Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Thanks Craig -

Interesting stuff and a great link http://www.ideastrai...gResolution.pdf.

We could maybe do with an area on the forum for FAQ's / Guides / How to's on topics such as this that are to do with research methods and common technical mistakes & assumptions, rather than the assassination debate per se.

My other question relates to the images we have available to us for study and whether we are likely to ever see more detail by going back to original archive material. I realize the answer to this will depend on the image in question so:

Using the best technology and methods available to us today, could further study/processing of the original prints, or better still (i would guess) the film negative for Altgens6 if available, reveal further detail than is available to us now. Or do our our best references already match the limits of the original source material given that even a film negative cannot be zoomed indefinitely to reveal microscopic detail not captured by the camera lens and the film.

Also, my question asked if the images we have, in this case altgens6, are as good as we are ever going to get (by this I mean available full size digital images or photographic prints). Is there a possibility that further work on the original documents could reveal some of the detail that is missing from our current reference documents? Is there anything to gain in further study of the actual altgen6 over the copies available to us now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One last point to this browser display issue: Back during the Moorman in the Street debate on JFKresearch Assassination Forum in the late 90's

Josiah Thompson and company were attempting to refute the claim that she was in the street and not in the grass when she took her photo. Because

of the detail that needed to be examined Josiah sent me and others a CD of the drum scan (a HUGE file) so that we could examine the photo at the

highest resolution possible without any problem of loss of data from compression or web browser limitations. There is no question that the CD version

was far and away a better sample to study than anything that was available on the web. Even when that same drum scan had been uploaded to an

FTP site it was inferior when viewed through a browser, but was perfectly fine when downloaded and examined through a graphics program (not a

browser).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Greg, I hope that awful picture of you doesn't continue to describe your predicament. It sounds awful. I hope the progress you have made continues and soon you can tell us that you've discarded that apparatus.

I followed Craig's link (www.craiglamson.com/MOORMAN8000.png) and looked again at the drumscan image of the Moorman photo. As you know that image came from the scan of a negative as large as the original Moorman photo done in 1967 by a professional photographer in Dallas. I paid both Moorman and the photogragher to bring this about. I then took the negative to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and paid a couple of hundred bucks to have it drumscanned by their sophisticated scanner. The result is the scan Craig published the link to.

I haven't looked at this drum scan in ages. You recall that the whole kerfuffle began with Jack White's claim that two points in the Moorman photo established a particular line-of-sight. That line-of-sight was established by the line-up of the left front top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the bottom right corner of the Pergola window behind it. White's point was that when you line up these two points they establish a point for the lens of Moorman's camera that is only about 40 inches above the ground. Since the Zapruder and Muchmore films show her calmly standing on the grass with the camera raised to eye-level, claimed White, Fetzer, Mantik, et al., this meant the photos must have been faked up. When I look at the drumscan image after all these years, it seems flamingly obvious that Jack White's two points don't line up. The solution to the kerfuffle is that Jack White simply misread what was in the Moorman photo.

I just wondered after all these years what you think now.

JT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Josiah

Quite interested in this. It's the kind of thing I was talking about when I asked above if the reference images we have for Altgens6 are as good as we are ever likely to get.

Can you please provide some more info as I don't quite follow the process from the description you provided, especially the bit I have highlighted below. I think this describes how you produced a duplicate negative which you then had drumscanned.

I followed Craig's link (www.craiglamson.com/MOORMAN8000.png) and looked again at the drumscan image of the Moorman photo. As you know that image came from the scan of a negative as large as the original Moorman photo done in 1967 by a professional photographer in Dallas. I paid both Moorman and the photogragher to bring this about. I then took the negative to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and paid a couple of hundred bucks to have it drumscanned by their sophisticated scanner. The result is the scan Craig published the link to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't seen that "Very Large" (50MB) Thompson Moorman drumscan for a couple of years

http://www.craiglams...MOORMAN8000.png

Since the last time Craig made it available online, at that time i reduced the size, to make it more managable, so that i could upload it to my image gallery

My appreciation to Josiah & Craig for providing it to the Research Community

Click on image to view full size:

moormanXdS.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to explain. In the spring of 1967, I was done with my LIFE assignment and was putting together all the details that went into Six Seconds. Mary Moorman's photograph was extremely important since it showed the knoll at Z 315. I had done some research with AP and Wide World in New York concerning the negatives and prints of the photo that they had. But the original Polaroid was sitting in Dallas. I paid Mary Moorman for the use of her photo in Six Second. Part of the deal was that she would let a professional photographer come to her house and copy the Polaroid. I hired a professional photographer to do this. He went to her home and copied the Polaroid using a medium format camera where the negative itself is about the size of Moorman's Polaroid. It was that negative from forty-five years ago that I had scanned in San Francisco. The drum scan resulting may turn out to be the highest resolution copy of the Moorman photo extant since the Polaroid itself has deteriorated further with each passing decade.

Robin just posted the drum scan. I was delighted to be able to do this, Robin. You are most welcome. I noticed on the drum scan you posted that it is quite easy to see that the two points Jack White said lined up perfectly (the claim that started the whole "Moorman in the Street" kerfuffle) clearly don't line up.

JT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

last night i watched Costella's presentation on the Film Hoax from 2003 - i was thoroughly impressed. i don't necessarily agree with some of his final explanations, but find it hard to argue, of course, with his science. wow.

although Chaney wasn't mentioned in the presentation, i have come across this story elsewhere, and didn't realize it was Fetzer/Costella who'd presented it, as well.

the idea that so many fully reliable witnesses testify that Chaney rode to the front of the procession while it's not being seen on the film is quite 'explosive' (i struggle with predictable words, but 'explosive' seems to fit well here).

or Conclusive. as the title of the thread mentions.

this is a WOW thing, for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hear, hear!!!

As I have stated from time to time, my position is that everyone acknowledges there were at least two splices in the "camera original" of the Z-film(s). Thus, the question is not whether or not the film(s) were altered but to what extent and with how much malevolent intent were they altered.

At the same time, I must say that the most vicious arguments seem to between those who believe the film(s) were altered and those who do not. Making a plea to authority or a plea to the masses is simply a fallacy and anyone who needs to use them is demonstrating that they do not find their own position strong enough to argue on a level field. The same with ad homs. The result of trying to bully a discussion one way or another is that everyone goes around the same circle again.

Why not try something different? :-0

As I have stated from time to time, my position is that everyone acknowledges there were at least two splices in the "camera original" of the Z-film(s). Thus, the question is not whether or not the film(s) were altered but to what extent and with how much malevolent intent were they altered.

At the same time, I must say that the most vicious arguments seem to between those who believe the film(s) were altered and those who do not. Making a plea to authority or a plea to the masses is simply a fallacy and anyone who needs to use them is demonstrating that they do not find their own position strong enough to argue on a level field. The same with ad homs. The result of trying to bully a discussion one way or another is that everyone goes around the same circle again.

Why not try something different? :-0

Link to post
Share on other sites

last night i watched Costella's presentation on the Film Hoax from 2003 - i was thoroughly impressed. i don't necessarily agree with some of his final explanations, but find it hard to argue, of course, with his science. wow.

although Chaney wasn't mentioned in the presentation, i have come across this story elsewhere, and didn't realize it was Fetzer/Costella who'd presented it, as well.

the idea that so many fully reliable witnesses testify that Chaney rode to the front of the procession while it's not being seen on the film is quite 'explosive' (i struggle with predictable words, but 'explosive' seems to fit well here).

or Conclusive. as the title of the thread mentions.

this is a WOW thing, for me.

The Chaney racing ahead and speaking to Curry incident happened after they'd left the plaza, on the onramp to the freeway. As to why they acted as though this had happened just after the shots, we can only guess. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the NIx film shows "bodyguards" Chaney and Jackson slamming on their brakes to avoid getting shot, and that they were not interviewed by the commission.

But that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not doubting you at all, Pat - in fact, you're one of the ones seem more legit to me.

interesting about this - Fetzer said something about the Currymobile actually pulling over to allow the Limo to race ahead - i wonder where this happened, and where all this is documented? There really were several people mentioning the problem with Chaney. And those testimonies of Chaney and the other cop really did make it sound like it's what he did as soon as it happened (the shots).

i see what you do mean in Nix, too. The both slow quickly, then the inner cop seems to slow more (NOT Chaney speed up). And it's at that point that either 1) NO cop races forward to warn Curry, or 2) NO cop races forward to warn Curry. I'm saying that it's pretty cut and dry - IF they say this is where he did go forward, there's a problem. I'd love to see trustworthy material on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Craig -

Interesting stuff and a great link http://www.ideastrai...gResolution.pdf.

We could maybe do with an area on the forum for FAQ's / Guides / How to's on topics such as this that are to do with research methods and common technical mistakes & assumptions, rather than the assassination debate per se.

I think this is a great idea - i'm very interested in the expert knowledge and skills that are available in this forum, and don't know exactly how a particular item would be found, such as port-mortem procedure, etc. As much as is available, in any case. It'd be nice if there were a Medical Examiner or two lurking around... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

last night i watched Costella's presentation on the Film Hoax from 2003 - i was thoroughly impressed. i don't necessarily agree with some of his final explanations, but find it hard to argue, of course, with his science. wow.

although Chaney wasn't mentioned in the presentation, i have come across this story elsewhere, and didn't realize it was Fetzer/Costella who'd presented it, as well.

the idea that so many fully reliable witnesses testify that Chaney rode to the front of the procession while it's not being seen on the film is quite 'explosive' (i struggle with predictable words, but 'explosive' seems to fit well here).

or Conclusive. as the title of the thread mentions.

this is a WOW thing, for me.

The Chaney racing ahead and speaking to Curry incident happened after they'd left the plaza, on the onramp to the freeway. As to why they acted as though this had happened just after the shots, we can only guess. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the NIx film shows "bodyguards" Chaney and Jackson slamming on their brakes to avoid getting shot, and that they were not interviewed by the commission.

But that's just me.

In fact, Pat - i just listened to Chaney describe the event on camera just after the shooting, and he says, first of all, that he saw K hit "in the face" by the "second bullet", and then that K "slumped over into Mrs. Kennedy's lap" and that he realized they were being fired upon, and went ahead of the President's car to look for Chief Curry.

the other M/C cop states the same thing. It's pretty obvious this is supposed to have happened right then and there.

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...