Craig Lamson Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 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... davie jo shows his photographic ignorance once again. The 24mm is a small crop from a much larger frame. Of course it it not as sharp as the full frame 105mm shot...it has substantially less pixels to record the same detail. I'm not alone...same thing happens here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/changing-perspective.shtml Photo 101 davie jo, and you fail again. Man you are batting ZERO... 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? You CAN'T crop, size and enlarge and get the same or even similar perspective between the two positions ..its a mathematical impossibility. Learn how a lever works davie jo. Strike two. Besides the lens does not matter at ALL. Only camera to subject distance. Which you SHOULD have learned by now. Clearly this is beyond your limited ability to understand. There a reason this 105mm recreation image HAD to be cropped - it was not taken at the spot Altgens was standing, not even close Wrong again...it was VERY close...less than a foot and MULTIPLE LOS's prove. 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... The lens they used is immaterial davie jo. How many times do we need to go over this point before it sinks in? ONLY camera to subject distance can change perspective and THAT is what changes multipile LO's. LOS's that can TRIANGULATE A POSITION. Only ONE position will create the recreation position, and the movement of the different LOS PROVE that movement was less than a foot. Poof, you have blown up yet again davie jo. 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... Earth to davie jo, you can't line up ANY elements. The perspective has changed and NOTHING is going to match. You can't do what you think you can do. This is just more davie jo photographic lunacy. Man will any of this EVER register. What you CAN do is compare movement of different objects relative to other objects on a given LOS and calculate the movement. You can also TRIANGULATE multiple LOS and find an exact camera position. In other words we can know the recreation camera was, and in this case its less than a foot from the altgens 6 location. Again htis is photo analysis 101 and you fail...miserably. 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... Since we can measure the movement of different LOS in between both images and the movement is all cases is less that half a foot..and given the distances involved...the small arc of the the lever moment is compact enough to give us very accurate measurements. LESS THAN A FOOT. The camera cannot have moved farther and still retained the small movements as seen in the comparisons between the two photos. Its a mathematical impossibility. Learn how a lever works davie jo. 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. earth to davie jo. While you would be nearly the same on THAT los, you would fail on all of the others. ITS HOW A LEVER WORKS davie jo. 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... As I've said all along forward and to camera right. This can be plotted. Try it sometime instead of spouting off about thing you know nothing about. This is not rocket science And yes, even this small amount of movement causes all the displacement 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... Wrong again davie jo. We have many LOS in the two images and we can compare and calculate directly from them. And those calculations (or a simple los plot) determine the location of BOTH cameras. Its called triangulation. "tri·an·gu·la·tion (tr-nggy-lshn) n. 1. a. A surveying technique in which a region is divided into a series of triangular elements based on a line of known length so that accurate measurements of distances and directions may be made by the application of trigonometry. " Your ignorance of this simple process of photo analysis precludes you from understanding WHY you have it wrong. 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... Wrong yet again. We CAN measure between two images. In depth that is called Photogrammetry. pho·to·gram·me·try (ft-grm-tr) n. 1. The process of making maps or scale drawings from photographs, especially aerial photographs. 2. The process of making precise measurements by means of photography. What you can't do is resize different photos and attempt to measure directly...like you keep doing...wrongly. The only time you can is if the two photos were taken from the exact same camera position. Photo 101 davie joe, and you fail once again. And enough with the claim that distance and focal length can be played with...you don't have clue what it is you are talking about. Case in point...the Altgens 6 was taken with a 105 mm lens. The Moorman of the motorcycle cop was taken with a 100mm lens both from nearly the same position. Why is it they have vastly different FOV? Thats only ONE los davie. Lets see what happens in the world you don't inhabit...the real world... and now lets watch davie jo's silly theory get blown completely out of the water. 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 The cheering I am getting is wonderful... The longer you stay here, arguing your worthless points, the less likely you are to interrupt on other threads... I'm being nominated for the Education Forum's "How to keep a xxxxx busy" award.... and all one need do is disagree with you Your image's lines are all wrong CL... bad measurements on a map that is not correct to begin with... FAIL again CL.... You think cause you draw a few lines on a map that you're believeable? Your LOS and FOV is determined by the focal length... if the receration camera was 50mm and taken closer to the limo location than the 105mm Altgens... it too can be cropped to be ALMOST the same LOS and FOV as the Altgens photo... What you CAN do is compare movement of different objects relative to other objects on a given LOS and calculate the movement. You can also TRIANGULATE multiple LOS and find an exact camera position. In other words we can know the recreation camera was, and in this case its less than a foot from the altgens 6 location. Again htis is photo analysis 101 and you fail...miserably. Then do it CL... put up your work for all to see... determine the EXACT location of the cameras in the recreation AND Altgens photos and plot them onto a map of DP using multiple LOS, your lever math and anything else you want. Just SHOW YOUR WORK for once. And enough with the claim that distance and focal length can be played with...you don't have clue what it is you are talking about. Case in point...the Altgens 6 was taken with a 105 mm lens. The Moorman of the motorcycle cop was taken with a 100mm lens both from nearly the same position. Why is it they have vastly different FOV? First off the polaroid lenses were originally 114mm Secondly... Both from nearly the same position? REALLY? You are now telling us that the Moorman image below was taken from the same position as Altgens' image (and the recreation)? But they were nearly 40 feet apart CL... The FOV is different cause the cameras are pointed in different directions - yet when sized for comparisons the FOV are virtually the same The FACT that Altgens and Moorman can be overlaid and do fit suggests that the images were indeed taken much closer together than the physical evidence shows the distance between them to be... So which is it... was Moorman further down the street for her photo or Altgens further up the street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) The cheering I am getting is wonderful... Cheers from a group of idiots makes you happy? How wonderful for you. The longer you stay here, arguing your worthless points, the less likely you are to interrupt on other threads... I was here long before you arrived and I’ve busted the photographic chops of those far superior to you. I'm being nominated for the Education Forum's "How to keep a xxxxx busy" award.... and all one need do is disagree with you At least there MIGHT be something for which you are you are marginally qualified. Congratulations to you and your horde of silly minions Your image's lines are all wrong CL... bad measurements on a map that is not correct to begin with... FAIL again CL... Really? You found the map to be JUST FINE when you used it not too long ago in this very argument. So now that it destroys you is it wrong. I see. IN any case, please show us all your work PROVING YOUR CLAIM.. Lets review in the hope, however vain , that you MIGHT find a way given your limited resources to understand. The movement of the letters can be calculated and measured, I find it to be about 4inches. The movement of the concrete pillar and the brick wall can be measured and calculated. I find it to be about 4 inches. The movement of the lamppost and concrete blocks can be calculated. I find it to be about 3 inches. You are very welcome to offer up your own figures. Heck I’ll even work with yours. These measurements and the distances involved DEMAND a very small movement at the camera. We can quibble over the exact location of Altgens but he plots pretty close to the position on the Don Robeadeau Map. But if you feel this is a bad map, please, tell ss WHICH ONE YOU think is correct and we will use it. In any case it is impossible to move the recreation more than a foot based on the minimal movements of items on various LOS found in the Altgens and the recreation photo. Your claim of 10’s of feet is simply impossible. You think cause you draw a few lines on a map that you're believeable? I NEVER expect anyone to believe me, I EXPECT they will do the work and find the answers for themselves. Anyone who does so will find I am correct. We can see you are afraid to actually do the work. And lacking the intellectual honesty to admit your error. Your LOS and FOV is determined by the focal length... First focal length is not what determines FOV. Lets review some photographic basics for you. FOV is the angle seen by the lens and transferred to the film. The biggest factor for finding FOV of a given lens is the film format for which it was designed. for example. A 100mm lens for a 4”x5” camera is a wide angle lens. A 100mm lens for a 2”x3” camera is a normal angle lens A 100mm lens for a 35mm full frame camera is a short telephoto lens. A 100mm lens for a APS camera is a telephoto. Clearly davie jo has no clue about any of this. =I don’t show any FOV, and clearly you don’t understand the term. A LOS is simply three point along a line. It is focal length independent. You can find a LOS with your eyeball. Your ignorance in this matter precludes you from even taking part in the discussion. I’ve shown THREE different Lines of sight found in the Altgens. The Top LOS is from the tree trunk to the face of the entrance. The Middle LOS is from the left edge of the concrete pillar and the brickwork of the TSBD The Bottom is from the edge of the lamppost to the decorative concrete window blocks. The movements of these markers determines the location of the recreation camera. if the receration camera was 50mm and taken closer to the limo location than the 105mm Altgens... it too can be cropped to be ALMOST the same LOS and FOV as the Altgens photo... Sheesh, can you get any more silly... If you move the camera closer you drastically change the perspective and the points along the different LOS. In the case of your 1-20 movement it changes what was inches of movement between the Altgens and the recreation to FEET at your new location, That is exactly what my last map proved. You simple CAN’T BEAT the GEOMETRY. YOUR claim is totally without merit and this has been proven unimpeachably. What you CAN do is compare movement of different objects relative to other objects on a given LOS and calculate the movement. You can also TRIANGULATE multiple LOS and find an exact camera position. In other words we can know the recreation camera was, and in this case its less than a foot from the altgens 6 location. Again htis is photo analysis 101 and you fail...miserably. Then do it CL... put up your work for all to see... determine the EXACT location of the cameras in the recreation AND Altgens photos and plot them onto a map of DP using multiple LOS, your lever math and anything else you want. Just SHOW YOUR WORK for once. I have davie jo. I’m sorry if its over your ability to understand. Now on the other hand you have yet to show us ANYTHING that backs you claims that I am wrong. You flap your gums but offer nothing of substance. Why not post ANYTHING that proves your point that you can drastically change the camera position and come up with a photo as close as the recreation is to the Altgens 6. Or are you afraid to try and then have to admit you had it wrong all along? And enough with the claim that distance and focal length can be played with...you don't have clue what it is you are talking about. Case in point...the Altgens 6 was taken with a 105 mm lens. The Moorman of the motorcycle cop was taken with a 100mm lens both from nearly the same position. Why is it they have vastly different FOV? First off the polaroid lenses were originally 114mm Opps, davis jo gets it all wrong again. I had two of those cameras, and I shot the lens quite a bit on a 4x5 view camera. But lets not take my word for it’ Lets go to the Land List...the source for all things Polaroid. http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm Yep...100mm. davie jo is wrong again. Secondly... Both from nearly the same position? REALLY? Did you notice the modifier...NEARLY? Clearly you missed the entire point. This is about cameras, lenses and FOV. Oh wait, you don’t understand FOV. Sorry to confuse you. You are now telling us that the Moorman image below was taken from the same position as Altgens' image (and the recreation)? Of course not. I said NEARLY But they were nearly 40 feet apart CL... Were they? How do you know? Moorman had feet. She knew how to walk. Please show us your calculations. The FOV is different cause the cameras are pointed in different directions - yet when sized for comparisons the FOV are virtually the same The term FOV is clearly beyond your grasp. The Moorman camera and lens had approx 40 degree FOV. The Altgens camera and lens had a an approx 23 degree FOV. Yet both lenses were very close in focal length, 100 to 105. And no amount of “improper sizing” will make the FOV of these camera s the same. Your ignorance is simply stunning, The FACT that Altgens and Moorman can be overlaid and do fit suggests that the images were indeed taken much closer together than the physical evidence shows the distance between them to be... But they DON’T fit. Sheesh... So which is it... was Moorman further down the street for her photo or Altgens further up the street? You tell me, and show us your work. Tell us how much the LOS from the lamppost to the decorative blocks moved from the Moorman to the Altgens. Tell us how much the the LOS from the left edge of the concrete pillar to the brickwork on the TSBD moved from the Moorman to the Altgens. And then tell us how it is possible to move the camera up the street from Altgens towards the limo and keeping these LOS measurements the same as the recreation. It will be quite amusing to see davie jo turn geometry totally on it ear and invent an entirely new form.... Edited March 14, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Getting you to spin your wheels and get all worked up is a pleasure CL... NEARLY means 30-40 feet to you... nice. and Let's try to remember where Altgens RAN FROM after his 5th photo Mr. ALTGENS - Turning right--headed toward the Book Depository Building. Mr. LIEBELER - All right. Mr. ALTGENS - I thereupon grabbed my gadget bag that I carry my extra lenses in and ran fast down across the Dealey Plaza to get down in front of the caravan for some additional pictures and I took this one picture---- Mr. LIEBELER - Wait just a minute now--at this point, as you ran across, you were along Elm Street; is that correct? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I ran across and reached up into--well, the curb area on the west side of Elm Street. DJ: He of course means SOUTH, but WEST of the TSBD Mr. LIEBELER - Across Elm Street from the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you. Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes. (The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.) Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. So see if you can follow CL... Altgens runs PAST MOORMAN'S POSITION to the curb to take his famous photo... we can see the shadows of Mary and Jean in his photo and he claims this position is approx 15 feet from JFK at the time of his head exploding... We KNOW Moorman was than close yet it's 30 more frames before we see Altgens Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. 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. Losing ground here CL... I could post a whole bunch more corroborating evidence for this short movement... 313 - 255 = 58 frames @ 18.3 = 3.17 seconds and according to the WCR survey data the distance from 313 back to 255 is 4+65.3 minus 4+16.4 = 49.9 feet. Except elsewhere in the WCR we KNOW that z313 was at 4+95 or 30 feet farther down the street.... (plus if you read any of Chris or Tim's work you know that already) So the WCR contradicts itself as to the location of z313 by 30 feet... and lo and behold, Chris finds a 30 foot error... the film... and the data accompanying the film DO NOT WORK TOGETHER... So it is really no surprise the recreation is designed to minimize this distance... by moving the camera and not taking a full frame image designed to match Altgens... the entire process was designed to cover up the 30 feet and the real location of Altgens. but then again - you aint never gonna learn what you dont wanna know... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm CE354 Now - Altgens 6 was taken at z255... except: Mr. LIEBELER - You testified previously, I believe, that the first shot that was fired had just been fired momentarily before you took the picture, is that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; it was so close you could almost say it was simultaneous because it was coincidental but nevertheless that's just the way it happened. That sure blows the z220 shot to hell... must be that z242 shot the NPIC found... So, bottom line, regardless of all your photo mumbo jumbo, the data contradicts the physical evidence, as does the testimony... The WCR was trying to hide as much REAL EVIDENCE as possible since they new it would disprove their conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Getting you to spin your wheels and get all worked up is a pleasure CL... NEARLY means 30-40 feet to you... nice. and Let's try to remember where Altgens RAN FROM after his 5th photo ROFLMAO! Poor davie jo, the technical details destroy you and you simply don't have the smarts to understand. SO you decide to change the subject to hide your gross incompetence! Talk about spin. So come on davie, you don't have the first clue WHERE Moorman was. Why do you SHOW us...give us you work and put her in the only spot in Dealey Plaza she could have been when she took the MC photo. So what is it davie? 30 feet? 40 feet? 45 feet? 50 feet? Really, if you can't even figure out where Moorman was you simply are not mentally equipped to deal with the position of the recreation camera. The LEVER tells all davie, as does TRIANGULATION. OH wait...davie don't do technical, only unreliable witness testimony. So see if you can follow CL... Altgens runs PAST MOORMAN'S POSITION to the curb to take his famous photo... we can see the shadows of Mary and Jean in his photo and he claims this position is approx 15 feet from JFK at the time of his head exploding... We KNOW Moorman was than close yet it's 30 more frames before we see Altgens Meaningless. All the data you need to find the location for Altgens, the recreation and for the Moorman MC are contained within each photo. And the FACT...FACT...is that Altgens got his estimate of the distances wrong. His VERY OWN PHOTO proves that. No amount of your cut and paste witness statements will ever be able to impeach this simple fact. Losing ground here CL... I could post a whole bunch more corroborating evidence for this short movement... 313 - 255 = 58 frames @ 18.3 = 3.17 seconds and according to the WCR survey data the distance from 313 back to 255 is 4+65.3 minus 4+16.4 = 49.9 feet. Except elsewhere in the WCR we KNOW that z313 was at 4+95 or 30 feet farther down the street.... (plus if you read any of Chris or Tim's work you know that already) More speculative garbage. The long and short of it is contained WITHIN THE THREE PHOTOS. If you had he ability and the WILLINGNESS to understate the technical details you would see your folly. Sadly, you are locked in so deeply into your fantasy world that real facts scare you so you avoid them like he plague. So the WCR contradicts itself as to the location of z313 by 30 feet... and lo and behold, Chris finds a 30 foot error... the film... and the data accompanying the film DO NOT WORK TOGETHER... So it is really no surprise the recreation is designed to minimize this distance... by moving the camera and not taking a full frame image designed to match Altgens... the entire process was designed to cover up the 30 feet and the real location of Altgens. but then again - you aint never gonna learn what you dont wanna know... You got it BACKWARDS as usual...YOU aint never gonna learn what you don't wanna know... Your long held fantasy world would be in jeopardy if your did. The recreation camera is less than a foot from the Altgens 6 location. The facts the prove this have been presented and you have done nothing to refute them. In fact the Moorman MC photo was introduced just a few posts ago to trip you up and you feel for it hook line and sinker. You claim 20 feet of movement for the recreation, yet that is proven wrong by the Moorman. The movement of the lamppost and decorative blocks and the movement of the left edge of the concrete pillar and the face of the TSBD show exactly what happens when the camera is moved up he street towards the Limo. This simple observation destroys the ignorance you spew about lenses and cropping being able to replicate the camera position of the recreation...which is proven to be only a foot or less from the Altgens 6 location. Clearly your attempt to stray from the technical which you don't understand signals you inability to refute any of this with TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. However it has been great fun showing how completely foolish and utterly incompetent you really are when it comes to photography. Thanks so much for the grins. Maybe you might want to explain to your cheering minions how you got all of this completely wrong.... That sure blows the z220 shot to hell... must be that z242 shot the NPIC found... So, bottom line, regardless of all your photo mumbo jumbo, the data contradicts the physical evidence, as does the testimony... The WCR was trying to hide as much REAL EVIDENCE as possible since they new it would disprove their conclusions. That's what you get when you take the unreliable as fact davie jo...you make fool of yourself. The technical details are the technical details. They tell the REAL STORY. The fact that you call them "mumbo jumbo' speaks volumes about your abject imcompetence. Your inability to refute the technical facts says even more. The bottom line, is that you got it all wrong on the subject of this thread...the location of the recreation photo. It was taken LESS THAN A FOOT from the location of Altgens 6. Tom Purvis screed up BIGTIME. And so did you davie jo. So please, continue wallow in your incompetence. It suits you to a "T". You simply can't handle the truth. Edited March 14, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Keep spinning those wheels CL... The entertainment value is off the charts... I should Show YOU where Moorman was... what a hoot. CL - you have trouble grasping that this was a conspiracy... how do you expect to grasp anything in the REAL world... But please...keep posting... ROTFLMAO The cards and letters keep streaming in... slowing your interrupting other subjects, other threads, is working you're just gonna have to try harder to piss off as many people as you usually do in the course of a week... c'mon boy, JUMP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Keep spinning those wheels CL... The entertainment value is off the charts... I should Show YOU where Moorman was... what a hoot. CL - you have trouble grasping that this was a conspiracy... how do you expect to grasp anything in the REAL world... But please...keep posting... ROTFLMAO The cards and letters keep streaming in... slowing your interrupting other subjects, other threads, is working you're just gonna have to try harder to piss off as many people as you usually do in the course of a week... c'mon boy, JUMP... I don't CARE if it was a conspiracy or not, and you can't prove with compete certainty that is was or was not. It's a fools errand , which might explain your participation. This thread is about the movement of the recreation photo camera position, and on that count you showed your complete incompetence on the technical process used to FIND THAT DISTANCE. I've proven my point and you nor anyone else has offered any rebuttal of substance. I don't really care what you believe davie jo, because the technical details speak for themselves and they totally blew you out of the water. Keep on believing in your fairy tale. Thinking people will understand the concepts of the lever and triangulation, and why you got it wrong. Any guesses where that puts you and your cheering mob? That still leaves YOUR unfinished business. You made this preposterous claim that recreation camera moved 10's of feet towards the TSBD. Time for you to show us your work that prove your claim works. Pick the map of your choice and plot this camera position along three los... The tree and and the letters on the TSBD. The left side of the concrete pillar and the brickwork on hte TSBD. The lamppost and the decorative blocks on the TSBD. Show us YOUR camera position. A map is lens agnostic. Its just simple geometry. Which is how perspective is recorded on film. You rant and rave about "not seeing" work, and here you are with NOTHING that shows yours. Time to quit being a hypocrite davie. Man up...if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Sorry there CL... Definitely not interested in discussing a conspiracy and the mechanics behind it with someone not intelligent enough to realize what happened. You pretend not to care about conspiracy yet fight against the mountain of proof with every breath... and when you are repeatedly put in your place... you start in on McAdams 101... ad hominem university I could care less about your opinions having to do with photography or the assassination... You don't know the material - plain and simple... and since you ONLY CARE about the photography you limit yourself to never understanding the context of the evidence, the provenance of the evidence or the authentication of same. Which is obvious with every one of your posts You're a one horse wonder Craig.... and since your approach to other people is so abrasive... no one gives a sh!t whether you're right or not about the one subject you care to weigh in on. So keep acting like the little yapping dog you are - and keep getting all worked up for not being listened to... Guess that's why you jump and down so much posting, "look at me! look at me!" while never actually saying anything... There are numerous forums with LNers that would eat your BS up in a second... and thank you for it. I've seen your posts there and seen the same reactions you get here... A chuckle, a shaking of the head and "bu-bye"..... Let's see - now why does this sound so familiar? In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Sorry there CL... Definitely not interested in discussing a conspiracy and the mechanics behind it with someone not intelligent enough to realize what happened. I just don't CARE daive. I see reading is yet another thing that eludes you. You pretend not to care about conspiracy yet fight against the mountain of proof with every breath... and when you are repeatedly put in your place... you start in on McAdams 101... ad hominem university I deal with PHOTOGRAPHY davie. Either you guys get it right or your don't. And mostly you get it completely wrong. And yes I do like show the utter hypocrisy of ct's like you. Beside since you don't possess even the very FIRST clue about the photographic process how could you know if anyone has ever "put me in my place" Sheesh. I could care less about your opinions having to do with photography or the assassination... You don't know the material - plain and simple... And yet you reply time and time again in your ever failing attempt to prove me wrong. You are a hypocrite davie. and since you ONLY CARE about the photography you limit yourself to never understanding the context of the evidence, the provenance of the evidence or the authentication of same. Which is obvious with every one of your posts LOL! What a hoot. I talk about what I know. YOU should try it sometime. Then perhaps you would not look so incompetent like when you venture into your great unknown...photography, Oh wait, there is nothing here about how to create a scratch off lottery ticket. Lets face facts here davie. What really hacks you off is that I'm most often right about the photography issues and there is nothing you can do to change that. You're a one horse wonder Craig.... and since your approach to other people is so abrasive... no one gives a sh!t whether you're right or not about the one subject you care to weigh in on. Really NO ONE? ROFLMAO! I know the audience here. Mostly full o crap when it comes to photography. And CT's lost and fully invested in whatever fantasy they have invented to "explain" the JFK case. Some of the most closed minded people on the planet. YOU are the perfect example. Lets take the topic of this thread. The photographs tell a VERY SPECIFIC STORY. And the internal content of each photo is BOUND BY A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF RULES. There is no gray area in these rules. It's black and white. These technical details tell us exactly how much the camera has moved. The recreation photo can be on taken at one very specific spot in Dealey Plaza. Again the rules that govern this are SET IN STONE. But davie jo has a fantasy. To make his fantasy work he wants to MOVE the recreation camera 10's of feet. Never mind the very specific rules that govern the internal content of the images tell davie his fantasy position will not work. Instead he keeps trying to say that the impossible is possible without ever producing the first piece of work that proves his claim. Even when shown graphic proof of his abject failure davie clings tightly to his unproven fantasy. The worst part for daive jo, is his lack of intellectual honesty in this matter. If he had any he would do the work to try and prove his point. He would also spend the time to become educated in the subject matter he was attempting to argue. But no, davie has closed mind. He THINKS he knows, so that must be good enough. He is the PERFECT example of why people should not stray outside of their sphere of knowledge. Clearly davie has no problem looking the fool. So keep acting like the little yapping dog you are - and keep getting all worked up for not being listened to... Guess that's why you jump and down so much posting, "look at me! look at me!" while never actually saying anything... I impart plenty of accurate information davie, you ( and others married to their personal CT fantasy) just can't handle the truth. And I'm not being listened to? Over 2000 times this thread has been read. SOMEONE is listening davie. There are numerous forums with LNers that would eat your BS up in a second... and thank you for it. I've seen your posts there and seen the same reactions you get here... A chuckle, a shaking of the head and "bu-bye"..... Clearly there are those who reject truth, it does not hurt my feelings. Those who want to see he photographic truth, not the ct garbage, will find it. Flame away, its all you have. Let's see - now why does this sound so familiar? In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion Yea davie, it suonds just like you.... Now back to the TOPIC you are trying so hard to avoid ( in a very xxxxx like manner) Show us your work that proves you can move the recreation camera position 10's of feet up the street and still have the LOS's found in the recreation photo. It's YOUR claim. Show us YOUR proof. (maybe you can enlist your cheering mob to help you. Clearly this is way beyond YOUR ken.) Don't try and change the subject again davie. Or are you just a hypocrite who complains but never puts up? This is REALLY simple stuff. WHY are you so afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 It obvious you don't care old man.... and asking you about photography is like asking a fish to teach bicycling.... you make a lot of noise and flop around alot... but nothing ever comes of it... Amazing how everyone is always wrong and only the great and powerful CL has the answers.... yet refuses to show any work for fear of being caught yet again. Keep on rocking it here CL... the break FROM YOU I am finally giving others on the internet has been greatly appreciated.... Nobody's interested in proving anything to you, nor conversing with you, or playing your silly little games... except to keep you busy and away from others. NOTE: you first must HAVE feelings for them to be hurt big man.... so please keep on defending the indefensible... cause who knows... maybe one day you will understand what this all means and stop thinking this is about the minutia related to photography The physical evidence in a joke, just like you... so you defending it is perfect.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) It obvious you don't care old man.... and asking you about photography is like asking a fish to teach bicycling.... you make a lot of noise and flop around alot... but nothing ever comes of it... Poor davie, the subject matter is simply beyond you. Just becsue YOU can't grasp thse simple concepts does nto mean others don't. Would you like some cheese with that whine? Amazing how everyone is always wrong and only the great and powerful CL has the answers.... yet refuses to show any work for fear of being caught yet again. I'm not always right and everyone is not always wrong. Your grasp of reality is as poor as your grasp of this subject matter. BTW, I show PAGES and PAGES of work. What have you offered lately? Oh wait you are a hypocrite. I forget. Keep on rocking it here CL... the break FROM YOU I am finally giving others on the internet has been greatly appreciated.... What a joke! Do you actually BELIEVE you are giving others a break? ROFLMAO! I post tin threads that interest me. Your posting is this thread is not stopping me from posting. Get a grip, reality is passing you by Nobody's interested in proving anything to you, nor conversing with you, or playing your silly little games... except to keep you busy and away from others. My oh my, davie speaks for EVERYONE now. ROFLMAO! NOTE: you first must HAVE feelings for them to be hurt big man.... Oh davie how nice of you..and so xxxxx like... so please keep on defending the indefensible... cause who knows... maybe one day you will understand what this all means and stop thinking this is about the minutia related to photography Boy, you just don't have a clue do you? And clearly you don't read and comprehend at all. Reality ... you should try it sometime. The physical evidence in a joke, just like you... so you defending it is perfect.... No the joke is you davie jo Thinking you can re-write the strict rules that define the photographic process to conform to your fantasy construct. You get all silly when your pet theory is blown out of the water by cold hard facts. Guess what, you can't change how the photographic process works. It is what is is. So unless you have now turned into Fetzer and want to claim every photo is altered, (which of course would require you to actually PROVE it, and you don't have the intelligence to do that) this simple and unimpeachable fact remains... Your claim the recreation camera has moved tens of feet and created the LOS seen in the recreation photo has been proven completely false. You are making a career of being wrong about the basic principles of photography davie jo and you show no signs of being able to actually learn the subject matter. Its game over for you dude. Understanding that is simply beyond your ken. So flame on, and NOT post your proof. Its pretty clear you can't. The fear you project is simply amazing. Shows just how weak of a stick you really are. You failure to show how your claim works only seals your fate as a photographic ignorant. Thanks. It's been a real treat to cut you down one more peg. Now excuse me, I have other threads to post in..... Edited March 15, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Hey there Tom, Chris... If dawned on me that since we are comparing Altgens location in relation to Moorman.... a few things come to mind - according to Don's map, Altgens is 40 feet from Moorman... - if Altgens' recreation was moved up the street as hypothesized, is there any photo that captures Moorman's POV back toward the TSBD? Moorman 3 includes the concrete pillar at the far right of the frame... I took M3 and added Altgens and the recreation photos all centered on the concrete pillar... Since lenses dont matter according to the resident expert... if Moorman 3 was taken with a 105mm lens instead of the wider angle polaroid lens how would that compare to the two other photos? If Altgens moved only 10 inches, the moorman photo should not work at all from her location 40 feet NE of Altgens, when compared to either altgens or the recreation... If distance is the same, or very close, a change in focal length should not matter If moorman and altgens are taken from different distances it should NOT work and the recreation could NOT be sized to Moorman 3 No doubt I'm doing something wrong yet it appears from this overlay that the recreation photo could have EASILY been taken from moorman's location in her #3 image... 40 feet from Altgens. And that there is simply too much rotation within the photo to have the recreation only off by 10 inches.... unless CL can prove it with his math skills (PS - if CL is going to mention math repeatedly - don't you think he should show HIS work instead of just claiming he's right and not offer anything to back himself up?) Robin Unger has photographs in which the exact length of the yellow curb markings is demonstrated, as well as the distance between these markings. And, although I can not recall the "exact" distance from memory, the "40-feet" is quite close. Tom P.S. Those survey notes of Mr. Robert West have come in handy for answering many such questions. 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