Greg, that was a bit more details into the Costella evidence(**) than I was thinking about. I should say that I agree with Costella's analysis. It passes the gut feeling tests, and it does well in the physics aspects of the blurring. To respond otherwise, I would need to fabricate or hypothesize a means by which a future researcher could cast doubt on some of the specific, technical aspects of his work.
If I were to put myself into that mindset, seeking wildly for ways to tear down the blur analysis... looking for any tiny weakness... I think I could. If I was of that mind, and I had a prejudiced view of the work, I could fabricate something. I could indeed take a tiny crack in the blur analysis, swing a hammer, and open it up. This is the mindset of a full-blown, hardline fool, I might add.
But what I see in the JFK assassination research is the periodic foolish arguments that are difficult to squash. Why? because they are subjective, unprovable, and invented only for promoting a narrative. Costella's work is subject to this type of attack. And you know what? The ones promoting it, and believing it, and writing books about it never realize that their work is simply a farce.
I hate to make this point, but both "sides" of assassination research have their farcical narratives.
So let me say this. If I were to attack Costella's blur analysis, and in so doing gain me some friends over at you-know-who's newsgroup or wherever, then I would get a response. You or some other researcher would be quick to reduce my arguments to the ramblings of a fool. My guys support me, Costella's guys support him. Lather, rinse, repeat.
To the outside observer, and especially to the "mentally handicapped," the issue becomes cloudier and cloudier. Do we believe Costella or the attackers who write all the mainstream narratives?
Mark my words. This will eventually happen (if it hasn't already) to Costella's work.
Didn't it already happen to Robert Frazier's work? Wasn't he something like the FBI's most prolific firearms identification expert... ever? But wait, haven't you read books by researchers who tear his WC testimony to shreds? The top, top, most experienced expert in that field? (I know, he was an involved party or partisan, but aside from that, he simply stands in my argument as an exemplar.)
So by extension, and by somewhat of a premonition of the future of JFK research, I believe that there could be a chink in Costella's work. I can guarantee you that someone will drive a wedge in it, legitimate or otherwise.
I am not talking about misgivings or even skepticism about the particulars. I think you know I am generalizing about how research gets clouded. And I am not complaining or whining about how the "other side" is full of ignorant fools who fabricate stuff. What I am doing is instead promoting the true research into the assassination. My solution to the "other side's" arguments against Costella is to corroborate it with another scientific study.
I mentioned earlier that I am going to write a paper that uses Costella's work extensively. Rather than an "independent" study, it will be dependent on Costella's work. So if any of his calculations are wrong, then I will be able to "catch" his error. Or if any of my analysis is wrong, his work should contradict mine. So far, I have hundreds of data points that all say that Costella's work is right. So far, it appears to be 100%. No errors. Yea.
So I am pretty convinced. But that still doesn't rise to the level of irrefutable evidence. Why? Because Costella's work is just an analysis, it is not concrete evidence. It relies on measurements, photography, geometry, calculations, and conclusions. The only way to ensure that it stays convincing is to add to it, build upon it, and keep looking for any weak points.
And since you brought it up... I am sort of looking for a fellow researcher. I was sort of looking for someone on the "other side" of the issue to help me. But since this research is really side-agnostic, it should be open to anyone. If you know anyone who might be interested in a small to medium size project, I could use some help. And I am offering that to anyone reasonably capable, not just to Greg.
And so, to be clear, I previously said, "I cannot be sure," in which I was referring to whether Costella's work is "untouchable, incontrovertible, and impeccable." I chose my words carefully. If I was sure, then no future research should be able to either refute it or "tweak" it. I have read that Albert Einstein's work from 100 years ago is potentially needing a "tweak." Like this paper followed by this heretical one. However, that particular issue was debunked so many times in the following year that one reporter said that the latest debunking of the bad science was "like the sod planted atop their grave."
So while Einstein's theories have been scrutinized and the challenges rebuffed, we may see it refuted some day. They are, after all, just theories subject to proof. When will I ever be sure of his theories?
Thankfully, Costella's results are subject to proof. I intend to prove them
right or wrong ... er, I mean probably right or wrong. In doing so, I believe it will make the work stronger.
(**Oh, and by the way, I like how you picked the blur analysis. I wouldn't consider the blur analysis the weak part of Costella's research. I had other aspects in mind. And with that, I'd be willing to attack the weaker aspects and leave the blur alone. That's the way an opponent thinks, or in this case, a fellow researcher.)