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

[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. 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.

Yes we should have sold tickets as your mistakes have been simply legendary! Sorry Pat, smoker is 9 feet away...a PERFECT fit! The overhead is a great suggestion...for you! I've been using one all along, so lets see what YOURS looks like and we can compare the fit.

As you have been told...many times, this is NOT intuitive. YOU continue to make mistakes because you brain is getting fooled by perspective.

But you just have to love watching you. Distances just KILL you. First you place Allen and Beers 15 feet away from Monty...which puts them nearly in the street. Screwed, you put them at 10 feet, and now you have them "several steps". I'm amazed. I'm sure the readers who actually understand are amazed at your too...

You tell us that there is no way for the bag to be 8.5 iinches, but amazingly there sure is and its SUPERB fit for allythe available evidence, the lens, the angle of view, the camera to subject distance, and the PERSPECTIVE and positioning of the surrounding people. Long story short, You simply got it all wrong ...again. That does NOT amaze me, its par for the course.

And now you are at it again, waving your hands wildly, saying these people ar this distance or that that distance...blah, blah, blah. Simply... amazingly... silly.

And it the end, the fit for 24mm, 6 feet, 8.5 iinch bag is still AMAZING SUPERB. No lets go one step further, its been amazing PROVEN that Pat Speer was wrong about the size of the bag being different than the bag in the FBI photo.

[Craig Lamson]

Nice one Pat.

Nice...except he got it wrong again. If you don't think that is true why not show us WHY you think this is a "good one" by Speer?

Prove his WORK..and your approval...is correct. Now that would be a "good one".

[Craig Lamson]

I guess Pat is having a VERY hard time trying to find an overhead that works fro his 10 foot camera to subject distance. So I'll give him mine to stir the pot just a bit.

WHile reworking my overhead I was scanning the FBI Allen and I made a super discovery...a SECCOND LOS to fix the camera wiht. I had been using the smoer guys foor and shaodow ro fix that side of the LOS but the left side was still a swag. But here it was...the post for the top of the handrail and the edge of the entryway! This provided the final LOS needed to FIX the Allens camera position. It is now LOCKED IN!

This is both good and bad. Its bad for me because smoker is now 11 feet from Allen and not 9. Not all bad because the perspective still works ( because it is STILL a swag...we cant really tell how tall Monty is since his legs are cut off) but still he moved and I'll admit I was wrong.. It's REALLY bad for Pat because now he MUT work wiht a FIXED camera position for Allen. He can't jsut move him back. He has to move Monty AWAY from the camera to get hsi 10 feet and that jsut won't work. Its BAD for PAt becuse it shoot his theory rihgt doe=wnthe tubes.

Finally its really good for me because this is the final nail in in the coffin of Speer's really silly claim about the size of the bag. Of course I really don't expect him to admit his error...

[Martin Hinrichs]

I guess Pat is having a VERY hard time trying to find an overhead that works fro(m) his 10 foot camera to subject distance. So I'll give him mine to stir the pot just a bit.

WHile reworking my overhead I was scanning the FBI Allen and I made a super discovery...a SECCOND (?) LOS to fix the camera wiht(?). I had been using the smo(k)er guys foo(t) and sha(o)dow r(e)o fix that side of the LOS but the left side was still a swag. But here it was...the post for the top of the handrail and the edge of the entryway! This provided the final LOS needed to FIX the Allens camera position. It is now LOCKED IN!

This is both good and bad. Its bad for me because smoker is now 11 feet (flat lie) from Allen and not 9. Not all bad because the perspective still works ( because it is STILL a swag...we cant really tell how tall Monty is since his legs are cut off) but still he moved and I'll admit I was wrong.. It's REALLY bad for Pat because now he MUT(?) work (wiht) a FIXED camera position for Allen. He can't (jsut) move him back. He has to move Monty AWAY from the camera to get (hsi) 10 feet and that (jsut) won't work. Its BAD for PAt be(a)cuse it shoot his theory (rihgt) doe=wnthe(?) tubes.

Finally its really good for me because this is the final nail in in the coffin of Speer's really silly claim about the size of the bag. Of course I really don't expect him to admit his error...

What can be witnessed here is a ludicrous disaster.

First, Craig Lamson claimed in the first posting, the Paper bag to be 8.5 inches wide while

shooting his images with a full frame 24x36mm camera and a lens parameter of 24mm.

The vertical angle of his lense is 53° but is using now for his overhead view a different angle of 51°.

He is comparing full frame uncropped (allegedly) 24mm lens photos and uses different angles!

Now let's take a closer look at his Overhead view and his "51°" Field of View with his orange lines.

In the uncropped Allen Photo just a fraction of the DalTex is in sight on the right.

Now look at Lamson's field of view in orange lines:

Compare my blue lines from the edge of the TSBD to middle of the two pillars given an angle of 8°.

Add another 8° to Lamson's orange right FOV and you'll see how wide the Allen picture had to be! Rediculous.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

In his overhead View Lamson used small dots instead of real size human. Most likely on purpose.

I've added human shapes for scale to show the truth.

This is Lamson world. Sheer madness. Even here he can't stop to swindle.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[John Dolva]

I think great strides are being made here.

I think a collaborative attitude could really rev things up.

[Craig Lamson]

What can be witnessed here is a ludicrous disaster.

First, Craig Lamson claimed in the first posting, the Paper bag to be 8.5 inches wide while

shooting his images with a full frame 24x36mm camera and a lens parameter of 24mm.

The vertical angle of his lense is 53° but is using now for his overhead view a different angle of 51°.

He is comparing full frame uncropped (allegedly) 24mm lens photos and uses different angles!

Yes I did, I used 51 degrees to illustrate SOME the cropping of the allen printed..which MUST BE CROPPED if it was printed in an enlarger with anything BUT a glass negative carrier. Of course we know the Allen photo is cropped given the fact that the FBI and the 5x7 print posted on Speers site show a different amount of image on the right side of the frame, indicating a different crop. There is NO DOUBT the ALLEN photo is cropped. The only question is HOW MUCH? Here we have Hinrichs giving us a great illustration of his ignorance of the subject matter.

Now let's take a closer look at his Overhead view and his "51°" Field of View with his orange lines.

In the uncropped Allen Photo just a fraction of the DalTex is in sight on the right.

Now look at Lamson's field of view in orange lines:

MISTAKE TWO for Hinrichs...Allen is NOT uncropped and is this provable by simply reviewing the photos above.

Compare my blue lines from the edge of the TSBD to middle of the two pillars given an angle of 8°.

Add another 8° to Lamson's orange right FOV and you'll see how wide the Allen picture had to be! Rediculous.

Now this is LOL funny! Hinrichs wants to add 8 degrees to my nominal 51 degeee FOV. Lets do the math... 51+8=59 ... I guess things must be very different in Germany. There 59=53, or at least it does in HInrichs math....

In his overhead View Lamson used small dots instead of real size human. Most likely on purpose.

I've added human shapes for scale to show the truth.

This is Lamson world. Sheer madness. Even here he can't stop to swindle.

Thanks for adding the shapes Martin they MAKE my point perfectly.

And of course what a perfect illustration this is into the world of a CT. Instead of actually dealing directly with the fact that fixed LOS now establishs the camera position of Allen which also fixes a good many of the actual actors ( along with the shadows which also fix position) Hinrichs gets lost in the trees and fails to see the forest. Instead of showing us HIS version version of how Allen was taken, ( because he CAN'T and make it fit his theory the bag is bigger)he instead attacks NOMINAL measurements on a rough diagram. How childish. You see Hinrichs can't prove his points so instead he wants to try and discredit me. I offered a simple test to show why his theory is wrong and he can't rebut. Thats fine. It's how things work.

So ask Hinrichs, or Speer for that matter to show us how THEY think it happened.

[Craig Lamson]

Collaborative with Lammy?

He is the Sturdivan of photography.

And sadly for you..and Speer and Hinrichs, I'm still right.

[Martin Hinrichs]

I think great strides are being made here.

I think a collaborative attitude could really rev things up.

Thanks John.

Once Craig started to behave collaborative, i'll do it as well.

It would be a good step forward.

best

Martin

[John Dolva]

I think great strides are being made here.

I think a collaborative attitude could really rev things up.

Thanks John.

Once Craig started to behave collaborative, i'll do it as well.

It would be a good step forward.

best

Martin

Welcome, Martin..

Yes, from my viewpoint I am learning things. Particularly about ways of derving data from still photos which is an ongoing study for me. One could also say it is beneficial in all ways, or as we say in Oz, all's good.. (in some way)

[Martin Hinrichs]

Welcome, Martin..

Yes, from my viewpoint I am learning things. Particularly about ways of derving data from still photos which is an ongoing study for me. One could also say it is beneficial in all ways, or as we say in Oz, all's good.. (in some way)

You are welcome as well John. I dislike it be that harsh.

The best sentence i can imagine for my harsh reponse is in german.

It can't be very good translated as far as i'am aware.

Do you understand German a bit?

Wie man in den Wald hineinruft, so schallt es heraus!

Usually i'am a very modest person but sometimes you have to fire back.

In particular when it goes to handle Craig Lamson.

I said it today in a PM to a nice person.

To deal with Craig is like to clean the toilet. It's ugly, but sometimes you have to do it.

Yes, you say something good.

To analyze Still photos accurate is pretty difficult and not that easy.

When one do it, he/she should very careful.

Dale Myers made a great job in his acoustic evidence work what this regards.

Also his job on Badgeman is well although with minor mistakes.

His SBT work exposed him as agenda driven biased person.

Well, he received an Emmy Award for it.

Ben Johnson got a gold medal for his famous 100 Meter run in 9.79 seconds at the Olympic games in 1988 in Seoul.

Do i have to say more?

best to you

Martin

[Craig Lamson]

I said it today in a PM to a nice person.

To deal with Craig is like to clean the toilet. It's ugly, but sometimes you have to do it.

You got that backwards...the correct statement is:

To deal with CT's totally IGNORANT of the process called photography is like cleaning a toilet! Sometimes you just have to wash the poo stains away...

I've ZERO interest in collaboration with CT's. Much better to just expose the poo and wash it away.

As it is with Speers, and Hinrichs silly claims.

You LOST Hinrichs, it's TIME for you to own up to that fact....

Edited December 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

I guess Pat is having a VERY hard time trying to find an overhead that works fro his 10 foot camera to subject distance. So I'll give him mine to stir the pot just a bit.

WHile reworking my overhead I was scanning the FBI Allen and I made a super discovery...a SECCOND LOS to fix the camera wiht. I had been using the smoer guys foor and shaodow ro fix that side of the LOS but the left side was still a swag. But here it was...the post for the top of the handrail and the edge of the entryway! This provided the final LOS needed to FIX the Allens camera position. It is now LOCKED IN!

This is both good and bad. Its bad for me because smoker is now 11 feet from Allen and not 9. Not all bad because the perspective still works ( because it is STILL a swag...we cant really tell how tall Monty is since his legs are cut off) but still he moved and I'll admit I was wrong.. It's REALLY bad for Pat because now he MUT work wiht a FIXED camera position for Allen. He can't jsut move him back. He has to move Monty AWAY from the camera to get hsi 10 feet and that jsut won't work. Its BAD for PAt becuse it shoot his theory rihgt doe=wnthe tubes.

Finally its really good for me because this is the final nail in in the coffin of Speer's really silly claim about the size of the bag. Of course I really don't expect him to admit his error...

Craig, aren't you forgetting something? You said the smoker was about nine feet from Montgomery not because it kinda looked like it, but because the comparative size of the smoker to Montgomery DEMANDED it. I wonder what the relative size of the subjects is...now...

Now it's not that I don't enjoy the fact that you now acknowledge that my eyeball study of the photo telling me the smoker was further than nine feet from Montgomery was correct, and that what you claimed was a "perfect fit" was nothing but a fantasy...

but...you're still wrong...

Was it a coincidence that, when you first claimed the smoker was nine feet away from the camera, you posted an image in which his coat was extra dark, and one couldn't make out the shadow of the newsman on his stomach? Hmmm... Is it a coincidence that this missing shadow proved you wrong, and still proves you wrong?

I mean, let's see a side view of these men, showing us how the shadow of the newsman ended up on the stomach of the smoker you now claim was a little over two feet away, and the shadow of the smoker's head ended up on the front wall of the TSBD, several yards away.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

As inside. so outside? The hineinruft needs to be split I think to decipher it? Anyway, I'm happy for Ben.

Best to you too.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, aren't you forgetting something? You said the smoker was about nine feet from Montgomery not because it kinda looked like it, but because the comparative size of the smoker to Montgomery DEMANDED it. I wonder what the relative size of the subjects is...now...

No, I'm not forgetting ANYTHING. The discovery of the second LOS WHICH FIXES the camera position of Allen cased my previous camera positon to move. That changed the distance. I'm happy to admit I was wrong, because it totally proves you wrong. So I had to take a second look at the sizes of Montgomery and Smoker,, more to the point I had to work out the most likely spot for Montys FOOT to see just how large he was in the print. SoI did some informal tests. Montys foot is WELL below what I had thought. The difference in size is not 1/3 but nearly 1/2, and that fits the distance distance much better. Amazing stuff, and yes I had it wrong the first time around. Shame on me for taking your claim and just running with it without doing homework. Sadly for me your claim was a good fit for my original camera position. Crap happens. And of course thats how HONEST research is conducted. My mistake was not checking YOUR claims beforte using them. As usual you got it all wrong...again.

Now it's not that I don't enjoy the fact that you now acknowledge that my eyeball study of the photo telling me the smoker was further than nine feet from Montgomery was correct, and that what you claimed was a "perfect fit" was nothing but a fantasy...

but...you're still wrong...

Ah no, I'm stilL RIGHT and you are STILL wrong. The only difference is that I've admitted my mistake and you have not.

Was it a coincidence that, when you first claimed the smoker was nine feet away from the camera, you posted an image in which his coat was extra dark, and one couldn't make out the shadow of the newsman on his stomach? Hmmm... Is it a coincidence that this missing shadow proved you wrong, and still proves you wrong?

Ah no, its those very shadows that proves me CORRECT Pat. What do you think LED me to the positon of smoker, reportere and Beers inhte first place?

I mean, let's see a side view of these men, showing us how the shadow of the newsman ended up on the stomach of the smoker you now claim was about two feet away, and the shadow of the smoker's head ended up on the front wall of the TSBD, several yards away.

Sure..WHY NOT! BTW, the newsman is approx. 4 feet from the chest of smoker...not two. It's a very good fit considering the assumption tan every person in the photo so six feet tall....

Once again you are going down in flames. Based on 3pm sun angle. You want to make it 2:25? LOL!

So Pat, I keep doing as you ask and KEEP PROVING YOUR CLAIM WRONG. It's YOUR turn to actually add something of value.

Show us YOUR overhead view that gives us the positons of all the actors in the Allen photo...lets compare...

Surely I've held up my end of the bargin, now its YOUR turn.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Martin Hinrichs]

Yes I did, I used 51 degrees to illustrate SOME the cropping of the allen printed..which MUST BE CROPPED

Of course we know the Allen photo is cropped given the fact that the FBI and the 5x7 print posted on Speers site show a different amount of image on the right side of the frame, indicating a different crop. There is NO DOUBT the ALLEN photo is cropped.

Yes I did, I used 51 degrees to illustrate SOME the cropping of the allen printed..which MUST BE CROPPED

You Lolly, your work is based upon of an uncropped Allen photo. Clear?

It does stands and falls with it.

Your theory is phony when the Allen photo is a crop. Understand?

Have you ever seen a negative contact sheet from the Allen photos, Liarson?

Rework your overhead disaster and come back.

As i said before, do research before you type.