Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jerry Logan

Members
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jerry Logan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,371 profile views
  1. OK! Thanks Chris - now I see what you mean. That's interesting. Best to you, Jerry
  2. Thanks Chris. I guess that's what has me puzzled. I don't see anything in the paper to paper comparison that can't be accounted for by losses in the reproduction process. And I really don't see anything in the SF Chronicle that's not in Thompson/Corbis - except for a tiny circle_ish object that's a defect or contamination on the printing medium. What I see in your circled area looks all the same to me - can you be more specific?
  3. Chris, I didn't mean the Pennsylvania photo. I was unclear - I'm asking what you see in the SF Chronicle photo that you don't see in Thompson/Corbis. Best to you, Jerry
  4. Hello Chris! I'm puzzled. Exactly what detail do you see in the newspaper print that is not present in the Thompson/Corbis images? Best to you, Jerry
  5. Thanks Dawn, it's good to hear from an actual Texas lawyer. Although there are some that say Austin isn't really a part of Texas :>) Best to you, Jerry
  6. No, I did not. I only removed his original words. It just highlights the fact that he is not willing to have his opinions questioned by the experts on this forum. It is interesting that Gary Mack, the gatekeeper of truth concerning the JFK assassination, was the one who complained to the email group of my posting Dale Myers' account. Of course, he is another one who is scared to engage in debate on this forum (even though he is a member). John, Just for my information, can you tell us exactly what email group Gary alerted? Best to you, Jerry
  7. Jim, It's interesting how two different people can bring completely different perspectives to a film or photo and come to opposite conclusions. I've always thought that the back and to the left was one of the strongest anti-alteration images in the film. It never made sense to me that someone faking the film would leave such an obvious and anti TSBD artifact in the movie. It seems insane to leave it in. As soon as the general public saw it played in real time there was an overwhelming and predictable outcry for a new investigation. Unless you're a Greer did it person, I can't think of a single reason to call attention to the grassy knoll in such an direct fashion. Best to you, Jerry Insane? ROTFLMFAO! For ten years now the Z-film has been seriously questioned yet here ya are still whining about back and to the left. Frankly, I can think of 40 years of reasons calling attention to: a conspiracy did in JFK! No conspiracy right Jer? Ah...no David. Back and to the left means conspiracy. It seems odd to alter a film and leave in the evidence for conspiracy - or have you forgotten that 80% of the American people (including me) thought there was a conspiracy long before they had the benefit of your thoughts on the Zapruder film. But I'm sure that tying the Kennedy assassination to moon hoaxes, airplaneless Jewish attacks on the World Trade Center, and space shuttles destroyed by energy weapons will go a long way toward pushing that percentage way up.
  8. John, Myers has some control over his words via copyright protection though I think fair use would prevail - in any case he has absolutely no legal power to preclude discussing his ideas. Ironic, since Pat has suggested an idea that extends Myers thoughts - but maybe that's the problem. Myers wouldn't like it if someone showed a simpler and more direct route to his convoluted conclusions. Best to you, Jerry
  9. Jim, It's interesting how two different people can bring completely different perspectives to a film or photo and come to opposite conclusions. I've always thought that the back and to the left was one of the strongest anti-alteration images in the film. It never made sense to me that someone faking the film would leave such an obvious and anti TSBD artifact in the movie. It seems insane to leave it in. As soon as the general public saw it played in real time there was an overwhelming and predictable outcry for a new investigation. Unless you're a Greer did it person, I can't think of a single reason to call attention to the grassy knoll in such an direct fashion. Best to you, Jerry
  10. Pat, You've definitely identified a weak spot, but it's not an obvious slam dunk. As I wrote, there are two two parts- 160 v. 175 and the sync between the last McLain frame in Hughes and the Zapruder frames. Thomas thinks your Z150 is way off, in fact Myers puts it at Z150. Thomas wants to put the sync way earlier, perhaps (and this is just a guess on my part) all the way into the 132, 133 gap. FWIW, I think you're on the right track. McLain has to traverse 174 feet to get to the right spot. He's traveling 14.7 mph as he rounds the Main/Houston turn. How long is it reasonably going to take him to travel the 174 feet? Work back to see what Z frame that implies for the Hughes/Zapruder sync issue. Maybe it implies something ridiculous or impossible, maybe it doesn't. We've got to run the numbers and look at the photos. Best to you, Jerry Edit: Visual syncing is right up the alley of some of the best photo people around, Chris Davidson, Martin Hinrichs, Robin Unger and yes, even Craig - I bet we could do a bang up job without going epipolar - are you up for it?
  11. Jim, It would be very interesting to know what bothers you about the Zapruder film. You're knowledgeable and open-minded on the issue so it would be valuable to know how an agnostic sees the existing movie. If it's not too much trouble, would you tell us what three things about the film trouble you most. Best to you, Jerry
  12. Pat, Thomas puts the first shot at Z175, not 160. Also, it's not so clear that the last Hughes frame = Z160. Best to you, Jerry
  13. Oh Jack, stop being silly. Fielding specifically says Healy's ideas which include the 8mm>35mm>8mm transfer are technologically naive. He says manipulation of "these images" couldn't have been achieved in 1963. Fielding doesn't think it was possible. He may be right, he may be wrong, he may be in the employ of the "ongoing coverup" but there's nothing unclear and there's no clever parsing. He says you're wrong - deal with it! Jerry Jerry... Good to see you jumping in.... Now here's a news flash for ya, Jack White is correct! I remember when the 8mm-8mm alteration nonsense first appeared (It was I that first brought the issue up, complete with photo of a simple proj-camera system). It was a simple 8mm duping system (I spoke of this at the UofMinn 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium). Couldn't help thinking how desperate the other side of the film alteration argument was looking. Hoping for some sort, any sort of diversion, perhaps? So while you're peeking into this field or craft (sometimes called a black art) why not ask Ray Fielding what specifically his expertise is, or personal experience in a optical film lab. Get yourself some credibility Jer....After near 10 years now, the non-alteration side simply can't find a reliable source to state, "it is/was impossible to alter the 1963 in-camera Zapruder film." Should be a piece of cake with your resources! David, You know it's always good to exchange views with you. Thanks for your memories, but this is an exercise in reading comprehension - not history. Zavada explicitly rejects the the 8mm enlargement thesis in his (2010) reply to Horne. Jack is wrong. And whatever you think happened at a 2003 conference doesn't change a word Zavada and Fielding wrote in 2010. Jerry c'mon Jer.... by his own word Rollie is a complete neophyte when it comes to film composing (any gauge film). So, who'd Rollie quote as a 8mm blowup source Jer? Gotta love your sense of humor... David But David, as I've written three(?) times now, Zavada may be right, he may be wrong, he and Fielding may be taking one for the team - but Jack is wrong about what they wrote. See ...the preliminary question is did Jack fairly and accurately report Zavada's and Fielding's words? No, not even close. Before we start refuting and demanding experts it's usually a good idea to comprehend what's being refuted - otherwise we're just batting at straw men - we become legends in our own minds as our imaginary foes wither under our startling insights and analysis. I'm sure Jack would want to confront what was really written and defeat his real critics - so you need to help him understand where he went wrong. Jerry
  14. Oh Jack, stop being silly. Fielding specifically says Healy's ideas which include the 8mm>35mm>8mm transfer are technologically naive. He says manipulation of "these images" couldn't have been achieved in 1963. Fielding doesn't think it was possible. He may be right, he may be wrong, he may be in the employ of the "ongoing coverup" but there's nothing unclear and there's no clever parsing. He says you're wrong - deal with it! Jerry Jerry... Good to see you jumping in.... Now here's a news flash for ya, Jack White is correct! I remember when the 8mm-8mm alteration nonsense first appeared (It was I that first brought the issue up, complete with photo of a simple proj-camera system). It was a simple 8mm duping system (I spoke of this at the UofMinn 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium). Couldn't help thinking how desperate the other side of the film alteration argument was looking. Hoping for some sort, any sort of diversion, perhaps? So while you're peeking into this field or craft (sometimes called a black art) why not ask Ray Fielding what specifically his expertise is, or personal experience in a optical film lab. Get yourself some credibility Jer....After near 10 years now, the non-alteration side simply can't find a reliable source to state, "it is/was impossible to alter the 1963 in-camera Zapruder film." Should be a piece of cake with your resources! David, You know it's always good to exchange views with you. Thanks for your memories, but this is an exercise in reading comprehension - not history. Zavada explicitly rejects the the 8mm enlargement thesis in his (2010) reply to Horne. Jack is wrong. And whatever you think happened at a 2003 conference doesn't change a word Zavada and Fielding wrote in 2010. Jerry
  15. Chris, It doesn't look bad - but, if you tried to pass it off as an 18 fps movie, the limo would be passing the background objects at around 21 mpg. Best, Jerry
×
×
  • Create New...