Costella and the DP rain sensors

[Bill Miller]

dgh: oh-my gosh, the lone Nutter's found a physicist foolish enough to challenge Dr. John Costella, I missed that, who is it and is his/her specialty optics? You clowns might get a book deal after all...

David, you have to be the biggest troller of forums I have ever witnessed. I have yet to see you actually explain why one position is preferred over the other. The best I have seen you do is place a link in your reponse which doesn't tell anyone if you even have an understanding as to what you are saying or why you are saying it. Instead of citing facts, you attempt to promote a position by way of propaganda in their place. Your "physicist" is the same guy who at first supported Jack by saying that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. The physicist not only failed to see Moorman's camera looking over the top of the cycles windshields, but he didn't even attempt to find out how tall one opf those sysles stood from the ground to the top of its shield. (So much more thoroghness!) So just being a physicist doesn't mean a hell of a lot when you make such errors. One person in this thread has said that he has experience with such irrigation systems and while not having been in Texas, he has seen such techniques as those used in Dealey Plaza used in another state. Costella didn't even offer to tell the reader whether or not he bothered to find out if these irrigation methods were used in other parts of the country that by the way would be unrelated to Dealey Plaza or JFK's assassination. But as long as he has a 'Baghdad Bob' like yourself who is willing to say one thing even if the record says something else, then that must be all that counts to a troller.

Bill Miller

[Chuck Robbins]

Mr. White....

as a veteran of many large and small irrigation installs, the things you've pointed out, re: the sprinklers, just aren't that uncommon.

not trying to be a "provocateur", just passing it on.

hang in there, keep lookin'.

Your experience could help out here.

Have you ever seen sensors such as the ones pictured?

Have you any catalogs which contain sensors, and, if so, are these particular sensors listed in them?

Hope you don't mind doing a little "legwork" for us here.

Any input which answers my questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Chuck

[David G. Healy]

dgh: oh-my gosh, the lone Nutter's found a physicist foolish enough to challenge Dr. John Costella, I missed that, who is it and is his/her specialty optics? You clowns might get a book deal after all...

David, you have to be the biggest troller of forums I have ever witnessed. I have yet to see you actually explain why one position is preferred over the other. The best I have seen you do is place a link in your reponse which doesn't tell anyone if you even have an understanding as to what you are saying or why you are saying it. Instead of citing facts, you attempt to promote a position by way of propaganda in their place. Your "physicist" is the same guy who at first supported Jack by saying that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. The physicist not only failed to see Moorman's camera looking over the top of the cycles windshields, but he didn't even attempt to find out how tall one opf those sysles stood from the ground to the top of its shield. (So much more thoroghness!) So just being a physicist doesn't mean a hell of a lot when you make such errors. One person in this thread has said that he has experience with such irrigation systems and while not having been in Texas, he has seen such techniques as those used in Dealey Plaza used in another state. Costella didn't even offer to tell the reader whether or not he bothered to find out if these irrigation methods were used in other parts of the country that by the way would be unrelated to Dealey Plaza or JFK's assassination. But as long as he has a 'Baghdad Bob' like yourself who is willing to say one thing even if the record says something else, then that must be all that counts to a troller.

Bill Miller

xxxxx? LMAO... come on you silly guy, the following has been on the internet for a few years, surely you read the contributors rebuttal to the Gang's nonesense didn't you? If not (it appears that way) you really should educate yourself, become a functioning xxxxx at least... maybe 'Barb the JUNK' would care to comment what with you being you uninformed???

<quote on>

Appendix: Strange experiences en route to Duluth (15 pages)

In this Appendix I provide what I hope to be an entertaining account for my experiences when visiting Dealey Plaza and in travelling to Duluth, Minnesota, for the Zapruder Film Symposium in May 2003. Included are a variety of eyebrow-raising experiences, individually humorous and curious, but collectively providing food for thought for anyone who has not lived the experience of being a known (feared?) JFK researcher first-hand. To fully appreciate this Appendix, one must read it in the context of the rest of the book, in particular David Lifton’s chapter about the shady characters and dealings that are rife in assassination research, and Jim Fetzer’s overviews of the curious “conversions” of Gary Mack and Josiah Thompson. Included amongst the experiences are: “rain sensors” that are hidden in such a way that they cannot collect rain, and separated by only fifteen yards (so that they can detect if it’s raining on one side of Main Street but not the other)—but whose symmetrical layout makes much more sense for audio surveillance purposes; “tourists” who acted remarkably like government agents; an “adjustable lamp pole”, propped up by about an inch on all sides by small washers, whose angle could be adjusted at will, overnight, simply by lifting the pole and moving a few of the washers, that could be used to discredit research investigating angles of objects (as mine has); another “tourist” following us to Minnesota and around the airport; my luggage having been gone through during a seven-hour wait at Minneapolis–St. Paul airport, with the “coincidental” results being the destruction of my electric shaver, holes being “clawed” in my shirts, and the memory card of a digital camera being destroyed, all being discovered on the morning I was to make my presentation; and the American-accented substitute teacher taking my place in Melbourne who had apparently lived in Australia for seventeen years, but couldn’t understand Australian accents, didn’t know who the Prime Minister of Australia was, and spent the entire four hours he remained in the job (before claiming he had found full-time work elsewhere) searching through the drawers of my desk in my classroom. Of course, none of these amusing events prove anything at all about the Zapruder film. Some intuitively-challenged researchers have offered the deadpan response, “Oh, that’s an interesting set of coincidences,” to which one feels like Holmes dealing with Watson on one of his particularly dull days. I leave this Appendix to the individual reader to form their own opinions; and all but those with an obvious agenda to pursue tend to arrive, not remarkably, at roughly the same conclusions. Read it yourself, and tell me what you think. Really! As it has no bearing on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, I really don’t mind where it takes you. (Consider it my contribution to the entertainment value of the book!)

The Gang’s response:

Given the importance of the rest of the book, it is remarkable that The Gang has yet another “specialist” whose only contribution is to argue about observations that have no bearing at all on the thesis of the book, namely, that the Zapruder film is a hoax. Barb Junkkarinen (known generally as “Junk”—I now know why) provides us a short section of scientific indignation and studious research on a burning issue in JFK assassination research: Wireless RainSensors.

Junk mounts her soapbox by complaining that someone with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, an Honours degree in Engineering, an Honours degree in Science, and a teaching diploma should always investigate—scientifically, and until they drop of exhaustion—any object of scientific or engineering interest that is put before them. I guess she thinks that scientists and engineers are like Pavlov’s dogs: show us something technical, and we start salivating.

Junk’s good mate, Stu Wexler, has the same belief. He spent months of my time in 2001, trying to draw me in on research designed to debunk Ken Rahn’s absurd neutron activation analysis (NAA) claims. I spent some time on the issue, but told Stu very quickly that Rahn’s statistical arguments were hilarious. If Ken Rahn were counting sheep, he’d conclude that half of them were actually dogs, because he had a sheepdog rounding them up in one paddock. Mathematically speaking, that’s how ridiculous his claims were.

Unfortunately, Stewart Galanor, who also earns his keep these days teaching high school mathematics, did get sucked into this furphy. Galanor’s a good man, and it saddened me to learn that his talents had been absorbed by this sort of rubbish.

Anyway, I digress. Back to Wexler’s mate, Junk. She apparently believes that I should spend all of my energies investigating and researching these RainSensors. She is indignant that I “determined, to my satisfaction” what was going on in Dealey Plaza, too rapidly for her comprehension. She insists that it is a field of research that warrants a major investment of time and energy:

Did Costella do any research into the irrigation system installed in Dealey Plaza? He mentions none in his chapter, and failed to respond when I asked him this very question on alt.assassination.jfk.

Junk is being very cute here. A serious back-down, no less! What actually happened is that I broke with my own rule (see the introduction to my chapter) of not posting to the public newsgroups, and responded to a comment about The Great Zapruder Film Hoax on alt.assassination.jfk. What Junk fails to tell you is that this newsgroup is “moderated”, which means that it is censored by the man who “owns” it, John McAdams. There is more than enough on the Internet to tell you about McAdams and his modus operandi, if you are interested in the slimier side of assassination research.

My first posting to McAdamsLand on this topic appeared within a normal time frame, and Junk responded. After that, my postings seemed to disappear into a black hole—only to reappear many days later, attached to Junk threads, with second-hand responses from other members of The Gang.

I remembered why I stopped posting to McAdamsLand in the first place, and returned to that policy. Obviously Junk posted a challenge in some of her namesake, that I did not answer.

But let us put that missed opportunity to one side. Junk proceeds to tell us what she has learned from her Google search researches.

The devices have a range of 300 feet to the receiver, which must be housed indoors. Hang on a minute! Is Junk trying to attack me, or agree with me? Where are these “indoor” receivers in Dealey Plaza? In the former Texas School Book Despository? If the actual irrigation is to occur in the grassy area between Elm and Main, and Main and Commerce, how could a receiver indoors be of any help at all? And if the range is 300 feet, why was there a need for two of them within 50 feet of each other?

Junk then asks whether I tested the devices for audio transmission on an RF link. Yes, Barb, I pulled an all-band RF receiver out of my backside and tested the devices. Of course, if Junk were the electronics engineer she scolds me for being, she’d know that there’s no way of testing if an RF transmission is “actually audio”. If she has no understanding at all of digital devices and digital transmission, why is she bothering to write this section at all? Did she owe Tink a favour? Maybe she should have an Internet Phone conversation with him, and have someone pick up the other extension and listen to what it sounds like. “No, no audio conversation at all,” they would report. “All I heard was a noise that sounded like a fax machine or a modem.” DUH!

But let’s imagine that I really did want to spend all of my time in Dallas ignoring the reason I was there, and instead playing with RainSensors. Junk suggests that anyone with such an interest (which isn’t me, but let’s pretend it is) would “rent, borrow, beg or steal” the equipment necessary to analyse the devices. Well, let’s just walk through the logic of that one, Barb, real slowly for you. There are two logical possibilities. If the device is a rain sensor, it will still be one when I get back with all that gear. If it’s a listening device, then … someone’s listening, right? Oh YEAH! I can hear the penny dropping in Junk’s head from here.

And that’s it. All the Junk she could think of.

<quote off>

would you care for the link?

[Tom Kutzer]

I got out of the backbreaking irrigation biz 10 yrs ago to do corporate Audio Visual work, so I'm not up to date on every little thing, however I still do irrigation on every now and then....I don't qualify as an expert, but...

from these pics, looks like standard Toro/Rainbird stuff....

no offense to Mr.White, but I'm in the "nothing to it" camp.

[Chuck Robbins]

I got out of the backbreaking irrigation biz 10 yrs ago to do corporate Audio Visual work, so I'm not up to date on every little thing, however I still do irrigation on every now and then....I don't qualify as an expert, but...

from these pics, looks like standard Toro/Rainbird stuff....

no offense to Mr.White, but I'm in the "nothing to it" camp.

Thank you.

I'm off to the toro rainbird sites to view their line.

I'll post my findings.

[David G. Healy]

c'mon Billy, gott'a go to work, can't wait any longer -- here's the link for the above:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel.../costella1.html

[Chuck Robbins]

Here's a standard sensor. It doubles as an ice sensor as well.

Mr. White....

as a veteran of many large and small irrigation installs, the things you've pointed out, re: the sprinklers, just aren't that uncommon.

not trying to be a "provocateur", just passing it on.

hang in there, keep lookin'.

Hi, Tom...thanks. In your opinion, were SIX rain sensors needed to

determine whether it rains in a TWO BLOCK AREA?

I wish you would examine the sprinklers in the plaza...nearly all were

for shrubs...none for the big grass infield, and many were broken, though

the rain sensors looked much newer than the sprinkler heads. And the

sprinkler heads were all the small pop-up residential type, not the type

typically seen in parks. Attached...another of the many sensors.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

xxxxx? LMAO... come on you silly guy, the following has been on the internet for a few years, surely you read the contributors rebuttal to the Gang's nonesense didn't you? If not (it appears that way) you really should educate yourself, become a functioning xxxxx at least... maybe 'Barb the JUNK' would care to comment what with you being you uninformed???

The laws of physics have been on the Internet even longer, but that doesn't mean that you understand them. Your attempt to divert away from my calling you on your 'trolling' will not work. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You cite Costella's alteration views as if he is reliable, but you, yourself have said that to date you have seen no proof of alteration. This means that either you do not understand what Costella says or you do understand it, but do not agree with him ... which ever choice you pick is fine with me for my point has been made.

Here is just one example of what Costella has said that shows that he is not as throrough as you make him out to be ...

"In what is in my opinion the most important Moorman research carried out to date, Jack demonstrates why the region of the Zapruder pedestal in the Moorman is almost certainly altered or fabricated: “Zapruder” and “Sitzman” are indistinct, despite being in bright sunlight; their depiction in the other films and photographs of the assassination is inconsistent; and the fact that there are “windows” of the pergola structure behind Zapruder that are missing, which indicates that whatever or whomever was perched on that pedestal was edited out, and replaced by indistinct figures in such a way that cropped versions of the Moorman published in the days following the assassination would not be invalidated—Zapruder literally “melts into the stonework” in a way that would be impossible for a real person standing in bright sunlight on that pedestal."

The "thorough" Costella didn't bother looking at the Moorman photo that was filmed and displayed on NBC within hours of the assassination. As I have said many times before, Moorman's photo was filmed not 30 minutes following the shooting and her image does not show the colonnade windows Costella is talking about. The reason it doesn't show those windows is because the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by sunlight is blending in with the colonnade behind him. This is what happens when dealing with limited color tones on B&W images. Jack and Costella only see the shaded part of Zapruder's clothing as his total outline and because they didn't either find out about Mary's photo being filmed right after the assassination or knew about it and just didn't think to check it for these alleged missing windows, they have shown their lack of "thoroughness". There is no way around this blunder, David and you can copy and paste links until the cows come home, but it does not validate the content that you are tring to sell. I had assumed that after knowing about these claims, that when you said that you had 'not seen any signs of alteration' that this meant that you understood the critiques being made about Costella and White's observations, but when you post links that are offered as proof of Costella's accuracy and thoroughness, then you are only contradicting yourself, which doesn't help White or Costella in any shape - way - or form. One would think that when an instant photo is filmed while still being in Moorman's possession and that photo DOES NOT show the colonnade windows ... that a rational and sensible person would understand that the reason for the missing windows is something other than the photograph being altered, but I guess that isn't important to a 'phyicist' like Costella or to those who try and sell him as being thorough.

Bill Miller

Edited August 2, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' begged on:

xxxxx? LMAO... come on you silly guy, the following has been on the internet for a few years, surely you read the contributors rebuttal to the Gang's nonesense didn't you? If not (it appears that way) you really should educate yourself, become a functioning xxxxx at least... maybe 'Barb the JUNK' would care to comment what with you being you uninformed???

The laws of physics have been on the Internet even longer, but that doesn't mean that you understand them. Your attempt to divert away from my calling you on your 'trolling' will not work. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You cite Costella's alteration views as if he is reliable, but you, yourself have said that to date you have seen no proof of alteration. This means that either you do not understand what Costella says or you do understand it, but do not agree with him ... which ever choice you pick is fine with me for my point has been made.

dgh: makes no difference if I understand their work, Physicists do what Physicists do, the very type of scientist you Lone Nutter guy's apparently can't find, ANYWHERE! Why is that? -- you guys found John Costella prior to him working with the Z-film alteration research camp, some of those folks not sure the film was altered, including me. If it takes so little to disprove John Costella-Ph.D.-Physicist -- FIND one and do IT?

Here is just one example of what Costella has said that shows that he is not as throrough as you make him out to be ...

dgh: as JCostella said a few years ago, he worked with the WCR supporters, till he found their work flawed. JCostella's work has been challenged by a few incompetent, fly-by-night, wannabe, fulltime Lone Nutter WCR supporters, the very guys you're in bed with - deal with it!

It appears you suffer from ADD syndrome, you're changing the subject, AGAIN -- hence, this thread title ".... rainsensors" Start another thread if you have to run from this one... so, have you asked the "Junk lady" for a rainsensor comment yet?

As far as below -- that's IT? ? ? LMAO

"In what is in my opinion the most important Moorman research carried out to date, Jack demonstrates why the region of the Zapruder pedestal in the Moorman is almost certainly altered or fabricated: “Zapruder” and “Sitzman” are indistinct, despite being in bright sunlight; their depiction in the other films and photographs of the assassination is inconsistent; and the fact that there are “windows” of the pergola structure behind Zapruder that are missing, which indicates that whatever or whomever was perched on that pedestal was edited out, and replaced by indistinct figures in such a way that cropped versions of the Moorman published in the days following the assassination would not be invalidated—Zapruder literally “melts into the stonework” in a way that would be impossible for a real person standing in bright sunlight on that pedestal."

The "thorough" Costella didn't bother looking at the Moorman photo that was filmed and displayed on NBC within hours of the assassination. As I have said many times before, Moorman's photo was filmed not 30 minutes following the shooting and her image does not show the colonnade windows Costella is talking about. The reason it doesn't show those windows is because the part of Zapruder's clothing that is lightened by sunlight is blending in with the colonnade behind him. This is what happens when dealing with limited color tones on B&W images. Jack and Costella only see the shaded part of Zapruder's clothing as his total outline and because they didn't either find out about Mary's photo being filmed right after the assassination or knew about it and just didn't think to check it for these alleged missing windows, they have shown their lack of "thoroughness". There is no way around this blunder, David and you can copy and paste links until the cows come home, but it does not validate the content that you are tring to sell. I had assumed that after knowing about these claims, that when you said that you had 'not seen any signs of alteration' that this meant that you understood the critiques being made about Costella and White's observations, but when you post links that are offered as proof of Costella's accuracy and thoroughness, then you are only contradicting yourself, which doesn't help White or Costella in any shape - way - or form. One would think that when an instant photo is filmed while still being in Moorman's possession and that photo DOES NOT show the colonnade windows ... that a rational and sensible person would understand that the reason for the missing windows is something other than the photograph being altered, but I guess that isn't important to a 'phyicist' like Costella or to those who try and sell him as being thorough.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

dgh: makes no difference if I understand their work, Physicists do what Physicists do,

It appears that they insist on not being thorough so people like yourself who cannot understand what is said can xxxxx forums and speak out of both sides of their mouth. The Indians here in British Columbia call it 'talking with a forked tongue'.

dgh: as JCostella said a few years ago, he worked with the WCR supporters, till he found their work flawed. JCostella's work has been challenged by a few incompetent, fly-by-night, wannabe, fulltime Lone Nutter WCR supporters, the very guys you're in bed with - deal with it!

Surely you are not suggesting that meeting flawed WCR supporters work should be done by rebutting them with flawed CT's work. Again, you have seen Costella's work and have said that you have seen no proof of alteration. So if your position is that you do not understand or have a need to understand Costella's work, then how can you defend it, unless playing the role of the forum provacateur is your objective.

It appears you suffer from ADD syndrome, you're changing the subject, AGAIN -- hence, this thread title ".... rainsensors"

Yes, and it was you who brought up Costella's thoroughness in post #5. Then you mentioned Costella being a phyicist as if that means something. If that is all you have in support of Costella's remarks concerning alteration, then his past history of thoroughness should be examined to see how it applies to his thinking on this matter.

By the way, it seems that you have time to spend away from work to xxxxx the forums, but no time to post that reply that Gary Mack was going to send you ... why is that? Did Gary not send you the information that you were seeking or is it that he did send it to you, but it wasn't something that you no longer wanted to share with your fellow forum members?

Bill Miller

Edited August 2, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

dgh: makes no difference if I understand their work, Physicists do what Physicists do,

It appears that they insist on not being thorough so people like yourself who cannot understand what is said can xxxxx forums and speak out of both sides of their mouth. The Indians here in British Columbia call it 'talking with a forked tongue'.

dgh: as JCostella said a few years ago, he worked with the WCR supporters, till he found their work flawed. JCostella's work has been challenged by a few incompetent, fly-by-night, wannabe, fulltime Lone Nutter WCR supporters, the very guys you're in bed with - deal with it!

Surely you are not suggesting that meeting flawed WCR supporters work should be done by rebutting them with flawed CT's work. Again, you have seen Costella's work and have said that you have seen no proof of alteration. So if your position is that you do not understand or have a need to understand Costella's work, then how can you defend it, unless playing the role of the forum provacateur is your objective.

It appears you suffer from ADD syndrome, you're changing the subject, AGAIN -- hence, this thread title ".... rainsensors"

Yes, and it was you who brought up Costella's thoroughness in post #5. Then you mentioned Costella being a phyicist as if that means something. If that is all you have in support of Costella's remarks concerning alteration, then his past history of thoroughness should be examined to see how it applies to his thinking on this matter.

By the way, it seems that you have time to spend away from work to xxxxx the forums, but no time to post that reply that Gary Mack was going to send you ... why is that? Did Gary not send you the information that you were seeking or is it that he did send it to you, but it wasn't something that you no longer wanted to share with your fellow forum members?

Bill Miller

dgh:By gosh-bu golly, Gary Mack did send me some information. Why not try shortening your sentences, reads better -- So, Gary cc's you his responses to me.... LOL, what thread should I post it to? Better yet, why don't you post it -- I've been waiting for you to bring this up!

As my old intenet nemisis (Steve 'evidently he graduated from Marquette University' Keating ) use say; you're a HOOT!

[Bill Miller]

dgh:By gosh-bu golly, Gary Mack did send me some information. Why not try shortening your sentences, reads better -- So, Gary cc's you his responses to me.... LOL, what thread should I post it to? Better yet, why don't you post it -- I've been waiting for you to bring this up!

David, I have asked you several times to post Mack's information if you had gotten it by now. If Gary has sent it to you, then open it and look to see if he "CC'd" it to me or not. Why you choose to spank your monkey instead of just getting to the point is rather sickening and nothing more than what you complain about BS doing. As far as where to post it ... if you have recieved it, then why not post it to the thread that you were trolling in when you asked the questions that you want answered. My memory tells me that it was the thread where we were discussing NARA's having Monaco doing some work for them and whether or not that work was used by Dale Myers.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

dgh:By gosh-bu golly, Gary Mack did send me some information. Why not try shortening your sentences, reads better -- So, Gary cc's you his responses to me.... LOL, what thread should I post it to? Better yet, why don't you post it -- I've been waiting for you to bring this up!

David, I have asked you several times to post Mack's information if you had gotten it by now. If Gary has sent it to you, then open it and look to see if he "CC'd" it to me or not. Why you choose to spank your monkey instead of just getting to the point is rather sickening and nothing more than what you complain about BS doing. As far as where to post it ... if you have recieved it, then why not post it to the thread that you were trolling in when you asked the questions that you want answered. My memory tells me that it was the thread where we were discussing NARA's having Monaco doing some work for them and whether or not that work was used by Dale Myers.

Bill Miller

hell, you were the one that told ME, Gary emailed you responses that went to others, why would this one be any different?

Monaco - that's right ,I'm one of their clients, now I remember... now what did I do with that thread?

Does this mean your through with DP rainsensor fun? I was just warming to the subject

Edited August 2, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

hell, you were the one that told ME, Gary emailed you responses that went to others, why would this one be any different?

Does this mean your through with DP rainsensor fun? I was just warming to the subject

Gary does forward me responses to Zapruder film information that he is sharing with others, but not always, nor have I said Gary always does this. As far as the rain sensor thread ... I am sure that you can think up more trolling responses faster than most people can research, but knowledge is the key to warming up to any topic and you have not shown that you hav any particular knowledge about the irrigation system in Dealey Plaza.

Bill Miller

Edited August 3, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

hell, you were the one that told ME, Gary emailed you responses that went to others, why would this one be any different?

Does this mean your through with DP rainsensor fun? I was just warming to the subject

Gary does forward me responses to Zapruder film information that he is sharing with others, but not always, nor have I said Gary always does this. As far as the rain sensor thread ... I am sure that you can think up more trolling responses faster than most people can research, but knowledge is the key to warming up to any topic and you have not shown that you hav any particular knowledge about the irrigation system in Dealey Plaza.

Bill Miller

I'd say knowledgable enough with authorative posts and links, enough to keep you running all over the place. 300 feet from the lawn sensors hmm, that close to Gary's desk? Test 1-2-3, Test 1-2-3, hello TEST