6 feet from the camera, he WOULD be 9 feet away from the camera. Thats HOW perspective works and it's exactly what we see in Allen. if we are talking abuot the guy smoking a cig. ( feet from the camera is PERFECT fit for this guy. Amazing how it ALL fits, except for Pat Speers silly theory. (btw, it plots perfectly at 9 feet! LOL!)

This guy is approx 9 feet from the Allen camera, once again burying Speer's theory.

Thanks. We nailed it down. You've helped me prove my point.

Yes we HAVE nailed it and YOU just proved MY point. This just keep sgeting worse and worse for you Pat. You should have admitted your error A YEAR ago and maybe saved some face. But it has been great fun exposing you for what you really are!

Edited December 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Now, according to what YOU'VE been saying, this alone disproves YOUR "proof." The lens of my eye would not change the perspective of the image, which is determined solely by the camera to subject distance and angle. And the relative size of the newsman to the left of Johnson to Montgomery proves the photograph was taken from much further away than you've been claiming. In order for your "proof" to withstand scrutiny, after all, the newsman 2/3 the size of Montgomery, who's only 6 feet away, would have to be about 9 feet away, and that's impossible, seeing as he's far to the left of Johnson, who, himself, would have to be at least 3-4 feet away from Montgomery.

Actually, for a 6 foot person to be shown 1/3 less tall that an 6 foot person 6 feet from the camera, he WOULD be 9 feet away from the camera. Thats HOW perspective works and it's exactly what we see in Allen. if we are talking abuot the guy smoking a cig. ( feet from the camera is PERFECT fit for this guy. Amazing how it ALL fits, except for Pat Speers silly theory. (btw, it plots perfectly at 9 feet! LOL!)

This guy is approx 9 feet from the Allen camera, once again burying Speer's theory.

Thanks. We nailed it down. You've helped me prove my point.

Yes we HAVE nailed it and YOU just proved MY point. This just keep sgeting worse and worse for you Pat. Youshould ahve admitted oyur error A YEAR ago and maybe saved some face. But it has been great fun exposing you for what you really are!

Craig, we really ought to take this show on the road and sell tickets. The man in question is a heckuva lot further from the camera than 9 feet. While he's perhaps as much as two feet forward of Johnson and while this would make him closer to the camera which is also forward of Johnson--he's undoubtedly 6 feet or so to Johnson's left. This means he's four feet or so further from the camera than Johnson, who is himself at least 3 feet further from the camera than Montgomery. He is, at the absolute minimum, 13 feet from the camera.

There is another way to look at this that makes this crystal clear. Johnson is undoubtedly three feet or more further from the camera than Montgomery. The newsman taking notes is a few feet forward of him, and a little further from the camera along the step. He is at most, a foot closer to the camera than Johnson. He is, however, quite clearly further from the camera than Montgomery. So, if Johnson is 6 feet away, as you claim, and Johnson is 3 feet further away, as should be obvious seeing as these were grown men standing in the open air, this man is at the absolute closest, 8 feet from the camera.

Well, the smoker in question is BEHIND him, and much much smaller. There is no way he is only a foot behind him, else their bodies would be entangled.

Please please please show us an overhead view of how these 5 characters--Allen, Montgomery, Johnson, the newsman and the smoker--all fit together, with the smoker being but 9 feet away from Allen, so we can all be amazed.