John Kennedy White Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Interesting remarks, Peter. I have never heard before where using poor degraded images to make errered observations as something "unique". I would love to hear of some of the "good results" that have come from such a practice. Bill Miller Are you aware of how aggressive and negative you come to almost everyone on the Forum. You stand on the sidelines offering little new of your own...why don't your put up better images or compare what you have...but condemn others for trying to do things. I personally don't think you deserve an answer to the above nasty comment meant put Jack down [that's your real purpose here] and me. I'd be happy if you were thrown off this Forum as you have been others....I'v tried a few times to speak in a civil manner with you but you just can't comment without that venom, it seems. To bad. As a new member, I enjoy seeing new photos and ideas posted to the board, with constructive discussion and debate - that is why I joined. The schoolyard sniping that goes on between three or four members is a major turnoff and this kind of ego-tripping may get in the way of real discussions, which is sad. Many of Jack's photos are posted with questions like "what do you think?" or "can anyone identify this person or that object?" which to me appear to be genuine attempts to learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) dgh: clarity? sounds like you're running interference for the clowns.... lmao! Are you talking about my response or the one you gave above??? dgh: YOU can't hang a positive ID on Zapruder/Sitzman standing on that DP pedestal, yet it's Jack's fault for saying their too short? roflmao! No, it's Jack's fault for using poor quality images and not scaling them correctly which leads to him claiming Zapruder and Sitzman are too short. It's also your fault for not bothering to see the error in his past practice before trying to defend such shoddy work. It is not like this is the first time this has been pointed out to you. If someone makes a reasonably logical claim concerning a good quality print - you waste no time in responding how it cannot be trusted without actually holding the camera original in your hands first, yet Jack can use poor sorry-assed images and you sit silent and say nothing ... that too, makes it your fault! dgh: AGAIN you can't hang a positive ID on Zapruder/Sitzman standing on that DP pedestal -- can Slattery positively ID to our satisfaction whose standing on the pedestal? Your grasping at straws champ! There again you cannot positively ID anyone else other than Zapruder and Sitzman being on that pedestal. Jean Hill was there that day standing across the street and she told me that Zapruder stood on that pedestal, so what more do I need ... I trusted Jean. Sitzman wasn't shot with a good camera while zoomed in on her face while she stood on the pedestal, but Trask's book "National Nightmare" shows a great photo of her standing next to the same pedestal talking to a reporter about having just witnessed the assassination while standing on that pedestal with her boss. The Hester's have never said that it wasn't Zapruder and Sitzman who stood on the pedestal .... why has not any 'doubting Thomas' ever contacted them to find out if it was really Zapruder and Sitzman .... I can tell you why, its because they don't really want to know because so much has been invested in casting suspicion over their presense on that pedestal being conspiratorial in some way. Your game is not a hard one to figure out. So far, you are not saying that someone wasn't standing on the pedestal - you seem to just be implying that it was someone else (one of them presumeably wearing the same clothes as Sitzman was wearing, but not seen by anyone else or captured in any other assassination films or photos). That somehow for unknown reasons, the photographer was given Zapruder's home movie camera - shot a film of the assassination - and then handed it back to Zapruder immediately following the shooting - Why? Is it because Zapruder didn't know how to run his own camera - not likely seeing how Zapruder's home movies are on the same roll of film as the assassination. So instead of weighing all the facts as to how Zapruder came to getting his camera to the plaza in time to shoot his film - it seems to be much easier to cast suspicion by offering unanswered questions not because there are no answers, but because some of you do not wish to know the answers. To make my point even more valid - Jack claims that NO ONE was on the pedestal shooting a film of the assassination. Jack ignores the evidence of Moorman's photo and how it was filmed for TV while still in Mary's possession so to claim an empty pedestal - now is that not highly illogical of Jack - of course it is, and yet you say nothing. It's all CT's VS. LNRs to you because you have not the ability to descern right from wrong pertaining to each individual piece of evidence. In other words, it is my opinion that some of you are willing to do what it takes to push your beliefs on a particular matter - some by way of dishonesty - some by way of just not looking at the evidence - some by way of using poor images that allow some leeway that good quality images do not. Concerning those individuals ... one has to wonder why they are even interested in JFK's murder. It's like they do not care who gets the blame as long as someone is made accountable for the deed. For some of us - that is not good enough. dgh: Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL David, maybe it should be 'studio lighting 101' because there are some really poor observations being made here and it is due to a lack of understanding lighting and angles. Try not to forget that Craig's many years of photography was not limited to a studio, so the point being is that he does know what he is talking about whether you or I like it or not. I mean, Jack's illustration didn't even have the direction of the sunlight correct as I pointed out with Altgens photo showing Brehm's shadow. Jack also gave no indication that he understood how two people standing upright on a pedestal would appear against the ground. Like I said above ... some people avoid wanting to know the truth for their own personal reasons. Let Jack or anyone else go out to the plaza around the week of 11/22 and take a similar photo showing how the shadows look against the ground - then the matter is put to rest whether anyone understands the "whys" or not. dgh:01 bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings.... David, Costella isn't qualified to make such findings. For instance, Costella missed the point of Moorman's camera being above the cycles windshields in support of Moorman being in the street or not, so what I am saying is that he is capable of making mistakes as we all are. And as someone of authority, he has an obligation to seek peer review which I have not seen him do. In fact, some of the mistakes he has made didn't take an expert to see them. Costella certainly is not a photographic expert ... of course, perhaps this is one of the reasons that he doesn't seek peer review of his work. Bill Miller Edited August 18, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) As a new member, I enjoy seeing new photos and ideas posted to the board, with constructive discussion and debate - that is why I joined. Let me ask you a simple question ... when it is raining and you are behind the wheel of your car .... why do you turn on your wipers? Could it be so to allow you to see the best view possible of whats in front of you so to try and avoid having an unnecessary accident ... that's why I do it and why using poor quality images are a waste of time. If just trying to see things that may not be really there is all one wishes to do, then laying on your back and watching different shaped clouds drift by could accomplish the same thing. Many of Jack's photos are posted with questions like "what do you think?" ..... which to me appear to be genuine attempts to learn more. Let's look at an example pertaing to what you just said ... Jack: "Zombies are said to cast no shadows. Whoever added Zap and Sitz to the Bronson slide forgot to give them shadows, so must have thought them among the undead. Comments?" Again, Jack: "The usual gang of idiots is strangely quiet on this study. Even Mr. Light." Miller reply: "Jack - two things ... 1) Aren't you the guy who has told this forum that you do not provoke attacks ... I believe you are, so why are you calling people idiots for not responding to what is clearly another ridiculous misreading of an assassination image??? 2) I addressed this error of yours days ago in another thread and starting this crap in a new thread is not going to change the outcome. The shadows cast NE - not due east. This means that the shadow on the ground is being cast to our right and away from the camera. Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows are not visible because the pedestal is hidding them. If you need a reference, then look at Moorman and Hill's shadows on the curb in Altgens 6." Again, Jack: "Irrelevant non-sequiturs from another joker, who is unfamiliar with Mad Magazine." Now, JKW ... what was that point you were wanting to make about Jack's sincerity in wanting to learn anything? Bill Miller Edited August 18, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 As a new member, I enjoy seeing new photos and ideas posted to the board, with constructive discussion and debate - that is why I joined. Let me ask you a simple question ... when it is raining and you are behind the wheel of your car .... why do you turn on your wipers? Could it be so to allow you to see the best view possible of whats in front of you so to try and avoid having an unnecessary accident ... that's why I do it and why using poor quality images are a waste of time. If just trying to see things that may not be really there is all one wishes to do, then laying on your back and watching different shaped clouds drift by could accomplish the same thing. Many of Jack's photos are posted with questions like "what do you think?" ..... which to me appear to be genuine attempts to learn more. Let's look at an example pertaing to what you just said ... Jack: "Zombies are said to cast no shadows. Whoever added Zap and Sitz to the Bronson slide forgot to give them shadows, so must have thought them among the undead. Comments?" Again, Jack: "The usual gang of idiots is strangely quiet on this study. Even Mr. Light." Miller reply: "Jack - two things ... 1) Aren't you the guy who has told this forum that you do not provoke attacks ... I believe you are, so why are you calling people idiots for not responding to what is clearly another ridiculous misreading of an assassination image??? 2) I addressed this error of yours days ago in another thread and starting this crap in a new thread is not going to change the outcome. The shadows cast NE - not due east. This means that the shadow on the ground is being cast to our right and away from the camera. Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows are not visible because the pedestal is hidding them. If you need a reference, then look at Moorman and Hill's shadows on the curb in Altgens 6." Again, Jack: "Irrelevant non-sequiturs from another joker, who is unfamiliar with Mad Magazine." Now, JKW ... what was that point you were wanting to make about Jack's sincerity in wanting to learn anything? Bill Miller Notice I said MANY... Yes... there needs to be a collective "voice of reason" on proposed theories. I agree with most of what you say... my primary point was, as an idealist, I would like to see more relevant debate and less chest-poking and provocation. My greatest fear is that honest debate will fade in the face of the onslaught of self-righteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 My greatest fear is that honest debate will fade in the face of the onslaught of self-righteousness. Don't mistake frustration for self-righteousness. Duly noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) Guard dog barked...among other things...."Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... Edited August 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] David, Costella isn't qualified to make such findings. For instance, Costella missed the point of Moorman's camera being above the cycles windshields in support of Moorman being in the street or not, so what I am saying is that he is capable of making mistakes as we all are. And as someone of authority, he has an obligation to seek peer review which I have not seen him do. In fact, some of the mistakes he has made didn't take an expert to see them. Costella certainly is not a photographic expert ... of course, perhaps this is one of the reasons that he doesn't seek peer review of his work. Bill Miller ********** then you should have absolutely no problem finding, retaining a physicist to review his work (its all out there, been in the public for 3+ years now, website, published, etc) and put the issue to rest. But you won't, or you can't find some such individual. What kind of credibility does that lend to your side of the debate? NONE I say! How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... Is Zavada still alive...or just brain dead? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... Is Zavada still alive...or just brain dead? Jack I don't know, Jack. Last I heard he was under the weather for a spell... I'll be dropping him a note soon, see where he and Ray Fielding are with the new and improved report... I haven't received any inadvertant emails from members of the gang recently, so I'm out of that loop In all honesty, I'm not so sure we're gonna hear anything substantial, or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 My greatest fear is that honest debate will fade in the face of the onslaught of self-righteousness. Don't worry John. These guys must actually like each other. They've been enjoying repartee with each other for five years, dating back to other forums. Scarcely a day goes by when one of them doesn't have something to say to the other. Think about it, John. Five years. My unsolicited advice is to stay out of their discussions. There are plenty of other threads. Mike Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 My greatest fear is that honest debate will fade in the face of the onslaught of self-righteousness. Don't worry John. These guys must actually like each other. They've been enjoying repartee with each other for five years, dating back to other forums. Scarcely a day goes by when one of them doesn't have something to say to the other. Think about it, John. Five years. My unsolicited advice is to stay out of their discussions. There are plenty of other threads. Mike Hogan Get lost Hogan we've been onto your game for a few years....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physist needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a physist to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Edited August 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Get lost Hogan we've been onto your game for a few years....! Sure you have David. Sure you have. At least since February, 2006 when I joined this Forum. You've been exhibiting ill temper, bad grammar, and poor reasoning for five years, man. Doesn't it get old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) then you should have absolutely no problem finding, retaining a physicist to review his work (its all out there, been in the public for 3+ years now, website, published, etc) and put the issue to rest. But you won't, or you can't find some such individual. What kind of credibility does that lend to your side of the debate? NONE I say! That's not how the game is played, David. Any moron can put up a website and anyone can obviously make claims of 7 foot tall women and how Jean and Mary were in the street during the shooting even though both have said otherwise. Pick up a copy of 'Scientific American' and look at the studies that are printed and how real experts seek peer review for their work. What you are attempting to do is to put the responsibility on the reader to seek peer review for what someone has written whereas honorable scientist and various experts seek it out themselves beforehand to show that their work has been put under a microscope before going into print. How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Edited August 19, 2006 by Bill Miller 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