Craig Lamson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Once again you try to confuse the issue... The 20 foot movement was not AT the TSBD but at an angle... the 5 foot movement was not perpendicular.. but at yet another ANGLE You have NO IDEA how the camera was moved or to where... you make assumptions and ASSUME the LEVER math works since you start your example off with a WRONG ASSUMPTION. and then support you WRONG ASSUMPTION with wrong movements Try again CL... The example you posted (red line movement to blue line) is approx 20 feet on the Don R map. (since Moorman is 40 feet from Altgens) Your own lines show the slight movement in the LOS to the TSBD lettering as you claim. If a 20 foot movement can result in a minor change to the LOS - AS YOU HAVE SHOWN AND PROVEN -... why do you keep claiming only a 10" movement for the recreation camera? I see the concept of triangulation is lost on your davie.... Put the camera ANYWHERE you want ...and the math works out the same. EARTH TO DAVIE...EARTH TO DAVIE.... There really is only one location that fits for the Altgens and only one location that fits for the recreation. If we take the Plat as correct, the MATH...based on the simple principle of the lever puts the camera movement at less than a foot...with the camera moving easterly. This is NOT rocket science. And if you think you can move the camera 20-40 feet IN ANY DIRECTION and get the two lines of sight to match what we see in the comparison between the Altgens and the recreation...PLEASE SHOW US. And in case you missed it again, the movement at the letters was almost 2 feet! Are you now claiming this is nearly TWO FEET of movement? This is still blowing your own crap right back on you davie. The movement of the brick and the letters was a matter of just FEW INCHES each dave. That translates to a foot or less at the camera dave. Time for you to man up and admit you have it wrong...again. Edited March 1, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 You are hilarious CL.. Do you not notice that the entire recreation picture is taken from a less extreme low-to-high LOS... as if the camera is pointed more straight on rather than UP at an angle... are you going to now show us those math skills and tell us how 10 inches in any direction changes the LOS VERTICALLY on a 3 degree slope ? Here are the two images in a gif... it is OBVIOUS the walls of the TSBD tilt forward from Altgens to the recreation... IOW the camera is pointing LESS of an angle upward than in Altgens... How much further up Elm can the camera move so that it can be used almost head on and STILL be able to match the tree in front of the TSBD? You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inches to accompish the vertical shift in the image and finally CL... your re-example of the letter movement once again assumes only perpendicular movement.... If we keep all things constant and simply move 20 feet directly closer to the TSBD and up the 3 degree slope, you wanna bet the photos can be made to look the same even though the location has changed dramatically? and since you have no idea from where the recreation photo was taken... you cannot work backwards ASSUMING they were taken from the same place. The ONLY way your LEVER math works is if you can figure out the EXACT perpendicular change AND the exact angular change VERTICALLY as his position is moved UP both Elm and the slope.. Go get 'em CL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 You are hilarious CL.. Do you not notice that the entire recreation picture is taken from a less extreme low-to-high LOS... as if the camera is pointed more straight on rather than UP at an angle... Watch davie jo attempt to change the subject since he can't deal with the on one the table. are you going to now show us those math skills and tell us how 10 inches in any direction changes the LOS VERTICALLY on a 3 degree slope ? Clearly we can use the very same principle of the lever to compute the change in camera height. But why don't we find the horizontal first? Since the vertical LOS won't change the Horizontal LOS. Here are the two images in a gif... it is OBVIOUS the walls of the TSBD tilt forward from Altgens to the recreation... IOW the camera is pointing LESS of an angle upward than in Altgens... Or simply a differnt ROTATION of the prints....are you unable to rotate a photo to vertical davie? ROFLMAO! How much further up Elm can the camera move so that it can be used almost head on and STILL be able to match the tree in front of the TSBD? Earth to Dave...its not just the tree, ITS EVERY LOS IN THE ENTIRE IMAGE. Movement one direction effects a LOS in another. Wow, this is really over your head. There is only ONE camera position that works for the recreation...less than a foot from the Altgens position. Why not just man up and admit it. You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inches to accompish the vertical shift in the image A vertical shift will not change the horizontal LOS. Can you get any sillier? and finally CL... your re-example of the letter movement once again assumes only perpendicular movement.... If we keep all things constant and simply move 20 feet directly closer to the TSBD and up the 3 degree slope, you wanna bet the photos can be made to look the same even though the location has changed dramatically? Wrong again davie. If you move towards the TSBD, you change the LOS in both directions. In fact simple moving directly towards the TSBD causes the LOS for each to move OUTWARD. The movements we see in the recreation are BOTH MOVE TO THE LEFT. In other words yo lose the bet...big time simply because of your ignorance of this very basic math. and since you have no idea from where the recreation photo was taken... you cannot work backwards ASSUMING they were taken from the same place. The ONLY way your LEVER math works is if you can figure out the EXACT perpendicular change AND the exact angular change VERTICALLY as his position is moved UP both Elm and the slope.. I do know where the recreation was taken from...less than a foot easterly of the Altgens position. How? Simple, I can see the movements that take place when I compare the two images at two different lOS. And I can apply the principle of the lever to find the distance the camera moves. This allows for a TRIANGULATION. BTW, why do you assume the camera was MOVE UP THE STREET to change the camera height? Clearly a photographer can positon a camera at ANY height above the surface that he chooses. Why can't this simple be a case of the recreation camera being placed higher above the street than the Altgens camera? Is dave making assumptions again? ROFLMAO! Go get 'em CL... Your turn now davie. Show us a camera position that is 30 to 40 feet from the Altgens location that fits the LOS's seen in the recreation. You KNOW where I have it,and it fits perfectly. Lets see YOUR work davie... I'm going out for the evening. You have all night. Time for you to PUT UP or SHUT UP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Nothing but rhetoric in your response yet again CL.... a great big "F" for the photo expert... You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inchesto accompish the vertical shift in the image A vertical shift will not change the horizontal LOS. Can you get any sillier? Same old CL BS... where in my question do I use the word HORIZONTAL? YOU claim that a movement of 10 inches is enough FOR THE HORIOZONTAL movement of the letters - yet that would and could ONLY BE perpendicular to the LOS... Yet placeing the camera 10 inches from the Altgens location PERPENDICULAR TO THE LOS would not create enough of a VERTICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE to account for the change in the recreation's vertical LOS... YOU LOSE as usual... unless you can show how moving 10 inches from Altgen's spot also changes the vertical LOS as we see it... The recreation MUST be further up Elm and very near the same LOS as the Altgens... NOT exactly the same... but close.... to both account for the Horizontal AND vertical changes in the LOS... Now flap your lips and say nothing yet again in your reply... your argument works with only one type of movement - perpendicular... Maybe you will realize that moving the camera 10 inches perpendicular to the LOS does NOTHING to the vertical LOS, AND tilting the camera to a more level LOS at this 10 inch location would result in items within the recreation to be further out of VERTICAL alignment as they are... If the lens was the same and the distance just about the same, the images should match. Altgens' position was moved much more than 10 inches perpendicular to his LOS.... Why not admit that your LEVER math only works with perpendicular motion on a level plane CL? a bit too stubborn for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Nothing but rhetoric in your response yet again CL.... a great big "F" for the photo expert... You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inchesto accompish the vertical shift in the image A vertical shift will not change the horizontal LOS. Can you get any sillier? Same old CL BS... where in my question do I use the word HORIZONTAL? Silly boy, the entire discussion has been about a HORIZONTAL parallax shift, until YOU decided you needed to change the subject. And why? Because you were getting creamed. YOU claim that a movement of 10 inches is enough FOR THE HORIOZONTAL movement of the letters - yet that would and could ONLY BE perpendicular to the LOS... Yet placeing the camera 10 inches from the Altgens location PERPENDICULAR TO THE LOS would not create enough of a VERTICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE to account for the change in the recreation's vertical LOS... Horizontal and vertical changes in parallax are governed by different camera movements(at least in the context of this discussion). The are INDEPENDENT of each other. To make it so even you can understand, raising and lowering the camera will not effect a HORIZONTAL LOS, that can only be changed by a LATERAL camera displacement. Conversely a lateral camera displacement will not effect a VERTICAL LOS, that can only be changed by camera elevation in relation to the subject. Photo 101 stuff dave... Further you got it wrong when you said there was a substantial difference in the vertical leveling of cameras. If you rotate both images to vertical you can see there is no "keystoning" in either image There were both shot on very near the same vertical leveling. dave is wrong again. YOU LOSE as usual... unless you can show how moving 10 inches from Altgen's spot also changes the vertical LOS as we see it... You don't understand what a LOS is dave. Its the alignment of three points along a line. And if we look at the alignment of the notches on the concrete pillar and compare them to the wall of the TSBD we will little to no amount of change to the VERTICAL LOS. Which means the elevation of the camera has not changed. You are the loser as usual. The recreation MUST be further up Elm and very near the same LOS as the Altgens... NOT exactly the same... but close.... to both account for the Horizontal AND vertical changes in the LOS... So then PLOT it and show us exactly WHERE that camera must be! Remember there is approx a 3" movement at the face of a 8 inch wide "S" and a approx 3" movement at the bricks and concrete pillar ( less than 1/2 of an 8.25" brick). For comparison 3" is sightly larger than the width of the lines I placed on the PLAT! Instead of waving your hands...prove your point. Let the entertainment begin! Now flap your lips and say nothing yet again in your reply... your argument works with only one type of movement - perpendicular... Nothing wrong with that, we can calculate it anywhere, and it still works. But...and this is a very big but...given the distances involved the movements of the camera and predetermined to be in the 1 foot or less range. That's the ONLY way it works dave. If you think otherwise than SHOW US. Maybe you will realize that moving the camera 10 inches perpendicular to the LOS does NOTHING to the vertical LOS, AND tilting the camera to a more level LOS at this 10 inch location would result in items within the recreation to be further out of VERTICAL alignment as they are... There is no measurable change in the Vertical LOS, and besides you don't even understnad the term. Lets teach you another lesson. Tilting the camera up or down a few degrees at subject 200+feet away will result in an almost invisible parallax change. WHY? The PRINCIPLE OF THE LEVER. A small tilt "MIGHT" change the position of the lens nodal point a fraction of an inch. But since we are working on a 1/3ish ratio, a1 inch change at the camera only produces 1/3 of an inch at the wall or letters. In other words, dave is simply without a clue. If the lens was the same and the distance just about the same, the images should match. Altgens' position was moved much more than 10 inches perpendicular to his LOS.... The lens is immaterial, yet another rookie mistake by dave. And the photos CAN'T match. The PERSPECTIVE has changed. Camera to subject distance changes perspective and the camera to subject distance changed. Photo 101 and dave fails again. Why not admit that your LEVER math only works with perpendicular motion on a level plane CL? a bit too stubborn for that? A HORIZONTAL LOS is independent of camera elevation(at least in the context of this discussion). And we can calculate the lever movement of two LOS. We simple recalculate the ratio from the new position. This is just triangles after all dave. The long and short of it is this. dave simply has it wrong. He does not understand the subject matter. BUT HEY, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN FIND A DIFFERENT COMBINATION OF LOS'S THAT FIT THE RECREATION THAT IS NOT LESS THAN A FOOT AWAY...SHOW US! Enough BS dave. Edited March 2, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Bump....for: David Josephs Still waiting for you to show us your triangulated LOS that puts Altgens recreation 30-40 feet from the Altgens 6 location. Either that or your..oh, I screwed up big time and I don't know a thing about any of this admission... Time to man up dave and not slink away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Lamson... you are simply not worth the time or effort When and if you ever - stop trolling the forums, - disrupting every thread, - proclaiming yourself God/Emperor of the photo - and learn something about math maybe others will be interested in playing in the sandbox with you... as for me... you're just another annoying gnat on a bull's A$$ wishing someone would give you the credibility and respect you so crave on the threads you continually interrupt. and from the emails I get... I'm no where near the only person here who knows this.. So you keep on getting your jollies anyway you know how.... I'm sure at your age ANYTHING will do.... and continue posting - so we see how little you know or understand about the assasination btw - please, please don't forget the cute little insults you've become known for... they've become the only reason to read your posts anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Translated from davie speak... "I don't have the first clue...so I'll offer up some lame excuses and insults and bs instead of actully proving my silly statements." Time for you to man up and admit you screwed up. IF you have the first ounce of intellectual honesty. Edited March 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Clocks ticking davie...your credibility is heading down the toilet.... YOU made the 30-40 claim....your turn to provide the proof, even though you don't have the first idea of HOW. Photo 101 stuff davie, do you have the smarts to understand? Chances are you don't. I suspect you will run away and hide as usual. Edited March 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Whatever helps you sleep thru the night CL.... regardless - you're still seen as an inconvenient interruption and an intellectual midget when it comes to understanding the mechanics of the conspiracy or the realities of evidence and authentication... You STILL dont understand the math of either Chris/Tom or your pathetic lever attempt... or why it is so apparent the recreation did what it did... Where's the rest of the recreation photo CL... if they only moved 10 inches... why the cropping that removes any reference to the actual location of the camera? Unless you have the FULL recreation photo somewhere... if not... you have no idea where the camera was, or why they would recreate it in such a way as to hide the actual location of Altgens... Maybe the attitude of the WC could shed some light... did THEY care where Altgens was?? Not so much... Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired DJ: which would be about z250-z255Except LIFE puts the shot at z264 while NPIC puts it at z242 - both AFTER JFK and JC are hit and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases. Y'know CL... instead of living in a vacuum, maybe you'd be better served to read a little background first... know WHY the location of Altgens is so important... but I forget that you dont really care about this... only interruption, trolling and insulting... hey, at least you found your calling... Still trying to peddle those 3 inches of yours ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) As I predicted davie Joe runs away and hides instead of PROVING his silly claim. He runs because he can't prove his claim because it is an impossible claim, . The recreation photo proves it was taken from a camera location of less than a foot from the Altgens 6. This proof is unimpeachable. The triangulated LOS's make any other camera position impossible. Davie Jo simply can't understand this very simply math and the very basics of photographic perspective. Instead he rants and raves and offers nothing at all to even try and prove his physical claim. Regardless of his ignorance in this regard, the simple fact remains, the camera movement was less than a foot. Oh, let's school poor davie once more. The lens has no effect on perspective. There is no need for there to be any "more" image to be cropped from the recreation. Or there could be even more than what was n the Altgens. The long and short of it, which is beyond your very limited ability to understand, is that the lens used is meaningless. The LOS's will remain the same and it's the LOS's that totally destroy you. Btw, it's very clear that Tom and Chris don't understand their fantasy.....heck poor old Tom know less about perspective than you do and your ignorance in this regard is stunning. But thanks, you have totally killed any semblance of photographic ability you thought you had... You are worthless in this discussion. Now run away and hide you silly little boy. Edited March 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Thanks CL For once again proving what a complete waste of breathe you remain..... Ignorant people such as yourself insult those they cannot understand... lash out at Chris and Tom for showing what a complete you are and always will remain... Now you proclaim that the recreation photo could be taken with any lens, from any distance cause all that matters is perspective.... So show us the full recreation photo CL... if it was taken with a 105mm lens like Altgens... it would look the same as Altgens (as it should)... it does not... it is either cropped or was taken with a longer focal length and there was no cropping or was taken with a shorter focal length and was severely cropped OR - it was taken from a different location.... further up Elm and off the LOS as to make it impossible to tell exactly where.... By your own admission CL, if the camera was moved 20 feet closer and 1 foot to the right and taken with a 50mm lens the recreation photo can STILL be made to look as if the camera was in the original Altgens location due to the similiar perspective and cropping/enlarging... when in reality the camera was not where the recreation camera was positioned and the recreation is a lie to hide where Altgens really was.. Yet another MISTAKEN WITNESS CL?? So many of them for you to try and refute... and you fail each and every time... BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 By your own admission CL, if the camera was moved 20 feet closer and 1 foot to the right and taken with a 50mm lens the recreation photo can STILL be made to look as if the camera was in the original Altgens location due to the similiar perspective and cropping/enlarging... when in reality the camera was not where the recreation camera was positioned and the recreation is a lie to hide where Altgens really was.. Earth to the silly little boy davie Jo.....That's not my claim...it's yours. The Truth is that moving the camera 1x20 changes the image completely and no amount of cropping or enlargement will make it look like the Altgens 6. Why? Because the perspective will be radically changed! why don't plot it davie jo? Afraid to see what happens when you do? This is photo 101 and like Tom and Chris, you fail once again. You need to forget your fetish with unreliable witness testimony and deal with the real facts instead. Oh wait, your finally crafted and well guarded fantasy just might crumble. Can't have that now can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 For simplicity, let's just say: Had James Altgens been anywhere near the position from which the "re-enactment" photo was taken from, then he would have appeared in the Z-film and thereafter, Specter; Shaneyfelt; & Company would not have had to cease publishings of frames of the Z-film at Z334. Which is of course prior to James Altgens coming into view in the film. Truthfully, nothing that difficult in understanding the WHY? of the majority of the WC's obfuscations. That is when one understands the reason for the WHY? Sorry Tom you are wrong. The Altgens 6 and the recreation were taken from very nearly the same spot, about 1 foot apart. Forget the movable objects and concentrate the FIXED. It is clear that very little lateral movement has taken place. Check the LOS and do a bit-o-math and you will see the location is very near the location shown on the Don Roberdeau Plat. Which also fits nicely with the Z film. Check the LOS and do a bit-o-math and you will see the location is very near the location shown on the Don Roberdeau Plat. Which also fits nicely with the Z film. That would be a futile attempt at resolution of something from nothing! Since I have in my possession a copy of the full-sized Warren Commission survey plat, which has a scale of 1-inch = 10 feet, and this survey plat clearly shows the yellow curb mark at which James Altgens was standing beside, then absolutely no purpose can be served by attempting to resolve anything from the "Roberdeau Plat". And, since: The yellow curb marking is in the exact same place as it was during the previous SS, as well as FBI assassination re-enactments, then, again, the "Roberdeau Plat" is again useless. And lastly, since SS Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt made hand-drawn notes during the FBI assassination re-enactment of 2/7/64, and one set of these notes shows precisely the yellow curb mark and James Altgens location in relationship to it, then again, the "Roberdeau Plat" continues to remain useless to me. Just for the uninformed, the Warren Commission ceased to publishe frames of the Z-film past Z334, which is just prior to James Altgens coming into view in the film. This too was one of Shaneyfelt's shenanigans. Thereafter, the Warren Commission, on paper, "moved" James Altgens position way back up Elm St, in order to make attempt at further confusion of where he was actually standing. Needless to say, the "horizontal" alignment of Altgens true position vs. his Warren Commission "make-believe" position, is not that great. But! The Street curb (and an "expansion joint" in it), ties Altgens true and exact position quite well, and the re-enactment photo was not taken from this position, which as stated, Lyndal Shaneyfelt knew to within a few inches from the days of the FBI assassination re-enactment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 BTW davie, the focal length of the lens is immaterial. Is this so hard for you to understand? Take a photo from the same distance with two different focal length lenses and crop to match. Guess what davie jo, the perspective stays the same. Let's play with CL a bit - shall we... Not real good with that focusing are you - Mr. Professional The 24mm photo is out of focus... or is not focused on the van but on some item closer to the camera... as can be seen in the enlargement... You suppose they took a recreation photo SPECIFICALLY to crop to size and enlarge cause they couldn't simply put a 105mm lens at the spot Altgens took his photo? There a reason this 105mm recreation image HAD to be cropped - it was not taken at the spot Altgens was standing, not even close So once again CL... with which lens did they shoot the recreation photo so that many of the same components in the Altgens photo cannot be seen in the recreation photo... and from what distance... I agree with you that SAME DISTANCE DIFF LENS can be sized to match, never said it couldn't... Problem is these two photos cannot be sized to match since they were taken from different positions - nothing lines up with anything else - you can only line up individual elements within the photos... and since you don't know whether they moved 20 feet closer and used a 50mm lens then cropped... or moved 15 feet closer and a few steps over and used a 105mm lens as is... You can come to no conclusion related to the position of the camera in the recreation... for once again... the lever only allows movement in a small arc perpendicular to that which you are using as the fulcrum...That movement off LOS axis can be represented by a line extending from this arc ot the TSBD... this line can be used as LOS anywhere along it's length... If I were to move 20 feet closer to the TSBD on a line thru the limo and 1/2 foot to the right... I'd be pretty close to being on that LOS you claim can only be in a 10" arc connected to your lever. Since the photos cannot be matched we KNOW they were not taken at the same location - you claim a 10" movement (in which direction CL?) on an arc based on lever math - and that this accounts for all the displacement of objects in the image... I am saying, based on the following illustration... that any movement in the original position (blue line) creates a LOS that can be duplicated either closer or father away from the original location (red arrows pointing to locations along the LOS where a camera COULD have taken the recreation photo) and that the inability to line up the two images would be the same - can't be done. Bottom line is you have no idea were the recreation image was taken from cause your lever math does not disinguish between movements along the new LOS closer and farther from the subject... it can only discuss HORIZONTAL movement along an arc... So as you keep saying... you cannot measure between two images with different perspective... these two images have different perspective... by definition there is nothing you can offer to determine the distance of the camera in the recreation photo other than the angle of change in the LOS. Distances and focal lengths can be played with until the "cropped" recreation matches a piece of the Altgens photo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now