The Zapruder Film

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened. Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.

Edited July 25, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects.  The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened.  Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

[David G. Healy]

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

_______________

and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/

[Nic Martin]

For all of those who would like to see this claim tossed in the bin with Files, Greer, & Baker, say I.

[Craig Lamson]

For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects.  The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened.  Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the hordes rebuttal:

"I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle).

Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them."

Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis".

You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days?

Edited July 25, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I send John Costella the Lamson post and, based on my experience

with Lamson, I was not surprised to receive the following response.

The pity is that naive readers are susceptible to taking him seriously.

Jim,

Lamson is (as always) misleading. He has taken the start of one of my

sentences and tacked it onto the end of another. Of course the

frankensteined statement is completely incorrect!

I did not state that I 'transformed 2d images from different camera

locations to the "same optical axis"'. Only images from the same camera

location can be transformed to the same optical axis. I am happy to provide

details of how this is done -- it is shown graphically in the DVD of my

Minnesota Symposium lecture, and was used, for example, to create the Dealey

Plaza panoramas, and also to transform the Moorman Polaroid to compare it to

photos taken with the camera pointing directly at the Zapruder pedestal

rather than at the grass on the knoll. (See the transformed image in my

Moorman chapter in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.) The mathematical formulas

are straightforward, but not in themselves enlightening to most people.

'Moving the camera around' obviously changes the objects in the image, and

in particular which objects are obscured by others. Shifting the camera

left-right or up-down (or any combination of the two) by small amounts

shifts image objects, depending on their distance from the camera. This is

called 'parallax' and Lamson can read about it in optics or graphics text.

A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that

if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical

subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held

horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations

referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is

horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against

the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected

negligibly by the small movement of the camera location).

I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this

point, probably because he has been blocked from my email for years due to

harassment. I am sorry that he has remained confused and confounded on this

issue for so long. I hope he can do the homework necessary to enlighten

himself. I have wasted many hours on his hairbrained requests in years past,

and am not inclined to throw away more time on him. If anyone wishes to

believe his rantings, then by all means let them. It's a free country.

Best

John

For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects.  The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened.  Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the hordes rebuttal:

"I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle).

Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them."

Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis".

You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David G. Healy]

Nic touted:

For all of those who would like to see this claim tossed in the bin with Files, Greer, & Baker, say I.

____________

Lurk Nic lurk, you're in over your head... roflmao!

Edited July 26, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

You are

[John Simkin]

You are

I know you have an obsession about getting involved in every JFK thread but this is particularly bizarre.

[Tim Gratz]

John I assume you must have realized it was a grammatical correction. Presumably the use of "your" in the post preceding mine was not a typographical error (as you know, it is easy to make typographical errors).

The other day Eugene Connally corrected me when I wrote "complementary" rather than "complimentary". I welcomed the correction.

And, by the way, as I assume you know, since I think I have done it to you, if I spot an error like this I'd welcome the poster correcting it. I'd then delete the correction and the whole thing would disappear in cyber space.

I would assume that you would like to see the posts on your Forum grammatically correct since such correctness adds to the professionalism of the Forum.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Craig Lamson]

I send John Costella the Lamson post and, based on my experience

with Lamson, I was not surprised to receive the following response.

The pity is that naive readers are susceptible to taking him seriously.

Jim,

Lamson is (as always) misleading. He has taken the start of one of my

sentences and tacked it onto the end of another. Of course the

frankensteined statement is completely incorrect!

I did not state that I 'transformed 2d images from different camera

locations to the "same optical axis"'. Only images from the same camera

location can be transformed to the same optical axis. I am happy to provide

details of how this is done -- it is shown graphically in the DVD of my

Minnesota Symposium lecture, and was used, for example, to create the Dealey

Plaza panoramas, and also to transform the Moorman Polaroid to compare it to

photos taken with the camera pointing directly at the Zapruder pedestal

rather than at the grass on the knoll. (See the transformed image in my

Moorman chapter in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.) The mathematical formulas

are straightforward, but not in themselves enlightening to most people.

'Moving the camera around' obviously changes the objects in the image, and

in particular which objects are obscured by others. Shifting the camera

left-right or up-down (or any combination of the two) by small amounts

shifts image objects, depending on their distance from the camera. This is

called 'parallax' and Lamson can read about it in optics or graphics text.

A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that

if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical

subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held

horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations

referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is

horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against

the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected

negligibly by the small movement of the camera location).

I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this

point, probably because he has been blocked from my email for years due to

harassment. I am sorry that he has remained confused and confounded on this

issue for so long. I hope he can do the homework necessary to enlighten

himself. I have wasted many hours on his hairbrained requests in years past,

and am not inclined to throw away more time on him. If anyone wishes to

believe his rantings, then by all means let them. It's a free country.

Best

John

For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects.  The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened.  Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the hordes rebuttal:

"I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle).

Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them."

Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis".

You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see John is well versed in the fine art of fetzering just like you Jim.

First. the quote is direct, I suggest John read it again. His fetzering on this is really silly.

The Zapruder camera moved between every frame and John, that means you took two 2d images from two different camera locations and did the transformation you just said you could not do. So which is it? can you do it or not? Time to put up or shut up. Produce the work.

John continues:

"A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that

if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical

subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held

horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations

referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is

horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against

the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected

negligibly by the small movement of the camera location)."

Yes a perfectly vertical pole will remain vertical, but what about one that is not perfectly vertical, like the signpost on the freeway sign? Costella lives by the numbers which is his complete failing when trying to do work on photographs. Unless a camera is rotated exactly on the nodal point of the lens you introduce perspective changes that, depending on the rotational point and its distance from the nodal point, introduces perspective changes that are impossible to "transform" away. People who use cameras for a living know this, it seems math teachers dont. Then add into the mix photographing a leaning pole from different camera locations and Costella and his "proof" go down in flames. Is it any wonder why he is not forthcomming with his proof that he can do what he says he can do?

None of this is hard to show with simple emperical evidence. A simple camera and tripod will do. I will be happy to post camera raw digital images of a simple street scene taken with only one axis of rotation...pan...that show a sign post "flipping and flopping when photographed in the center of the frame compared to being photographed at the edge of the frame. Now remember Costella tells us that the laws of physics makes this impossible, but the reality of the matter is that it is not. You up for the challenge John, or are you going into hiding again? Want me to also send you some images that also prove that your "impossible" Apollo shadow is not really impossible? LOL!

For all of his "scientific" bluster and his PhD., Costella is playing a shell game on the readers. He claims he can do certain things, but when requested to show exactly how he did them, he runs, even though he clearly states any number of times his willingness to do so. Not a good place to be if you are a math teacher playing scientist and trying to convince the world that the Zapruder filim is fake, the Apollo photos are fakes, that a US senators aircraft was taken down by an "EMP" weapon by the GWB administration, and that rain sensors in Dealy Plaza are really listening devices. Not a good place to be at all.

I suggest that Costella spend some time with a real camera, and provide emperical proof of concept. In the process he might actually learn what happens when you "move the camera around". A little real world time just might open up your eyes and perhaps then you might actually "see" the error of your position. Then again given your past performances that is unlikely. I suspect we will just see you "fetzer"

So John are you still going to "fetzer" or are you going to finally make good on your word?

Edited July 26, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

_______________

and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David;

Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain.

The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why.

Tom

[David G. Healy]

I send John Costella the Lamson post and, based on my experience

with Lamson, I was not surprised to receive the following response.

The pity is that naive readers are susceptible to taking him seriously.

Jim,

Lamson is (as always) misleading. He has taken the start of one of my

sentences and tacked it onto the end of another. Of course the

frankensteined statement is completely incorrect!

I did not state that I 'transformed 2d images from different camera

locations to the "same optical axis"'. Only images from the same camera

location can be transformed to the same optical axis. I am happy to provide

details of how this is done -- it is shown graphically in the DVD of my

Minnesota Symposium lecture, and was used, for example, to create the Dealey

Plaza panoramas, and also to transform the Moorman Polaroid to compare it to

photos taken with the camera pointing directly at the Zapruder pedestal

rather than at the grass on the knoll. (See the transformed image in my

Moorman chapter in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.) The mathematical formulas

are straightforward, but not in themselves enlightening to most people.

'Moving the camera around' obviously changes the objects in the image, and

in particular which objects are obscured by others. Shifting the camera

left-right or up-down (or any combination of the two) by small amounts

shifts image objects, depending on their distance from the camera. This is

called 'parallax' and Lamson can read about it in optics or graphics text.

A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that

if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical

subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held

horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations

referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is

horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against

the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected

negligibly by the small movement of the camera location).

I have not received any requests from Lamson for clarification of this

point, probably because he has been blocked from my email for years due to

harassment. I am sorry that he has remained confused and confounded on this

issue for so long. I hope he can do the homework necessary to enlighten

himself. I have wasted many hours on his hairbrained requests in years past,

and am not inclined to throw away more time on him. If anyone wishes to

believe his rantings, then by all means let them. It's a free country.

Best

John

For those who would like an easy-access route to understanding some of the evidence that establishes the alteration and recreation of the Zapruder film, in addition to the studies presented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), parts of which may be too technical for many students of the case, John P. Costella, Ph.D., an expert on the film, has provided an introduction to the evidence that is largely cinematic and very easy to understand at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Every student of the case, I believes, needs to be familiar with the evidence related to the alteration and recreation of the film, which exceeded mere frame removal and excision of sequences of frames and extended to recreating the film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects.  The purpose was to create a framework that would defeat serious study of events in Dealey Plaza, since, once you assume it is authentic, it becomes logically impossible to reconstruct what really happened.  Those who want to pursue this further can always consult the studies in the book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the hordes rebuttal:

"I am also more than happy to explain how moving the camera around will change the results. Moving it sideways, or up and down, won’t help: that will shift the sign sideways, or up or down, but the images I present show that the bottom of the pole, at least, does not move sideways, and the top of the sign does not move up or down. (See how easy a verification is with the direct method? You can just look at the images with your own eyes. No sleight of hand, no incomprehensible “sticks” from some sort of graphics engine, no wondering how on earth they put the sticks onto the Zapruder film frames.) Moving the camera toward or away from the sign will changes its width and height (see the section below), but it won’t make it flip and flop. There are fundamental mathematical and physical explanations for why this must be so, which I am happy to explain to The Gang if they are still motivated. Finally, changing the three Euler angles of rotation of the camera doesn’t do anything at all, because we have shifted the optical axis of each frame to the same direction (that wipes out two angles), and we have simply rotated the images to match up the background precisely (which knocks out the final, third angle).

Which is probably more explanation than most of you readers of this page really wanted to know. That’s why I didn’t describe these things in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax—it’s not a physics textbook, nor an opportunity for me to show that I’m a physicist, but rather a book on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. But rest assured that I have these explanations for you, should you want them."

Clearly Costella has no experience "moving the camera around". But lets take him at his word have have him explain exactly how he transformed 2d images from different camera locations to the "same optical axis".

You say you have the explainations Costella, so produce them. I've asked more times than I can count and yet you have not provided anything. What exactly is your word worth these days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see John is well versed in the fine art of fetzering just like you Jim.

First. the quote is direct, I suggest John read it again. His fetzering on this is really silly.

The Zapruder camera moved between every frame and John, that means you took two 2d images from two different camera locations and did the transformation you just said you could not do. So which is it? can you do it or not? Time to put up or shut up. Produce the work.

John continues:

"A simplified argument to understand what is going on here is to realise that

if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera. The mathematical

subtlety comes in catering for the fact that a camera need not be held

horizontal, either left-right or up-down. This is where the transformations

referred to bring everything to a common basis, where the optical axis is

horizontal and the image orientation is horizontal, by calibrating against

the background objects in Dealey Plaza (which, being distant, are affected

negligibly by the small movement of the camera location)."

Yes a perfectly vertical pole will remain vertical, but what about one that is not perfectly vertical, like the signpost on the freeway sign? Costella lives by the numbers which is his complete failing when trying to do work on photographs. Unless a camera is rotated exactly on the nodal point of the lens you introduce perspective changes that, depending on the rotational point and its distance from the nodal point, introduces perspective changes that are impossible to "transform" away. People who use cameras for a living know this, it seems math teachers dont. Then add into the mix photographing a leaning pole from different camera locations and Costella and his "proof" go down in flames. Is it any wonder why he is not forthcomming with his proof that he can do what he says he can do?

None of this is hard to show with simple emperical evidence. A simple camera and tripod will do. I will be happy to post camera raw digital images of a simple street scene taken with only one axis of rotation...pan...that show a sign post "flipping and flopping when photographed in the center of the frame compared to being photographed at the edge of the frame. Now remember Costella tells us that the laws of physics makes this impossible, but the reality of the matter is that it is not. You up for the challenge John, or are you going into hiding again? Want me to also send you some images that also prove that your "impossible" Apollo shadow is not really impossible? LOL!

For all of his "scientific" bluster and his PhD., Costella is playing a shell game on the readers. He claims he can do certain things, but when requested to show exactly how he did them, he runs, even though he clearly states any number of times his willingness to do so. Not a good place to be if you are a math teacher playing scientist and trying to convince the world that the Zapruder filim is fake, the Apollo photos are fakes, that a US senators aircraft was taken down by an "EMP" weapon by the GWB administration, and that rain sensors in Dealy Plaza are really listening devices. Not a good place to be at all.

I suggest that Costella spend some time with a real camera, and provide emperical proof of concept. In the process he might actually learn what happens when you "move the camera around". A little real world time just might open up your eyes and perhaps then you might actually "see" the error of your position. Then again given your past performances that is unlikely. I suspect we will just see you "fetzer"

So John are you still going to "fetzer" or are you going to finally make good on your word?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Error? We've noticed the physicists running to defended your position, what were their names again? Just for the record...? roflmao! Anybody find those .pov files yet?

THIS is the best the "gang" can do...

Be happy, the Shuttle is UP!

[David G. Healy]

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

_______________

and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David;

Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain.

The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot...

David

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who want to read the rebuttal to the above please check here...

_______________

and a point by point response to the Gang's rebuttal

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David;

Although obviously missed, from the moment that Chuck Marler provided portions of my work with the survey information, an integral element necessary to prove the absence of frames of the Z-film was now in the public domain.

The "vehicle speed" portion of this data will demonstrate why.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Tom -- the very reason I sent you a email years back -- thanking you for your in-depth Elm Street - DP research, in particular- FBI/SS recreation limo positioning re the final fatal shot...

David

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Knew we had discussed things. Forgot what it was!

That happens more and more. Surely it can not be AGE?

Did I also provide the information relative as to why Mr. Z should have been able to see the top 10 inches of JFK also?

Tom