David Josephs

Thanks for the great article John...

It always amazes me how "patriots" always look to destroy the very traits that make us FREE AMERICANS...

It is our expressed RIGHT to try and abolish the UAAC... or support it with our full hearts...

In the very same way Minchell can say what he does about Lane... Lane can say the same about the goverment...

Yet one is a hero, the other a commie agitator.... Welcome to Amerika

Craig, dumbing down would be a STEP UP for your work....

You and your work are simplistic at best.... a scam and charade as usual... and a directed attempt to disrupt and annoy at worst...

you're a gnat on a bull's a$$ who thinks he's an elephant - a pathetic old man wishing he'd have paid attention to the hatred he brings upon himself

First learn to add/subtract/multiple/divide well enough to understand speed and distance...

then maybe you can believe your little girl offerings need "dumbing down"

what an amazingly pompous a$$ you are.... you do understand THAT is your rep... right? that REP you are so concerned with and proud of....

Start a thread CL... see who actually cares - see who wants to play your games and enjoys your posting company...

Show off that BIG BRAIN old man... before you can't remember where you left it.

No need to "take apart your work" old man... it's complete crap from the word GO. Has been for years... will be for years to come.

All you need do is post it.

You now gonna play your, "here's a photo, tell me what's wrong with it" game? {yawn}

or the "here's an experiement - see how I'm pulling the wool over your eyes" game?

This is no SURPRISE to anyone but you CL.... old people like you are the last to understand THEY are the problem.

The only FANTASY here is the one between your ears in believing your posts contribute anything... teach anything, resolve anything.

At BEST you're a LNer DVP/VB wanna-be without the prerequisite knowledge of your bible, the WCR.

You wave your hands about telling all how photography is supposed to work...

cause you actually know very little about the assassination.... yes indeed CL... you're a real mystery, and a complete failure on every forum you infest.

Carry on like a little girl again now CL... it's all you seem good at.

of course not old man... who would be here to call you on your never ending BS...

Let's see you've been DESTROYING posters in your mind for years...

Even on this thread...

what a complete joke of a human being you are old man....

Pathetic then, pathetic now and forever.

Watching you get all worked up... typing so fast your fat little fingers can't keep up...

No time to review your post for fear of missing something to "comment" about...

you are a joke... an ongoing joke.

Posted 14 July 2010 - 03:57 AM

Lampoonson is here to annoy. Ignore him. I am not questioning his motivation.

It is just an observation; all of his postings are merely annoying.

Jack

I'm sure my posts are annoying to you Jack, I've destroyed more of your stupid claims than you care to count.

Showing the depths of your photographic ignorance has been quite enjoyable.

Edited by Craig Lamson, 14 July 2010 - 04:00 AM.

Thorn? just can't help that ubber ego of yours, can you?

Gnat's on a bull's a$$ old man.... that you think swatting at you from time to time is giving you the attention you so desperately need, is what makes this entire thing so sweet and humorous...

You regurgitate what I post as your own words and think you're clever...

Ain't nobody here gives a sh!t what you have to say or offer old man... and as long as we can keep you running in your little circles trying to prove how smart you think you are...

Others here can get real work done... without your trolling.

Thanks for playing, impotent old man... now run along and play with your exacto knives, broomsticks, coffee cups and your other props...

Little children should be seen playing with themselves, not heard... run along now and try to keep you big mouth shut while the adults have adult discussion...

bye now....

Oh you sad and pathetic old man...

EVERYONE could give a rat's a$$ about what you have ever said and what you will ever say....

EVERYONE has repeatedly wished you simply move on, crawl back under that rock... .

EVERYONE gets their daily jollies watching you froth, and drool and spit and curse... then bring out those kindergarten insults...

Yes indeed old man... that you believe EVERYONE is waiting for YOU to do ANYTHING is a seriously funny joke and a great indication of the level of self importance you place on your sad little life.

Stick your exacto knife where it belongs... your sham of "Photo expert" has gone so far beyond wearing thin... you're transparent

You've been a worthless annoyance to EVERYONE within the JFK community for YEARS...

Didn't get the memo I guess.

Damn, you are so EASY. So you go spin your wheels and prove to us how your BS experiments are worth spit...

don't be too offended when no one answers the door when you come calling.

We've got MUCH better things to be doing.

See ya around old man.... The hook is baited with a fat and juicy one... all you need to do is open your mouth.... once again,

Ok Duncan I am game ,has it been rotated?.

Ian

Ok Duncan I am game ,has it been rotated?.

Ian

Correct, Ian.

Rotation does not account for why the images of the people are closer together in the colorized version...

My gif illustrates very plainly that the sizes of the two images are NOT the same... not even close.

So what accounts from the space differences?

Unlike your waiting for me old man, I dont wait around for your posts... they just show up... we all have a nice laugh... you curse and mumble, spit and drool

then leave.

You're just a bunch of nonsense and misdirection with a few little girl insults thrown in for good measure..

Here's an idea...

go be self important, find a real reason, and then come on back and let's see more of your personal DJ obsession shine thru...

Your experiment was a shame just as you are a sham... but hey...

THANKS for the vacation.

Maybe we all can read thru the forum threads now without getting nauseous from your presence...

Oh this will be so much fun destroying you, your ignorance and arrogance.

Your reputation ends with this davie.

Enjoy the next few days....

While you are waiting for your reputation to be destroyed maybe you can tell us why this statement of yours in NOT a complete falsehood...

"Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics ..."

Here are some more of your "gems" old man... feel the love?

Kiss my behind Baghdad bob, I hear that's your favorite pastime...

.....

I'm sure you know all about "musicals", in fact rumor is you are kissing and telling about Baghdad bob's love of male hind ends...

....

EVERY THING you say is "clown boy" nonsense! (Lammie is sure fascinated by "clown boys", isn't he?)

clownboy caprio shows his big funny clownboy nose again, and little else.

See? Does he NOT like FULL GROWN and matured clowns?

You will NEVER be considered FULL GROWN nor MATURE clownboy...

My argument? Is Lammie this dumb or is he play acting (or being dishonest as usual?)? See Lammie, the words of Zapruder and I posted them. There is NOTHING about this thread that is *my* argument. You are caught again, huh?

UJh yes, clownboy, its YOUR argument...

Lets review clownboy's OWN words...

"LNers, you can't state as a fact that the extant Z-film was NOT altered anymore."

What is there to discuss Lammie? The man who took the film and watched it as it was being copied on the night of the assassination could NOT say the film was the same that was shown at the Shaw trial. Period.

But that's not the argument you made clownboy as the above quote shows...silly clownboy..silly...

You want to use men who did NOT view the original for their BIASED comments. End of story Lammie. You lose as usual.

Oops, clownboy sticks his size 24 clownshoe in his mouth again. You don't KNOW it was not the original and in fact these men who have superior knowledge claim it WAS the original based on MICROSCOPIC observation. Please show us they got it wrong. Oh wait, that's WAY beyond your limited intellect. Yet another very stupid clownboy claim blow up in his little clownboy face.

I already did, but you are so slow you don't realize it yet.

No, you are still sitting there with you clownboy pants down around your ankles, grunting and a groaning, but as usual all you pass is very smelly gas... Just more silly clownboy CK nonsense.

Quote from: Ray Mitcham on Today at 12:00:09 PM

You have proved yourself to be a xxxx, you sick old man.

ROFLMAO!

No such thing has occurred. You have simply proven you can't read and are incapable of using the search tool you doddering old fool.

Let me help you...

yes

   [yes] Show IPA ,adverb, noun, plural yes·es, verb, yessed, yes·sing, interjection

adverb

1.

(used to express affirmation or assent or to mark the addition of something emphasizing and amplifying a previous statement): Do you want that? Yes, I do.

Of course you have no other choice, your silly argument was totally destroyed with this very simple gif which proves you wrong. You have nothing left and even your meds won't counter your delusional behavior.

Watch the stair post move in relation to hte fence pickets...ROFLMAO! Still looking for those shutters...LMAO!

http://i1110.photobu...5/stairsbyf.gif

You are simple a drooling, doddering old fool.

Proven with each post you make. You simply have nothing of value to offer.

And this remains the VERY BEST you ever offer... what WOULD we do without you - right?

Plus, you SAID you were going away for a while.... potty break finally over?

Running back to Duncan's forum where you can say anything,

do anything without worry of censure?

There MUST be a single place on the internet where SOMEONE is glad to see you...

but like your posts, there simply is not evidence to support the idea.

Something had to have happened during the enlargement process....

Duncan is right, while they SHOULD be easily overlaid upon each other and match... they dont.

What up?

(not sure why the gif does not play... click to see color overlay)

Duncan... When the B&W version of BM was "enchanced" to convince us there is someone there... the contract was increased so that blacks are very deep and the whites increase in size considerably...

Without seeing a quality blowup of the original... it is very hard to know what is enhanced and what is developed correctly... (btw, the crop fomes from the "Duncan" moorman youposted a while back...)

Cheers

DJ

Whatever gives you your little jollies CL...

See, what you AD HOM trolls forget is that the EVIDENCE is what's important... you want to believe you have a "reputation" here that's anything other than as a xxxxx, your self-indulgence knows no bounds. You, old man, are a joke... an ongoing, absurd, rambling, spitting, drooling joke...

Watching you get all worked up into a lather... sitting at your computer teeth clinched... fat little fingers tapping away in your attempt to PROVE how right you are...

Let's see there CL... how about a link to ANYONE AGREEING WITH YOU... .

or a link to ANYTHING you've contributed here...

Or a thread in which you have not exhibited xxxxx behavior....

Maybe, just maybe... Admin would prefer you spend some time FIXING your reputation... so that whenever you post we can ALL do something other than shake our heads and laugh....

But you're BIGGER THAN THE ISSUES aren't you CL... it's all about who you think you ARE, not what a pathetic attempt you continually make at proving a point. or how poorly you know that material, how poorly you understand the assassination... or how you connot commit to a position - you're a critic... plain and simple... nothing original comes from a critic... you need someone, anyone, to offer/create something... so you can show your off that BIG BRAIN of yours....

This will be it for me here... You go toil away at your PROOF so we all can see what a big man you are.... like so many others who have left because of your putrid stench all over this forum... I'll just check in from time to time to see if your story ever changes...

xxxxx.

Some examples

Like I care Pat?

I'm not interested in the SBT. I am interested in watching the intellectual honestly or lack thereof by certain individuals.

Posted by Craig Lamson on 30 November 2011

Stick that in your Cambridge peer review and smoke it jimmy.

I know exactly what I an doing. I'm exposing you. To the truth.

You should try it sometime instead of "peddling twaddle", as you so colorfully put it.

and the infinitely amusing - CL's 3 little inches

Posted by Craig Lamson on 16 December 2011

And of course it is unimpeachable that at Betzner the jacket had a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back as witnessed by the fact that the shadow from JFK's neck which MUST fall over the entire width of his jacket collar at the rear center of his neck is hidden....by the 3"+ fold.

Poof Cliff, you are done.

Year after year and your story NEVER changes... "It is because Craig says it is"

Now go back to bed, it's past your nap time

Unlike your waiting for me old man, I dont wait around for your posts... they just show up... we all have a nice laugh... you curse and mumble, spit and drool

then leave.

You're just a bunch of nonsense and misdirection with a few little girl insults thrown in for good measure..

Here's an idea...

go be self important, find a real reason, and then come on back and let's see more of your personal DJ obsession shine thru...

Your experiment was a shame just as you are a sham... but hey...

THANKS for the vacation.

Maybe we all can read thru the forum threads now without getting nauseous from your presence...

Whatever you think old man.... From your posts we can tell how much you care about the assassination, learning, teaching,sharing and discovery...

It's all in your posts Craig... your childish insulting, as if you've never left kindergarten... let's see math wiz... a cup with a 4" height and 4" diameter.... if you leaned a pencil from one corner to the opposite cup lid...

what does your math mind tell you the angle is???

Quote

45 degrees? Really, you measured that HOW? Oh wait I asked you this at Duncan's forum and you ran away from the question as quick as you could. Why? Because yo have no way of know WHAT the angle is, and instead you simple make up an untruthful statement and present it as fact when you know completely that it is false.

Finishing your cup and adding a straight edge I get almost a 50 degree angle since I don't know how wide the bottom of your cup is.... wider bottom, lower angle.

Furthermore, you post how the camera does not move yet pans, while the camera in your experiment MOVE and does NOT PAN... this is you being honest? this is a representative experiment?

what a joke.

Quote

I can't reproduce the event. Instead I did a proof of concept demonstration to see if the claim made by Costerlla...this claim..was correct.

" if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera"

"If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery."

There is no ambiguity in Costella's statements. And after all he has a PhD in Physics, so he speaks from a position of authority."

Costella was WRONG. Proven ... unimpeachable.

There's nothing wrong about that statement at all... as Zapruder pans the LOS of his camera does not change with respect to these poles. If Z jumped off the pedastal, then yes.. it changes.

If Z raises the camera ofer his head... change... but he is only panning... as he pans right and the sign moves LEFT in the frame, the LOS from the lens to the poles do not change...

Your experiment is fundamentally flawed... your arguments weak and worthless.... but hey, at least you try.

Quote

So unless you think Zapruder had his camera set up in a panorama tripod head and rotated it around the nodal point, HIS CAMERA MOVED BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY as he paned, inducing PARALLAX!

Fancy words for - "he turned his head to the right while filming" he neither moved the "nodal point" up or down, left or right... he simply panned right

Two and a half years ago, on this same thread.... Same Sh!t, Different YEAR, Month, Week, Day, Thread, Post....

No matter how far one goes back, any ANY THREAD on ANY FORUM CL behaves the same, receives the same "praise" and believes in his bloated ego he is contributing.

Good thing the man's work and posts stand on their own...

Quote

Posted 14 July 2010 - 03:57 AM

Lampoonson is here to annoy. Ignore him. I am not questioning his motivation.

It is just an observation; all of his postings are merely annoying.

Jack

Click gif to see how Z simply pans between these two frames.... and compare to Costella's gif http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.html

CL makes these claims about nodal BS yet asks us once again to just take his word..

Well, as we continue to see... his word and work leaves a lot to be desired

On 11/2/2012 at 5:34 AM, Robin Unger said:

Credit: Peter Lemkin.

Thanks Robin...

I hope you see that I was not challenging whether these poles were off vertical...

I also hope you are illustrating here that even with the LOS change between these two images, the POLES remain in the same... the left image appears taken from further north

Now, if the poles themselves barely change vertical angles with that large a movement of Line of sight... how exactly does Zapruder move the camera enough to generate the EXTREME shift we see in the Zfilm?

Click to view

What I am challenging is Lamson's experiment to illustrate why the poles SHOULD be different in different frames... and the fraudulent way in which he goes about it.

The CAMERA is not changing its vertical or horizontal line of sight relateive to these poles... the CAMERA is panning...

In Lamson's experiment he moves the camera horizontally - if we were to extrapolate the movement and the distances to Zapruder... the movement would have him fall off the pedestal.

It's a dishonest experiment from a man who regularly witholds information from the presentation of his "photographic proofs" and then ad homs detractors rather than deal with his dishonesty

Now, since all he does is wait for me to post so he has something to say... I'm looking forward to an insult laden response rather than an honest explanation for why he tries to deceive.

So these poles are 5-10 degrees off vertical?

Now take a cup and lean a pencil from the bottom on one side to the top on another... looks a whole lot like a 45 degree angle....

ANY MOVEMENT of LOS will make this pencil change its angle relative to the background.

As usual, CL cannot - nor does he even try to prove the motion of his camera in the experiment relates to the movement of Z's camera thru these frames....

One of the main reasons I can barely stomach posting here is that CL's entire purpose is to xxxxx and annoy.

Can anyone remember a post in which he actually proposes something HE believes other than his three little inches of cloth? Which again, when presented with the jacket and shirt and wound lining up replies he could care less...

THIS is the type of person y'all want to battle with every single #$%$#@ day ??

Thank goodness he is kept off so many other forums so people can discuss topics without his holier than thou, "I don't really care about the assassination anyway", "I'm just here to be amused" attitude.

It finally take Greg to comment for him to finally come clean... y'all can keep him

DJ

For this test I placed the cup with the Exacto knife about an equal distance from the camera and the window in the background. The camera was leveled. The Exacto knife was placed in the cup in such a manner that the top of the handle was angled towards the camera and so it appeared vertical in the camera.

Cause putting the REPRESENTATION OF THE SIGN POSTS AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE WAS SUCH A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SIGN POSTS - RIGHT?

With all your ability you could not reproduce the posts as they appear in REAL LIFE?

Instead, knowing that a leaning representation would look even more off vertical as you moved the camera,

You set it up - the exacto knive is placed in a manner to illustrate YOUR point, rather than to reproduce the event. and you move the CAMERA relative to the knife... while in Z the camera does not move relative to the posts.

If NOT VERTICAL, then the LATERAL or VERTICAL movement of the camera should reveal this lean - accepted...

except the CAMERA does not move off axis relative to the sign posts and the images behind them.

When the wall is lined up correctly, which means the Line of sight IS THE SAME, the post should not move...

yet they do http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/sign.html

I do not believe your experiment accurately reproduces what Costella is saying... and once others understand you DID place the knife at such an extreme angle and didNOT move the camera similiar to Z...

Your little experiment is worthless....

My family and I have been in Ventnor City... about 3 miles south of AC for almost 100 years..

Been thru MANY storms, Hurricanes, last year's freak windstorm and Irene... there has NEVER been water on Atlantic and Ventnor avenues...

The Longport Marina photo - bottom right across inlet - is where we keep our boats... that photo shows about $50 million worth of homes with sand left from the water that went from ocean to Inlet..

=============

Maybe Len can find some humanity under all his complaining...

Maybe - just maybe, Len can turn the channel when he doesn't like the show rather than yelling at the TV

In years past you actually "contributed" here, I used to enjoy reading your POV... you seemed to have knowledge and the ability to discuss...

Now you just keep sounding like a whiny child... on thread after thread after thread.

So big bad Tom hurt your feelings... take a hint:

Let's add in a few more calcs on the film itself and maybe Chris you can help tie it all together... for if there was alteration with information removed… the Original film HAD to have more frames – 48fps is the only other option to 16fps

In the Archive Horne tells us we have 6'3", 75", of film that contains Assassination imagery... what we do not learn from his statement is whether he means 486 total frames or just from 133-486 = 353 frames

Regular 8mm frame dimensions

Camera aperture size (HxW): 3.68 x 4.88mm

Frame area: 17.96sq. mm (3.68x4.88)

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

16:9 useable frame area: 13.4sq. mm (75%)

normal frame rate: 16fps

3.68mm = .14488 inches PER FRAME

75" of film = 517 frames / 18.3 = 28.25 seconds of film

Zapruder was 486 frames / 18.3 = 26.56 seconds of film

28.25-26.56= 1.69 seconds of film missing at 18.3

(QUESTION for anyone: how many frames of developed images are there on the A SIDE of the film, the PERSONAL SIDE and pre motorcade frames… I’ve seen the numbers somewhere but can’t put my hands on them – Horne says there were about 177 frames shot pre-motorcade…25.6 inches of film)

That is the only imagery on the 33’1”of film that makes up the “IN CAMERA ORIGINAL” (btw a blank spool has 25 feet of useable film per side, not 33, the final length will include leaders and such placed on the frame portion of the film at processing.)

75” has images, then there are 2 spliced sections of completely BLANK FILM (not leader, film) HOW CAN ANYONE CLAIM THIS IS AN IN CAMERA ORIGINAL when the 0183 and Processing edge printing is NOT on this film as well?

Anyway,

486 frames of film = 26.56 seconds of film at 18.3, at 48fps = 1275 frames (IF the entire film was taken at 48fps – since the camera easily switched from 16 to 48 fps, it is virtually impossible to tell when this would have been on and off)

No let me make a point while asking a question… if one was to take a 48fps shot film and removed the 2^nd and 3^rd frame from each 3 frame segment, wouldn’t this now look like a film shot at 16fps ? The distance between frame exposures goes from 1/48^th to 1/16^th of a second and what we see in frames 1/4/7/10/13 on a 48fps film SHOULD BE the same as frames 1/2/3/4/5 on a 16fps film of the same event from the same location.

If frames 1/4/7/10/13 are placed next to each other, run at 16 and RE-filmed at 16fps, wouldn’t the IS area of these frames ALSO BE 1/16^th of a second apart?

So why 18.3fps and how does the NPIC even know to consider 18fps THAT weekend?

LIFE has already provided NPIC, by Sunday evening, the frames, at 18fps, on which shots are seen: 190/264/312… Doesn’t this suggest that “264” is the SBT seen at 224 – how are they 40 frames off?

To recap:

A film at 48fps would look exactly like a 16fps film if we were to remove the 2^nd/3^rd frames from each 3 frame sequence

There are enough frames per second at 48fps to create a believable 18.3fps final film and still remove almost 2/3’s of the frames.

There SHOULD BE 517 frames worth of exposed film in 6’3”… there are only 480 frames in the extant portion of the assassination (6 damaged frames 156/7, 208/9/10/11)

Not every bit of the film needed to be filmed at 48fps…. Yet there are tell-tale signs of alteration…

1 – no Stop/Start indication at z133

2 – break at 156

3 – break at 207

4 – damage/replacement at z341, z350

5 – no IS area on 486

Adding now Altgens claiming the headshot was right in front of him… and I’m pretty confident that 156 – 350 was originally 48fps…

I just can’t decide whether Z would film the whole thing at one speed to allow for any changes needed… or not.

132 to 133 is about how much time? At 48fps there are plenty of frames to choose the right one to be 133… and to remove ALL the excess… 5 seconds(?) of film at 48fps is 240 frames, PLUS the 2 of 3 frames between 1-132 & 133-156 to get the speed to 18.3.

We can deal with 157-207 and 212 thri 350 once we have a few answers here...

DJ

Chris...

if you look very carefully, I believe you can just make out the real EVIL behind all of this....

I too can prove he was there... cause I say so and nobody in the entire WCR volumes says he was not there......

Cheers buddy...

DJ

Okay Chris... keep on Truckin'

DJ

223 frames @ 222ft traveled. 1ft per 1 frame.

...

More time would mean the .82 seconds/15 Z frames (JFK in limo to limo front) Myers gives for the gap between the end of Towner to the beginning of Z.

This has to occur AFTER the completion of the Towner film for the "measuring stick" change to occur while not sending up any red flags.

Yes, it occurs AFTER Towner ends and PRIOR to Z starting again at 133... if that is the case then MORE than 30-40 frames are gone... a chunk before 133 to align with Towner at 161..

and a chunk between 255 and 350...

Also, this is still over 12mph... 223 frames in 222 feet.... when we KNOW the limo was not traveling anywhere near that fast for any significant period of time..

I think the tact to find movement elsewhere that could not happen in the time allowed is an excellent way to proceed...

Altgens has to get from 5 to his Alt 6 position pretty quickly as well... is there any known film/photo of his mad dash across DP?

That would help fix the timing as well...

DJ

Mr. ALTGENS - I thereupon grabbed my gadget bag that I carry my extra lenses in and ran fast down across the Dealey Plaza to get down in front of the caravan for some additional pictures and I took this one picture----

Mr. LIEBELER - Wait just a minute now--at this point, as you ran across, you were along Elm Street; is that correct?

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I ran across and reached up into--well, the curb area on the west side of Elm Street.

Mr. LIEBELER - Across Elm Street from the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you.

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.

Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.

(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Agree completely Chris.

Towner's "arbitrary camera speed" - not so arbitrary.

A question... if Z was actually 16fps (as the NPIC thought it was)

313 - 133 = 180 frames

180 frames / 16fps = 11.25 seconds

11.25 seconds x 18.3 fps = 205 frames

z133 + 205 = z338

We see Altgens for the first time at Z339 when he easily could believe he was now 15 feet from JFK yet dropped the camera fromhis face, as we see in the Zfilm gif I posted.

By allowing the camera speed to be 18.3fps as opposed to 16fps, the TIME between 133 and 313 changes from 11.25 seconds to 9.83 seconds using the same number of frames...

11.25 - 9.83 = 1.42 seconds difference... about as much time the limo stopped or was severely slowed...

by changing these 1.42 seconds of 16fps film to 18.3fps along with the rest of the film, we get 26 EXTRA frames, or almost 30 feet, prior to 313 in which we can move JFK up and back so the hit is shown at z313 even though evidence and math shows he was much farther down Elm...

Am I close?

DJ

On 10/11/2012 at 10:21 AM, Chris Davidson said:

On 10/10/2012 at 1:51 PM, James R Gordon said:

On 10/10/2012 at 1:30 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The WC makes it appear that Altgen's was describing the 313 headshot

Chris,

It is not just the WC that says that Altgens is referring to the Z313 headshot.

Ike Altgens is on record saying that is exactly what he is referring to.

James.

James,

I tend to disregard the reference to particular shots and deal with the numbers.

A distance between 2 shots was 15ft.

The testimony deals with 15 and 30ft increments. Coincidence once again? I think not!!!

How far (zfilm) was Altgens from the 313 headshot and how far would he have been from the limo traveling another 15ft towards him.

Remember, is he describing the limo front or JFK in the limo in relation to his position or the limo in the center lane?

chris

Chris... Altgens describes his position - a professional photographer would focus on his subject, not the front of the car...

I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera

He is indeed starting over the top of his camera as the limo passes him and then raises it to his face to take the next photo...

Based on Don's map, it appears Altgens was about 25-30 feet from JFK at 313.... and less than 20 feet at 348. Which, as he and Brehm have said, was how from Z255 thru Z313 the limo barely moved more than 15 feet... in 58 frames. yet we do see that at 348 or so he is indeed 15 feet from JFK... if there was another shot THEN, it certainly does not register a reaction on JFK, not as he describes it... he describes 313...

Not sure why the gif doesn't run... need to click it. -DJ

Agree 100% on the BYP...

The item I posted, the Pfeister W-2 from 1956 with "168RF" shows the back of that document. That's what Frazier initialed.

Furthermore, the films of the evidence - the 5 rolls taken yet only 2 rolls returned and many of those not developed correctly - only have items 1-164 and 360-382

Items 168 and 169 are the W-2's in question.

Now, look at page 272 (No. 11186G) of CE2003 - could be page 337, just not sure how they are listed in the pdf.

anyway... this page tells us that the items on No. 11177 thru 11186 lists all the property in the blue suitcase found at the Paines on 11/23.

These are ALL the items taken on the 23rd...W

Where are the BYPhotos and Negatives listed on these forms?

Items from the 22nd start on No 11187...

The MINOX CAMERA is listed on 11192 (#375 with a variety of unrelated items) and the inventory of items collected on 11/22 ends on 11193.

Why do you suppose 11176 with the Rifle, blanket, slugs, etc (below)... all taken on the night of the 22nd... were NOT given item #'s when sent back to the FBI on the 26th?

This inventory of ITEMS GOING TO DC on 11/26 also lists the trigger housing partial print "negatives" AND THE PARTIAL PALM PRINT UNDER THE BARRELL as being sent to DC FBI on the 26th.

(Maybe you can help remind me of the Rusty story about his taking the photos of the prints that week yet not sending them to FBI until... the 29th.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.

Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?

Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.

Not only did they know... they supposedly had it in their possession (last two items on the list taken on the 26th)

Quote

I think there is ample evidence to support the official Oswald 1952 - 1958 timeline, so I see no reason to fake any of the paperwork

So Greg, conversely - if the timeline of Oswald has its flaws, which I believe it does... and these W-2's cannot be traced back to Oswald's possessions.... and were indeed faked... the "ample evidence" is designed to tell a story, not accurately reflect Oswald's history... with regards to BJHS... We agree about the FALL 1953... not about Myra DeRouse and the rest of 1954/55... more than willing to disagree here.

Cheers Buddy

DJ

On 10/10/2012 at 1:51 PM, James R Gordon said:

On 10/10/2012 at 1:30 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The WC makes it appear that Altgen's was describing the 313 headshot

Chris,

It is not just the WC that says that Altgens is referring to the Z313 headshot.

Ike Altgens is on record saying that is exactly what he is referring to.

James.

See, now that is what I was thinking as well....

Altgens is describing the 313 RESULT yet the MATH and his testimony tells us it SHOULD occur at Z346.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.

Brehm:

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

Doesn't dawn on Liebeler that the limo HAD TO SLOW OR STOP to have only traveled that far down Elm....

and this STOP occurs directly in front of Altgens...

Now, how in the world did they get the Zfilm to look as if the shot occurs 30 feet further up Elm?

On 10/9/2012 at 2:47 PM, Greg Parker said:

David, I agree in principle with most of what you say - but those are a lot of "ifs" you've got going there... and running down all of your question marks over the paperwork is a very large undertaking with no guarantees it would prove anything either way.

I did try and locate the original handwritten list which included the tax forms without success - though I was sure I had seen it before.

The handwritten lists that I did locate (which pertained to the 1st day search) have different handwriting for different pages, for however that might be interpreted.

If the tax withholding forms were fakes and had not been found at the Paines, I do wonder how you think that the FBI got the cops to add those fakes to the evidence lists? Bear in mind that Rose refused to support the FBI regarding the Minox morphing into a light meter. Why support them on tax forms but not the camera? That males no sense to me.

These typed evidence lists were created on the 26th, Greg, at FBI HQ in Dallas. AFTER the items were returned from DC. i do not know how they came up with the numbering... but I am fairly sure the lists these were taken from are Stoval A & B and the other inventories written by DPD/Sheriffs... I've like to know when Frazier puts his initials and that Item # on the form, as it looks like they are written by him at the same time.

It could not have come back from FBI with that number, so the number had to be assigned as they were going thru each and every item.

Rose SAW the camera... and knew it was no light meter...

The "tax docs" were not listed individually... "Misc personal papers and work receipts" is all the inventory list says and I can not find it on any hand-written lists... YET, this list was for the 11/23 search and is marked Stovall B. If those forms were in with the rest of the items, they would have been initialed by one of these men... they were not. Remembering a Camera is one thing... some tax docs, maybe not so much... and since he was not there when the lists of the 26th were created... why would he have anything to say about it?

By then, the items from DC are now ALL in Dallas, including the W-2's and are simply listed on the inventory going back to the FBI... the fact that there are no initials on them from Dallas suggests they never were in Dallas and were NOT part of the items recovered either day.

Speaking of the handwritten lists... they were written on the 23rd either before or after they go BACK to the Paines in the early afternoon... the BLANKET, among other things, was taken by the FBI the night before... so if they had not made a list of items when they arrived back at the DPD, and the blanket was gone the next day, how do we know that what is on these handwritten lists were actually items in evidence?

Mr. BALL. This list was made up by you men on the site or after you got back into the squad car?

Mr. STOVALL. No, this list was made the next day after we came back to work. This stuff was all put in boxes and put in the trunk of the car and put back in one of our interrogation rooms there.

Mr. BALL. And the next day you made a list of it, did you?

Mr. STOVALL Yes, Rose and I and there were two FBI agents that went over the property at the same time. We initialed the property, that is, we went over it--this list here.

Mr. BALL This list here?

Mr. STOVALL. Yes, this list here is a list of the property taken.

Mr. BALL. A list of the property taken from Ruth Paine's home at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.?

Mr. STOVALL. That was on the 22d.

Mr. BALL. On the 22d at about 3:30 p.m.?

Mr. STOVALL. 3:30 or 4----somewhere in there.

Mr. BALL. I'll go into that later, and this was the list that was made up by you and Rose and two FBI agents the next day at the police department?

Mr. STOVALL. Yes.

Mr. BALL. I'd like to have this marked as "Stovall Exhibit A," and it consists of page 1 and page 2 for the deposition.

Finally... here is yet another list of items going to the FBI on the 26th... these are items we KNOW were in DC on the night of the 22nd...

any reason these do not have Item #'s on them? I am thinking that this list was created on the 22nd NOT the 26th... but I need to do more research.

Bottom line Greg...

There is little if any evidence that the W-2's were in Dallas or found at the Paine residence, in fact there is direct evidence that they were NOT there as repeatedly Rose/Stovall tell us they initialled the property and these items were NOT initialed by anyone other than Frazier.

One last thought Greg... Stovall B is the list of items found on the 23rd at the Paine house... notice that 2 Negatives and 2 prints of Oswald holding a rifle and gun are NOT listed, yet a CSSS form is found written at 4:30 on the 23rd listing 2 NEGATIVES... when in reality only one is in evidence. Given some of the detail on Stovall B and the FACT that the and Rose made a very big deal of finding these photos.. I find there absence from this list highly suspicious.

Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.

Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?

Mr. STOVALL. Yes.

Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?

Mr. STOVALL. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?

Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.

Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?

Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.

Mr. BALL. And the negatives?

Mr. STOVALL. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?

Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps"

DJ: I find this completely ridiculous... Oswald holding a rifle is "Misc photos" yet the date and name of a newspaper gets its own mention...

Cheers

DJ