Craig Lamson

I'd like to say thanks but it seems I've no standing... But thanks anyways. Film compositing work? as opposed to Photoshop? Well, by all means, share.... You need to learn to read...its in my post or do you need the link for the FOURTH time...?

I'd like to say thanks but it seems I've no standing... But thanks anyways.

Final post to you David. You are a pathetic. My images all over the web, since 01..images YOU have made comments about. I've also posted a number of ORIGINAL works as it related to both JFK and Apollo...real emperical tests...tests that blew White out to the water. Ask him about the shadow on the Oswald Minsk photo he says has to be retouched because its "impossible" to do photographiclly...and ask him how I did it in just a few miniutes... Links to my professional images in the web. http://www.infocusinc.net http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/infocusinc/a...m/ph//my_photos The gallerys are full of composites, some with the ps work by the agency and some by me. In fact almost every image I do these days is a composite... Composite created ON FILM by me: http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596424 You want more I can did them out. Read Hoax? Is your memory THAT bad? Laughed my a-- off reading the MANUSCRIPT! Yea Licence plates are SOOO creative... And yea I'm proud of my website...where's yours? Now its time for you to put up or shut up David. You want us all to think you have the credentials to discuss film compositing and yet you offer no proof you have EVER even created a composite on film. We know you have created a couple on the computer that were beginner level work or worse. But on film? Hell we don't even have any proof you actually have done any video OR film work other than your word. Why not post that work you did for Apple? What was it some b level corporate training gig? You did it direct for Apple right? Not for their agency? Yep b level or c level to be sure. Hell the guy that mows the law andor cleans the toilets in Cupertino can claim they work for Apple! ROFLMAO Times up Dick. Whip it out or get out of dodge....

You hit another point in the debate about racism. Its not just the politics of liberal or conservative or what ever but for many the core is hate. As for racism, I think it extends beyond skin color. Depending on what dictionary you choose to use it can also be defined to include religion. That opens up a whole different can of worms. Based on religion do you think there has ever been a socialist who hated a group of people based on thier religion? My point all along is that the broad brush and absolute nature of John's statement was troubling. There are darn few absolutes in this world and when dealing with human nature I would submit there are none.

Craig, just my two cents worth...Anybody who is TRUELY socialist believes, with every fiber of their being in equality, there for, by definition, they cannot be racist. The equvilant would be a Conservative who believed in the Nationalisation of private enterprise, either he is lying, or he is not a Conservative. Ah...socialists never have bouts of situational behavior? Its blanket statements that are the problem here Stephen. People truly believe things all the time yet being humans they quite often do things that are contrary to thier very core beliefs. Do those bouts of situational behavior change who they are at thier core?

I see you are still playing those silly raindeer...er David games. What a phoney you are Healy. You have posted no samples because you have no film composition samples...simple as that. I on the other hand do have samples of composites I created on film, but of course you can't deal with someone who has actuallly made a film based composite. Hell you can't even do a decent job of digital compositing a single frame....what a phoney! As for creativity...your company's not putting much on the plate there bud...unless you think licence plates, realtor brocures and cowbow vids are creative stuff. Talk about bruised egos! Yours must be a real mess. As for the total resolution possible for the zapruder camera/film as shot by zapruder... I understand how it works..do you? AGAIN its your claim...give us the details there cowboy shooter in lp/mm and please specify the contrast range. How about FOR ONCE YOU ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN RUN YOUR MOUTH! Bow wow!

If you are arguing that conservative members of Congress proved they were not racist because they voted for Civil Rights legislation in 1964, does that mean they were racist in previous years because they voted against this legislation? No I'm simply stating it was the conservative Republicans who made it possible for the civil rights act to become law. You asked for one important conservative in the civil rights movement, I gave you many. Now prove to me there has never been in all of history a racist that was a liberal, socialist or communist.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy? And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the entire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhange in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed. Well whats the resolution of the Z-film, photog? Dazzle us with brilliance -- you need a formula? I suspect when the need for a guard dog arises, the guard dog will present itself -- as for the moment, you or any other "photo expert" hereabouts, with no trackable photo record, don't make that necessary... as they say in Indy, buzz off Conroy. No trackable photo record...I like that one...coming from David, I've no samples, Healy. The Z film resolution canard was all your baby Healy...so hop to it and build the rest of your strawman. Now go lay back down at the feet of your master like a good doggie.

if your a blood spatter expert, please step up, if NOT sit down, Thanks You a blood splatter expert now too? Or just playing guard dog for aussieboy? And since you made the silly statement about the "resolution" of kodachrome 25, its fair to ask you exactly what you know about the resolution of the entire imaging system Zapruder used....which appears to be nothing. Of course the entire exhange in your post was a simple strawman built to give yourself the air of authority...you should be ashamed.

Healy ignorantly says: "Your talking high resolution ASA25 8mm film here, not lousy VHS tape dupes of same" Come on David what a rookie mistake. And somehow you want people to take you seriously? ROFLMAO! The resolution of the film stock plays only a part in the overall resolution of an image recorded on film. Don't you know better David? So why dont you give us the actual lp/mm of resolution the hand held Zapruder camera was able to record at full telephoto zoom. And please specify the contrast ratio used for your testing and why you chose that ratio.

Liberals in America, especially at more local levels, have taken to using the less loaded word: "progressive." A general model of liberalism would involve social tolerance and economic progress for the disenfranchised, while conservativism relates to maintenance of the status quo. In the case of this extemist breed of conservatives known as Neo Cons (neo Conservatives), I think of them as Neo Confederates. They don't just seek to maintain the status quo, they actually seek to roll back the clock to antebellum days by undoing Social Security and Public Education. They oppose a liveable minimum wage, socialized medicine and generally opportunity for all. Their policies widen the gap between haves and have-nots. They claim to be against big government yet always seek to expand governmental authority. They claim to be against taxes while enabling predatory corporate policies that raise the cost of life's essentials. Refusing to recognize education as a social necessity, as fundamental as infrastructure and law enforcement, they hypocritically promote school vouchers in the name of freedom of choice. This is analogous to disaster relief workers handing out vouchers for Evian to people who choose or don't need the regular water. T.C. Good grief Tim, at least you could define neo-conservative properly. But since you not answered my questions lets use your reply to Shanet instead to deal with your position on school vouchers. I think its pretty clear. Your post shows you both a liberal and a racist. You are a racist because your stance denies poor black families the chance to choose the school of thier choice for their children. You are forcing them to send their children to lesser schools while those wth means have the choice of where to send their children. How nice of you to decide for these families how their childern will be educated. Too bad its a racist position. And from a liberal...or is that progressive now...impossible because all racists are conservative? Or are you really a situational conservative because you want to maintain the status quo? Its all just so confuing...trying to find that perfect broad label to fit. And actually Tim its more like giving people vouchers for clean bottled water instead of forcing them to drink from a muddy creek.

The example betrays the point. Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with. Vouchers are a slippery slope toward that end. The labels liberal and conservative generally hold up. A better example of a situational conservatism would be when the belief in balanced budgets is thrown out the window like so much trash when the pretense of war can promote massive military industrial expenditures. John Simkin is correct in his statement that while not all conservatives are racists, all racists are conservatives. T.C. Just so I know exactly where you stand. Are you a liberal, socialist or a conservative? Do you support school vouchers?

That is another issue altogether. Sure there are people who call themselves "socialist", "communists" and "liberals" who are racist. I am still waiting for you to name somebody who was a "conservative" who took a leading role in the civil rights movement. I already did...the members of the republican party in both the house and the senate who voted to make the civil rights act a law of the land. It seems to me they played the most important role of all. Unless you consider them liberals. You are still dodging the point John. How about this one. Is Tim Carroll a liberal? Is Tim Carroll a racist?

The example betrays the point. Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with. Vouchers are a slippery slope toward that end. The labels liberal and conservative generally hold up. A better example of a situational conservatism would be when the belief in balanced budgets is thrown out the window like so much trash when the pretense of war can promote massive military industrial expenditures. John Simkin is correct in his statement that while not all conservatives are racists, all racists are conservatives. T.C. "Conservatives favor school vouchers because they view education itself as a social program which should be either limited, cut back or done away with" Oh please...tell me that you made this statement in jest. So, you and John are telling me that there have never been or will never be, racists who are socialists, communists or liberals? If thats the case I've some prime swamp land for sale ...

I was well aware of Johns's CV prior to his posting of it. And quite frank it only makes his statement even more silly. You have touched on the very basis if the problem here and that is the use of labels. Being conservative or liberal is situational. Its not uncommon for a "liberal" to be quite "conservative" based on the situation. And the opposite is also true. For example, using Johns defination of conservative and liberal, we have to say the the liberal NEA in the US is conservative because they oppose school vouchers while the conservative segments of US society who favor vouchers are liberal. Making a blanket statement as John did was indeed silly because it was based on a broad label. The problem is compounded when the statement is made by an educator who should know better.

As you have made reference to my status as an educator” let me first provide my academic credentials. I have taught American history for over 25 years. I am also the author of the book "Race Relations in the United States" (1988) and the creator of the "Encyclopaedia of the American Civil Rights Movement": http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm We will also need to define what we mean by the term “conservative”. The term comes from the Latin word “servare” which meant to “keep and preserve”. The word was first used in a political sense by J. Wilson Croker in 1830. The word still retains the meaning that it did in the 19th century. That is, to describe a political ideology is that is “resistant to change” or “opposed to liberal reforms”. The political liberal comes from the Latin word “liber” which meant freedom. In Europe in the 18th century the word liberal began to mean “tolerance” and “lack of prejudice”. Later the term “liberal” was used to describe a political party (in the same way that “conservative” was used by those on the right of the political spectrum). Starting from the 19th century, conservative political parties became defenders of the “status quo” whereas liberals were in favour of reform. Now let us look at the struggle for civil rights in the United States. The beginning of the modern movement can be dated to the formation of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnaacp.htm The NAACP was established by Mary White Ovington, a journalist working for the New York Post. This was as a response to reading an article by William English Walling, entitled "Race War in the North", that described the atrocities being carried out against African-Americans. Walling ended the article by calling for "a powerful body of citizens to come to their aid". Both Ovington and Walling were both members of the American Socialist Party. However, early supporters included members of the Republican and Democratic parties. In all cases, they identified with the “liberal” or “left” wing of the party. This is understandable as the leadership of the two main political parties were opposed to the NAACP campaign for equal rights. The NAACP campaigned against what was known as “Jim Crow” laws. After the American Civil War most states in the South passed anti-African American legislation. This included laws that discriminated against African Americans with concern to attendance in public schools and the use of facilities such as restaurants, theaters, hotels, cinemas and public baths. Trains and buses were also segregated and in many states marriage between whites and African American people was illegal. It was these “Jim Crow” laws that inspired Hitler. He claimed that the legislation used against Jews in Nazi Germany was based on those used against blacks in America. He concluded from this that the United States would never go to war against Germany on the grounds of racism. Hitler was of course right about this. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor for the Americans to get involved in the war. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjimcrow.htm The NAACP also fought a long campaign against lynching. In 1919 it published Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States: 1889-1918. The NAACP also paid for large adverts in major newspapers presenting the facts about lynching. To show that the members of the organization would not be intimidated, it held its 1920 annual conference in Atlanta, considered at the time to be one of the most active Ku Klux Klan areas in America. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlynching.htm The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the peace who administered rough justice in Virginia. Lynching was originally a system of punishment used by whites against African American slaves. However, whites who protested against this were also in danger of being lynched. On 7th November, 1837, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, the editor of the Alton Observer, was killed by a white mob after he had published articles criticizing lynching and advocating the abolition of slavery. After the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan in 1867 the number of lynching of African American increased dramatically. The main objective of the KKK was to maintain white supremacy in the South, which they felt was under threat after their defeat in the Civil War. It has been estimated that between 1880 and 1920, an average of two African Americans a week were lynched in the United States. In 1884 Ida Wells, editor of Free Speech, a small newspaper in Memphis, carried out an investigation into lynching. She discovered during a short period 728 black men and women had been lynched by white mobs. Of these deaths, two-thirds were for small offences such as public drunkenness and shoplifting. George Henry White, the last former slave to serve in Congress and the only African American in the House of Representatives, proposed a bill in January, 1901 that would have made lynching of American citizens a federal crime. He argued that any person participating actively in or acting as an accessory in a lynching should be convicted of treason. White pointed out that lynching was being used by white mobs in the Deep South to terrorize African Americans. He illustrated this by showing that of the 109 people lynched in 1899, 87 were African Americans. Despite White's passionate plea, the bill was easily defeated. There was a decline in lynching during the First World War but more than seventy blacks were murdered in this way in the year after the war ended. Ten black soldiers, several still in their army uniforms, were amongst those lynched. Between 1919 and 1922, a further 239 blacks were lynched by white mobs and many more were killed by individual acts of violence and unrecorded lynchings. In none of these cases was a white person punished for these crimes. Several trade unionists were also lynched. This included two members of the Industrial Workers of the World, Frank Little (1917) and Wesley Everest (1919). Dr. Arthur Raper was commissioned in 1930 to produce a report on lynching. He discovered that "3,724 people were lynched in the United States from 1889 through to 1930. Over four-fifths of these were Negroes, less than one-sixth of whom were accused of rape. Practically all of the lynchers were native whites. The fact that a number of the victims were tortured, mutilated, dragged, or burned suggests the presence of sadistic tendencies among the lynchers. Of the tens of thousands of lynchers and onlookers, only 49 were indicted and only 4 have been sentenced." The NAACP hoped that the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 would bring an end to lynching. Two African American campaigners against lynching, Mary McLeod Bethune and Walter Francis White, had been actively involved in helping Roosevelt to obtain victory. The president's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, had also been a long-time opponent of lynching. Robert F. Wagner (Democrat) and Edward Costigan (Republican) agreed to draft a bill that would punish the crime of lynching. In 1935 attempts were made to persuade Roosevelt to support the Costigan-Wagner bill. However, Roosevelt refused to speak out in favour of the bill that would punish sheriffs who failed to protect their prisoners from lynch mobs. He argued that the white voters in the South would never forgive him if he supported the bill and he would therefore lose the next election. The Costian-Wagner Act received support from liberal members of both parties, however, the conservatives in Congress were in the majority and the legislation was easily defeated. You can now see why Hitler did not fear being criticized by American politicians. The NAACP continued in its struggle against Jim Crow laws and lynching. It was joined in the struggle against this tyranny by left-wing political parties such as the American Socialist Party, American Labor Party and the American Communist Party. However, the two mainstream political parties refused to adopt policies against this racist ideology. The 1940s saw important developments in the struggle for civil rights. In 1941 Philip Randolph and Baynard Rustin began to organize a march to Washington to protest against discrimination in the defense industries. In May, 1941, Randolph issued a "Call to Negro America to March on Washington for Jobs and Equal Participation in National Defense on July, 1, 1941". By June estimates of the number of people expecting to participate reached 100,000. Roosevelt attempted to persuade Randolph and Rustin call off the demonstration. When this failed, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 barring discrimination in defence industries and federal bureaus (the Fair Employment Act). As a result of this action Randolph called off his proposed march. In 1942 three members of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), George Houser, James Farmer and Berniece Fisher established the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE). Members of CORE had been deeply influenced by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent civil disobedience campaign that he used successfully against British rule in India. The students became convinced that the same methods could be employed by African Americans to obtain civil rights in America. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfor.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcore.htm In early 1947, the Congress on Racial Equality announced plans to send eight white and eight black men into the Deep South to test the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation in interstate travel unconstitutional. Organized by George Houser and Bayard Rustin, the Journey of Reconciliation was to be a two week pilgrimage through Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. The Journey of Reconciliation began on 9th April, 1947. The team included George Houser, Bayard Rustin, James Peck, Igal Roodenko, Nathan Wright, Conrad Lynn, Wallace Nelson, Andrew Johnson, Eugene Stanley, Dennis Banks, William Worthy, Louis Adams, Joseph Felmet, Worth Randle and Homer Jack. Members of the Journey of Reconciliation team were arrested several times. In North Carolina, two of the African Americans, Bayard Rustin and Andrew Johnson, were found guilty of violating the state's Jim Crow bus statute and were sentenced to thirty days on a chain gang. However, Judge Henry Whitfield made it clear he found that behaviour of the white men even more objectionable. He told Igal Roodenko and Joseph Felmet: "It's about time you Jews from New York learned that you can't come down her bringing your niggers with you to upset the customs of the South. Just to teach you a lesson, I gave your black boys thirty days, and I give you ninety." The Journey of Reconciliation was the start of a long campaign of direct action by the Congress on Racial Equality. It was followed by the formation of organizations such as the The American for Democratic Action (ADA), Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAada.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsclc.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsncc.htm As we now know, it was because of the efforts of these organizations that eventually brought an end to Jim Crow laws and lynchings (although a large number of white and black civil rights activists were murdered while working for equality in the southern states). In all my research of the civil rights movement in the United States I have studied the lives of hundreds of brave men and women who risked their own well-being in order to overcome injustice. I found plenty of liberals, socialists, communists and others of various left-wing views. However, I have yet to discover one who could be described as a conservative. After all, they were all too busy defending the status quo. Why the huge post to cover your main failing...a statement that can't be supported..ie all racists are conservative. Regardless of your lenghtly credentials this is a statement thats over the top John.

Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead... White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round. As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic. You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it. Bow wow! roflmfao, ROFLMFAO --- I'm as good at photo retouching as you're a photog --- I hire both - who needs to do retouching, I view results -- what we're seeing here Lurkers is "bent EGO" Oh please David don't flatter yourself, you've nothing to offer. Someones ego must be bent because you sure spend a LOT of time trying to defend an old man who has blown what some might call a reputation. But you David...put something on the table and then perhaps we can talk...so far you are nothing but hot air. Now go fetch...

Just for the record, John, I have also verified that Bill's gif is correct. I recall your posting on this subject as well. I suspect that in no time, you and I will be branded "Lancer Disinformationalists" or "Bill Miller Flunkies" or be informed that we're "not qualified to have an opinion" or something of the like... No wonder the case hasn't been solved 42+ years later. for the record, only you care what you think, Frank! And you're correct, there's not *one* person on this board that has viewed - touched DP camera photo originals, therefore you, me or anyone else are not qualified to give informed opinion regarding camera originals. Not that that means you have no opinion - but you own *only* opinion, proof of nothing. FWIW Jack White has been closer to any Dealey Plaza camera original photo than most latter day photo posters on this forum .... Where are those that have the same experience with the DP photos? Silence -- it's deafening... you ought to see my .gif animations ROFL! this is been gone over ad nauseum -- what's the lineage of your Moorman 5 photo, were any filter effects applied to same? And for what its worth, in 2 minutes I could change the Moorman 5 and make the pedestal gap wider by a inch or two... Your problem here Bill is photo credibility. There isn't any! Just, trust me. Here David..sit...roll over..now play dead... White was wrong on this silly Moorman in the street claim...get over it. Your team lost that round. As for White having touched lots of images ... great. Iits really too bad he is so inept at dealing with issues photographic. You retouch the Moorman? Now thats a laugh. Based on your published works in the regard...well quite frankly Dave you simply suck at it. Bow wow!

So are you suggesting that the southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights act were the conservatives and the northern republicans were the liberals? Craig, what you badly need to understand is that from a socialist point of view, both of your major parties are indeed Conservative. As Tony Benn said of Labour " Its not a socialist party, its a party with a few socialists" To Europian eyes Democrats, and Repulicans are the ultimate Mr pot, and Mr Kettle. Stephen, John introduced the concept of conservative and liberal AS IT APPLIED to US politics in the 60's cival rights era. So it seems to me this is not being viewed through a socialist european lens but rather the lens of US politics in the 60's (and today if you consider Gratz into the picture). That aside, there is no way in this world that John can support his statement about all racists bring conservatives.

Ashamed? Why? AS for my ability to take photographs..well,..lets see you claim expert status at film composition and yet we have no proof you can even composite a single frame of film...ashamed...why that should be you. Bow Wow!

What is your point? I did not mention Democrats and Republicans. I was instead talking about conservatives and liberals. So are you suggesting that the southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights act were the conservatives and the northern republicans were the liberals? You made a very silly statement. "However, it is accurate to say that in a historical sense, all racists are conservatives. " Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator. oh brother -- buy this guy a Brownie... a history buff he ain't ... roflmfao! Again such wonderful insight and wisdom applied to yet another thread David. You add so much to this forum. Bow Wow!

What is your point? I did not mention Democrats and Republicans. I was instead talking about conservatives and liberals. So are you suggesting that the southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights act were the conservatives and the northern republicans were the liberals? You made a very silly statement. "However, it is accurate to say that in a historical sense, all racists are conservatives. " Whats even more troubling is that this statement is coming from an educator.

It is of course wrong to say that all conservatives are racists. However, it is accurate to say that in a historical sense, all racists are conservatives. For example, in the United States in the 1960s, conservatives supported the racist view that African-Americans should be denied the vote in the Deep South. Tim’s hero, William Buckley was one of the conservative “intellectuals” who argued this racist philosophy (it was based on the idea that African-Americans in the Deep South were not “intelligent” enough to be given the vote). The past is always embarrassing for conservatives. This is why Tim is so reluctant to admit to the political policies he favoured in the past. The same is not true of liberals who were active in the civil rights movement in the 1960s. They were right then and they are right about civil rights today. What will Tim Gratz be saying about his views on Guantanamo Bay in 20 years time? Boy John you need to re-read your history of the democrats and republicans in America during the 60's in regard to civil rights....try the civil rights act for starters... http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_h...ights64text.htm

I'm afraid this is going to get lost in the Who is Bill MIller thread. Is Costella correct in this claim that there is a blur mistake in some of the Zapruder frames Life published? http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html Lets take just one simple example of Costella's "science"and see exactly how well he did in his research and how well his "peers and experts, like you Jack, did at reviewing his work. Costella tells us this in his section on the blur mistake... "Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication? Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. " Well thats just not the case. Since I understand how the process of sharpening a conventional photographic image works USING FILM, I knew Costella was blowing smoke. But I wanted to know if the information existed and was easily available on the net to a researcher and his team of experts who might be working on a book. All it took was a google search and a wealth of informagtion was available at my fingertips about the process of using UNSHARP MASKING to sharpen film based photographs without the use of a computer. Now I'm sure that many of you have used unsharp masking in photo processing software to sharpen up digital images. But did you know that this process was actually developed to be used with film? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking Unsharp masking is an image manipulation technique now familiar to many users of digital image processing software, but it seems to have been first used in Germany in the 1930s as a way of increasing the accutance, or apparent sharpness, of photographic images. In the original process, a large-format glass plate negative was contact-copied on to a low contrast film or plate to create a positive. However, the positive copy was made with the copy material in contact with the BACK of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it was blurred. After processing this blurred positive was replaced in contact with the back of original negative. When light was passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancelled some of the information in the negative. Because the positive was intentionally blurred, only the low frequency (blurred) information was cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduced the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears sharper than one made without the unsharp mask because of the increased accutance. In the photographic procedure the amount of blurring can be controlled by changing the softness or hardness (from point light to fully diffuse) of the light source used for the initial unsharp mask exposure, while the strength of the effect can be controlled by changing the contrast and density (i.e. exposure and development) of the unsharp mask. In traditional photography unsharp masking was usually used on monochrome materials, however special panchromatic soft-working black and white films were available for masking photographic colour transparencies. This was especially useful to control the dynamic (density) range of a transparency intended for photomechanical reproduction. We don't know what processes Life magazine used to prepare the Zapruder frames that Costella questions in his blur mistake segment. Its clearly possible that they could have used unsharp masking to increase the sharpness of the frames in question for publication. Costella was wrong to assert that sharpening of photographs was impossible without a computer. It is possible and the process might have been used in the Life images. As such his agrument about the "blur mistake" is suspect.

Two down....