Karl Kinaski Posted April 12, 2010 Author Share Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Since Zapruder panned his camera left to right, there should be no parallax change IF he did not move his camera laterally to either side. If the background really was inserted, then traces of the black mask along the edges of the lamp post would be detectable. Not only are there no such artifacts, even Oliver Stone's top Hollywood effects editors, working with Groden's first generation 35mm print, noticed and fakery.Gary Mack Gary I am not sure, what you mean. Do you got another explanation, for following an object with a camera than by panning the head with the camera? Zapruder was hardly stepping sideways like Fred Astaire... Karl Edited April 14, 2010 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Karl, I think a more appropriate question would be " Why is the Z film the only pedestal film where someone tracking the limo going downhill, is tilting the camera uphill? Here are some examples besides mine (sprocket holes included), which show this phenomenon. If anyone knows where I can get a full run from Janowitz's film, please let me know. I could only do a partial of his, with what Craig Lamson supplied awhile ago. http://98.155.2.255:8400/44BBA/ZAPRUDER.gif http://98.155.2.255:8400/601E0/CHRIS.gif http://98.155.2.255:8400/41C21/HILL.gif http://98.155.2.255:8400/2A858/HILL2.gif http://98.155.2.255:8400/6ADA8/Janowitz.gif Something else to consider, " When does Z actually start tilting his camera upward"? Near what object? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) The film starts, and towards the end, gets the limo in the centre. He doesn't zoom. The eye piece is separate from the lens. The closer the limo comes, while the eye piece is centering the limo the lens is pointing elsewhere? He sees the action that the film therefore cannot show. We see what the lens saw. add what I mean is he started with max zoom and stayed there. An amateur. With the pan, step down, pan... throughout the film to me gross indicators of authenticity of the frames, but perhaps not the film as we have it, (I think at least there are significant frames missing for example) Edited April 14, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 John, The focal point is the limo. He has no problems keeping it in center frame from 133 til about the time it reaches the Stemmon's sign. The limo is traveling at a constant rate of speed. 10 mph approx., which is crawling when filming a moving object. Still traveling downhill when it reaches the Stemmon's sign. In this clip, I pan just a bit and let the white truck go by. Keep in mind, these vehicles are traveling much faster than 10 mph. Looking at this, one realizes they have to pan and tilt downward to keep tracking the truck. (focal point) I think it's well represented in the previous clips, regardless of camera, lens, experience, etc. etc chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 gotta get a viewer to comment. Could you wth words state whether my notion has any merit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted April 20, 2010 Author Share Posted April 20, 2010 (edited) Karl,First, it looks like I got my merds wixed in that last line. It should read: Not only are there no such artifacts, even Oliver Stone's top Hollywood effects editors, working with Groden's first generation 35mm print, didn’t notice any fakery. During the lamppost part of the film, Zapruder was merely pivoting his camera to follow the car. He did not move the camera sideways, he just turned it. Had he moved the camera sideways, then the background would appear to have moved beyond the lamppost. Does that explain it better? Gary (Mack) I am sorry: but the phenomenon of parallax occurs no matter, if you move a camera sideways, or if you just turn it. The absence of this natural law in the Zapruder film remains an oddity... KK Edited April 20, 2010 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Karl,First, it looks like I got my merds wixed in that last line. It should read: Not only are there no such artifacts, even Oliver Stone's top Hollywood effects editors, working with Groden's first generation 35mm print, didn’t notice any fakery. During the lamppost part of the film, Zapruder was merely pivoting his camera to follow the car. He did not move the camera sideways, he just turned it. Had he moved the camera sideways, then the background would appear to have moved beyond the lamppost. Does that explain it better? Gary (Mack) I am sorry: but the phenomenon of parallax occurs no matter, if you move a camera sideways, or if you just turn it. The absence of this natural law in the Zapruder film remains an oddity... KK Ok. lets assume the entrance pupil moved...lets say 2 inches....how much movement of wall compared to the lamp post would we expect to see Karl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted April 21, 2010 Author Share Posted April 21, 2010 Karl,First, it looks like I got my merds wixed in that last line. It should read: Not only are there no such artifacts, even Oliver Stone's top Hollywood effects editors, working with Groden's first generation 35mm print, didn’t notice any fakery. During the lamppost part of the film, Zapruder was merely pivoting his camera to follow the car. He did not move the camera sideways, he just turned it. Had he moved the camera sideways, then the background would appear to have moved beyond the lamppost. Does that explain it better? Gary (Mack) I am sorry: but the phenomenon of parallax occurs no matter, if you move a camera sideways, or if you just turn it. The absence of this natural law in the Zapruder film remains an oddity... KK Ok. lets assume the entrance pupil moved...lets say 2 inches....how much movement of wall compared to the lamp post would we expect to see Karl? Precise measurements would have to be made locally... But look at C Davidsons GiF post #10...there one can SEE that firewall-lamppost movement...it should be visible in the Z-film too...but it is not... KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Karl,First, it looks like I got my merds wixed in that last line. It should read: Not only are there no such artifacts, even Oliver Stone's top Hollywood effects editors, working with Groden's first generation 35mm print, didn’t notice any fakery. During the lamppost part of the film, Zapruder was merely pivoting his camera to follow the car. He did not move the camera sideways, he just turned it. Had he moved the camera sideways, then the background would appear to have moved beyond the lamppost. Does that explain it better? Gary (Mack) I am sorry: but the phenomenon of parallax occurs no matter, if you move a camera sideways, or if you just turn it. The absence of this natural law in the Zapruder film remains an oddity... KK Ok. lets assume the entrance pupil moved...lets say 2 inches....how much movement of wall compared to the lamp post would we expect to see Karl? Precise measurements would have to be made locally... But look at C Davidsons GiF post #10...there one can SEE that firewall-lamppost movement...it should be visible in the Z-film too...but it is not... KK Oh come on Karl, ballpark it. The distances don't need to be precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 But look at C Davidsons GiF post #10...there one can SEE that firewall-lamppost movement...it should be visible in the Z-film too...but it is not...KK Apples and oranges. You have zero clue as to the difference in entrance pupil shift between Davidson and Zapruder. But hey, Lets see what you can do. Give two clear Zapruder frames to compare, the lamppost on the far right and the far left. Show us NO lateral movement of the lamp post to the background. Nice, tight closeups pleae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted April 21, 2010 Author Share Posted April 21, 2010 (edited) Craig Lamson said: Karl Kinaski said: Quote Edited March 26, 2017 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 But look at C Davidsons GiF post #10...there one can SEE that firewall-lamppost movement...it should be visible in the Z-film too...but it is not...KK Apples and oranges. You have zero clue as to the difference in entrance pupil shift between Davidson and Zapruder. But hey, Lets see what you can do. Give two clear Zapruder frames to compare, the lamppost on the far right and the far left. Show us NO lateral movement of the lamp post to the background. Nice, tight closeups pleae. A couple of weeks ago,I saw your well equipped photo-studio. (you sent a pic) I think it would be much easier for you to prove me wrong. If you can, I will be the first which would admit: I was wrong. I am sure, you can...or maybe not? ;-) KK Karl, its YOUR point. I suggest YOU prove it. I am sure you can, or maybe not? Or are you just waving your hands wildly? In any case YOU don't need a photo studio to tell us the approximate ratio of entrance pupil to wall movement or to copy a few Z frames from the net and do a very nice comparison. Its the least someome making a claim of this nature would be expected to provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) Bump, because the topic is linked to the "Alexandra Zapruder topic" ... The topic of this thread is: THE FROZEN LAMPPOST, or: The absence of the natural law of parallax in the Zappi film ... Edited March 26, 2017 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Karl, You bumped a 7-year-old thread and yet the guy who posted to it before you back in 2010, Craig, is asking you to prove that the lamp post was pasted in. It's your theory after all. So here we are, 7 years later - have you taken Craig's lead and proven the lamp post was pasted into the film? And much more importantly - if it was pasted in, what would be the significance of doing so in relation to the assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 "The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi 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