Jump to content
The Education Forum

Frank Agbat

JFK
  • Content Count

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frank Agbat

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,018 profile views
  1. A sufficiently skilled engineer could also place an appropriate CCD or CMOS sensor at the point where the film would have been.
  2. Cliff, Just so I understand correctly... The red line in this image: represents the point where JFK's hand (which is in front of his head at the point when this image was taken) is obscured by his head/neck area, correct?
  3. IIRC, the Altgens photo was taken with a 105mm lens. Telephoto lenses produce a compression effect -- making the distance between objects appear less than it actually is.
  4. Here is a comparison that was worked-up a while ago when John Dolva and I were working on film-sync and timing. I don't remember exactly who created this, so I can't give (or take) credit for it. I believe that it cements Z317 as the closest frame. MS46 occurs before Z317, and MS47 after (but, importantly, before Z318).
  5. As promised: If you subscribe to the Moorman polaroid corresponding with Z317, this is probably the closest Muchmore frame. According to my calculations, this frame (the 46th frame in the shooting sequence - aka "MS-46") occurred slightly *before* Z317 (about .02 seconds, give or take): As you can see, it does contain some blur, likely due to camera movement. It was followed by this frame (MS-47): For completeness, the closest Nix frame, in my estimation is this frame - the 27th in the shooting sequence. I believe it to be taken slightly *after* Z317:
  6. Yes she is. I can post the frame that is the most likely to correspond with the Polaroid, but it will have to be later on today -- I don't have access to the images at the moment.
  7. Good. What would the Z-frame equivalent be? Pamela, This frame (the 36th in the Muchmore assassination sequence) probably was taken ever so slighly (a fractional frame) before Z-307. Edit -- adding Z-307:
  8. Chris, That feature isn't present in either of Costella's combined edits, either.
  9. Chris, From the look of the comparison, it appears that the copy with the missing shadow (Groden?) is slightly cropped in the vertical direction -- at least relative to the copy that contains the shadow. How either copy compares to the Z original is anybody's guess.
  10. The MPI DVD contains a video track that documents how they produced their version of the Z-Film. IIRC, they photographed each frame onto a 4x5 positive, and then scanned that positive. MPI had to deal with registration and rotation issues with each frame, as neither the photographic process nor the scan was absolutely "in alignment". Ergo the need for image manipulation. That is, as I mentioned, my recollection. I would encourage you to watch the DVD for complete verification. There are PLENTY of issues with the MPI transfer, and it is far from the "definitive" copy that they brag about it being. I would not trust it, Chris, for the type of analysis you are attempting. Rotation (for certain) and frame-sizing are known issues.
  11. Chris, Can you re-post your hypothesis, please? I've looked at your images and I'm not quite sure what the point is.
  12. I don't recall making any "personal attacks" in my comments on this thread. In fact, I don't recall that I've launched a personal attack at any point in my stay on the forum. I did not appreciate the insulting and condescending tenor of the remainder of the reply. Mr. Healy is correct on one thing. I do not have a JD; I'm not a lawyer, nor did I ever attend law school. Thus, it is highly unlikely that I would have been awarded a Juris Doctor by any of the graduate schools I attended. Then again, I never claimed to have such a degree...
  13. First, it was Craig's Xacto knife... Then it was Bill's Screwdriver in the ground... Now, the yardstick. Gentlemen -- this is *precisely* the type of open, shared research that this community needs. Anyone with a camera and some simple tools can repeat these experiments for themselves and verify the results. These simple, but effective, demonstrations and experiments show some fundamental (but not necessarily immediately simple) concepts of perspective, parallax, and all the associated issues when 3 dimensions are "mapped" onto two. That is what happens, folks, then light passes through a lens and is "focused" onto a perpendicular plane (like film or an imaging sensor - like CCD or CMOS). The result is a two-dimensional object. ** Additional manipulation of that object is manipulation in 2D space, not 3D!! ** That is why simple re-sizing, turning, twisting, and aligning on our computers may result in highly flawed conclusions. Sure -- it is absolutely possible to glean lots of useful information from the photographs and films. Like Craig and Bill, this is my primary area of interest and expertise. I can't keep track of the alphabet soup of names that is the "whodunnit" portion of this case. There are others on here with the appropriate skills to work this angle. I'm simply not that person, so I stick to the science and technology side of things (where I have something to contribute). I continue to try to keep an open mind toward any number of theories. I know people work hard on them and are proud of their work. That is why I prefer to ask questions and listen to responses as opposed to simply ripping into someone's work. However, at this juncture, from where I sit, the film alteration crowd has not made their case in a compelling way, scientifically. I'm still open to the concept, as to be closed-minded is not in the spirit of good research. However, I'm certainly leaning (strongly) in the direction that the photographic evidence is genuine, unaltered apart from damage and aging, and a useful research tool. Does that make me a lone-nutter? Not really. Neither the WC, the HCA, Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al have not made their case in a compelling way, either.
×
×
  • Create New...