Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
Craig,
I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible.
I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point.
Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once.
I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here.
This copy has just been enlarged by Robin.
Alan
A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test.
I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing.
BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted.
"...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what?
So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao!
Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera.
You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word.
BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog.
well thank you very much, when you can afford one we'll mach trannies.... so, ah again; what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Oop's, that's right you answered that didn't you -- NOTHING! Much ado about nothing -- pretty much were all your arguments end up!
But fun to watch none-the-less
Sold mine quite a while back since no one wants 8x10s anymore, but I have a nice pile of trans we can share right now if thats what you really have in mind cowboy shooter.....hell I'd love to see if you can actually LIGHT anything other than the crap the normally passes for lighting in the video wold today.
However got three really nice 4x5s on the shelf, but nobody wants stuff from them either....new day and all.
Wof Wof.
-
Craig,
I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible.
I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point.
Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once.
I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here.
This copy has just been enlarged by Robin.
Alan
A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test.
I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing.
BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted.
"...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what?
So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao!
Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera.
You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word.
BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog.
-
I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing.
Craig, thank you.
I don't suppose you have any results from your test shots you could show us do you?
Alan
No I don't. I did the test some years ago for my personal interest. I can however do a reshoot in the near future as time permits.
In the mean time consider this. All of the tests that have been completed to date have used negative roll film of some sort. Not only are these filmstocks fine grained and have more resolving power than the polaroid film used by Moorman, but being negatives they can be directly enlarged and printed. The Moorman polarid had to first be copied (in the case of a number of moorman versions...many times) before it could be enlarged and printed. That also greatly reduced the resolving power.
Another note. I've been an advertising photographer for a good many years. Prior to my switch to digital, shooting polaroid film for use as a proofing medium was standard practice. It was not uncommon to shoot 10-20 sheets of polaroid film of a single setup before shooting real film. I bought the stuff by the case for many many years. While b/w 4x5 polariod film was a great tool to judge exposure and composition of a photo set, it was useless as a tool to check focus. Why? Because of the image structure and lack of resolution. Under even a 4x loupe the resolution was worthless for focus checks. The only way to use a polaroid film for focus checks was to use the polaroid positive/negative film. This film actually produced a b/w negative that could be placed on a lightbox and checked under a loupe. It was messy and a PITA but it was the only way to check focus with polaroid film because the prints were just so bad.
-
Craig,
I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible.
I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point.
Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once.
I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here.
This copy has just been enlarged by Robin.
Alan
A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test.
I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing.
BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted.
-
The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible.
I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand.
Craig, with all due respect ... Groden told me that he used no computer software to make his copy negatives and slides. That the print that he deemed the best copy of Moorman's photo was not done by way of a computer. That the Badge Man image Jack shows from the actual film transfer in post #85 is not computer enhanced.
Bill
Bill, I never said that a computer was used for any of the original badgeman work. However there is a lot of silly stuff being done now on the computer.....
With out taking a position on who is right on this matter, I don't think Craig was saying computers were used but rather that if you examine a multiple generation copy of a low resolution image and then blow up a small portion of it several times it's original size analyzing a small blob is of dubious value.
BTW where is the original? Why can't a high quality scan be made of it?
Craig when you say "manipulation" do you mean that you think "badgeman" was intentionally introduced into the image?
My feeling is that White/Mack saw something they thought was a man and worked the image via exposure and contrast ( and in the process throwing away details from the copy image and creating new edge locations) until they got something that fit their original conclusion. In short they created a new image that was not present before the manipulations.
-
Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period.
A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period.
Well, Craig ... in this instance I disgaree with you. The image is visible, it can be separated from the foliage, it has been validated by MIT, and the timing is right to confirm Gordon Arnold's statement concerning the shot coming past his left ear.
My experience has been that if something like Badge Man is a mixture of let's say ... the distant tree foliage ... then he and the foliage would all lighten and contrast equally. However, when I checked this ... Badge Man separated from all the tree foliage around him which had washed out.
Then I compared Badge Man's size and body proportions to see if they fell within the norms of a human being in the same posture and below is what I came up with.
So while I understand your points, I believe there are ways to check the validity of Badge Man's image that at least tips the scale considerably as to his actual existence.
Bill
Bill, go shoot the moorman lens with polaroid film at the same distance and then get back to me with the results. Then copy it a few times and get back to me again.
Lets put this very tiny area of the moorman polaroid in perspective. If you make a new photoshop document at 1/69 of an inch or .36mm which is as small as photoshop will allow you to create, at 600dpi you end up with NINE PIXELS!
The opticals limits of the film/lens/distance make something like the badgeman image impossible.
I'll repete myself again. All of this "enhancement" either via a computer or film is silly. Its a fools errand.
-
I verify that Gary's statement is correct. We studied the Moorman image
for at least two years, with NO limitations on time. The statement is correct
that the three people identified are the ONLY ones we found, and despite
years of analysis, found nothing more of significance within the print.
Jack, thanks for finally putting Duncan out of his misery on this one. The work you and Gary Mack did pertaining to Moorman's photo was not only good, but it was "damned good!" You two did the responsible thing as researchers when you spent considerable time first trying to obtain the best prints available to work with, then you two spent considerable time studying those prints, and then as responsible researchers you two sought a reliable outside source to peer review and validate what you had found. For some unknown reason to me ... that process has become a dying technique by many in the research community.
I agree with Craig that the process you used was a form of manipulation to Moorman's image, but you are also correct in saying that anything you do in the process of developing a photo could be considered a manipulation. A simple example of this would be when one walks into a dimly lit room and turns on a light - he has manipulated is surrounding area by making things easier to see without changing anything that already wasn't there. I do not believe for a single minute that your Badge Man work was a creation of mere manipulation, nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay.
At that time, in the early 80s, I believed the Moorman image to be entirely
genuine. However, since that time, I have come to believe that some alteration
took place in the area of the "Zapruder" pedestal.
Jack
There is nothing that I can see about the area around Zapruder's pedestal in the Moorman photo that isn't reflected in the Betzner, Willis, Bronson, and Nix images.
Bill
Bill, let me put it bluntly. It is impossible for "badgeman" to exist in the Moorman polariod. Period. The resolution of the lens/film/distance makes it impossible. Period. Any imabge that portends to show badgeman is simply a creation from thin air. Period. Its a creation via photographic manipulation. Period.
A simply JFK "ink blot test". Period.
-
Lamson dronned on....
Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt.
Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs.
hmm, where have i heard THIS before?
And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"!
Does that mean Gary Macks' silly "bageman" claim goes up in smoke? It was Gary and Jack that made the discovery, correcto-mundo, Lamson? You guys need to get your act together
In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION .
keep going like this and those in the Z-film alteration crowd will allow you to do their work -- LOL
White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself.
must be time for Lone Neuter gold star handouts... What institution did you say houses your work Craig? I think there's someone in this thread that has had that honor bestowed -- t'aint you
BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult.
this guys' a hatchet job for the anti-Zfilm alteration MALCONTENT crowd.
Wof Wof...guard dogs back. Outta dog food?
Mack is wrong. White is wrong. Don't know about Healy because he's a chicken s__t who wont't commit himself.
The z film CONTENT alteration crowd has no work....
You mean Whites tourist snaps of Fort Worth? The institution in which my works are shown is the institution of COMMERCE.
Now slink on back to the smelly old dog house....guard dog.
-
As usual, Lamson is full of xxxx. He implies I used some sort of
underhanded manipulation to alter the badgeman image. That is
unadulterated crap.
As a "pro" photographer, surely he has heard of BRACKETING.
Most photographers practice bracketing to find the PERFECT
exposure. This is especially important in copystand work, when
as little as a half-stop finds the critical balance for optimum
exposure capturing the full range of tones between white
and black.
In all of my copystand work I nearly always included a 20-step
grayscale at the edge of the image for proper controls in
development and printing. If the grayscale reproduced right,
I knew the image would be right.
In copying the original image obtained from Groden, all I did
to bring out the best image was to BRACKET the exposures in
HALF-STOP INCREMENTS between F4.5 and F22. A contact
print of my original negative is attached. NO MANIPULATION
OF THE IMAGE WAS DONE. NO MANIPULATION OF CONTRAST
WAS DONE. THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS DONE. All l did
was bracket the exposures to get a good negative. To use
his favorite phrase, Lamson is just blowing smoke...out his
ass. Speculation is no substitute for research or truth.
Jack
Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx.
For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation.
Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact.
BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack?
So...according to "Mr. Light"...ANY copying process is MANIPULATION. I have to
agree that EVERYTHING is manipulation. The original exposure itself is manipulation,
since every photographer MANIPULATES his camera by choosing shutter speeds,
f-stops, focus, etc. How does this general definition advance our understanding. NONE.
So this is totallly meaningless.
By the way, Lamson insinuates that I should have had a 20-step tone strip in
my badgeman bracketed exposures. As a photographer, he should know that
a SLIDE COPIER like a Repronar or Chromapro is incapable of including a
step-strip. The copies from Groden's slide (which Groden made from a Thompson
print) were made on a Repronar slide copier, which uses a backlighted strobe
exposure of constant intensity, therefore the main control ("manipulation") is
varying the f-stop to optimize exposure. The other variable is magnification, a
function of the bellows extension. The greater the magnification, the more exposure
is required. In this case I used 4X magnification, making exact calculation of
exposure even more difficult. Using the Repronar, it is always wise to bracket,
since otherwise the exact exposure cannot be determined without use of a
densitometer and magnification calculations. It is easier just to bracket, since
film is cheap.
Quit blowing smoke, Lamson. You may fool the uneducated, but not the rest
of us.
Jack
Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt.
Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs.
And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"! In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION .
White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself.
BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult.
-
As usual, Lamson is full of xxxx. He implies I used some sort of
underhanded manipulation to alter the badgeman image. That is
unadulterated crap.
As a "pro" photographer, surely he has heard of BRACKETING.
Most photographers practice bracketing to find the PERFECT
exposure. This is especially important in copystand work, when
as little as a half-stop finds the critical balance for optimum
exposure capturing the full range of tones between white
and black.
In all of my copystand work I nearly always included a 20-step
grayscale at the edge of the image for proper controls in
development and printing. If the grayscale reproduced right,
I knew the image would be right.
In copying the original image obtained from Groden, all I did
to bring out the best image was to BRACKET the exposures in
HALF-STOP INCREMENTS between F4.5 and F22. A contact
print of my original negative is attached. NO MANIPULATION
OF THE IMAGE WAS DONE. NO MANIPULATION OF CONTRAST
WAS DONE. THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS DONE. All l did
was bracket the exposures to get a good negative. To use
his favorite phrase, Lamson is just blowing smoke...out his
ass. Speculation is no substitute for research or truth.
Jack
Exacty who do you think you can fool with this bullxxxx Jack? I'm sure there are some folks ignorant of the photographic process who might find your crap amusing or even possible but those with actual experience will find it for what it is. Bullxxxx.
For the record. Increases in exposure is manipulation. Contrast chages with copy and development of film. Contrast changes based on the paper/developer/processing time chosen by the printmaker. This is manipulation. The grain added by the copy process is manipulation.
Bottom line is that "bagdeman" is an alteration and no amount of bullxxxx by White will ever change that fact.
BTW, exactly where is that step wedge in this set of copies Jack?
-
Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level.
It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.
Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman.
Craig,
please forgive me for attempting to break this down but I need too, for my own sake.
So the Thompson Drumscan, in theory, should be the best but, when we look at it to study details in the background it is severly lacking.
Here is another example of the difference in quality, a small gif made my Bill sometime back.
Even what Thompson used in "SSID"(P128) shows a clear outline of the "hat",
the drumscan does not, why?
To me, as a layman, this is telling me that something went wrong with the drumscan.
Why would I use this Dscan to study whats behind that wall up there(if anything), when it missing details seen in the forty year old print in his book?
Your crop is not a clear and sharp Moorman print, but rather a darkroom manipulation that APPEARS to be sharp and clear. It is neither. During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail. To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone. A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible.
"During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail."
Craig,
that statement of yours,
how could you know that, unless you have seen a high quality blow-up of the area above the wall from "the original"?
What is the source of what you are using as a comparison to Jacks results?
"To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone."
I have often tried to bring out details from a dark section of an image, during which time, the details of a sunlit portion of the photo, may become devoid of details.
I don't think the details going AWOL on the front of the wall has any baring on the quality of what has been brought out from the darkness above it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
"A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible."
Once again, this is irrelevant IMO.
Bringing out details from a dark portion of a print has negative effects on the well lit areas.
This is not a sign of bad workmanship.
Alan
Alan, let me try and break this down. First, IMHO all of this "enhancement" folks are trying to do on these images is nothing more than a fools errand. In a word it's just crap. Just a silly game. The bottom line is that you cant create details where none exists. Most of the "enhancements" you see involve increasing contrast and exposure either with film and paper or using a computer. When you do it by either method you are simply throwing things away and creating new stuff. Now this will not appy to say taking an original negative and making different prints at different times or contrasts to open up shadows. The limiting factor in this case is the original exposure of the film and how the dark tones fall on the threshold of exposure for that film. The same applies to original sildes. However doing this to copy negs made from prints or slides made from prints of other slides ia hopeless. Why? Because the original detail has been tossed out or changed.
The Moorman drumscan is the closest thing to the original that is in existance in digital form to my knowlege. It has made only one pass through a len/film system, and then on to digital form. The scan was created without any curves, sharpening or tonal adjustment being applied and as such it is linear in nature. Why is this important? Because any of those adjustments make changes to edge detail. Increase the contrast and the actual edge detail of a point in the image changes...in other words it moves from its original position to a new position. How can you make judgements on some detail in an image when what you are looking at has been changed?
Next lets consider the problem with the photographic copy and printing process. When you take a picture of a picture the resulting negative is different than the original photograph. This happens due to exposure, film curves, development, film type, grain buildup and sharpness losses cause by the copy camera lens. So right off the bat your copy is flawed. Details from the original get lost due to contrast build or loss, grain and lens softness. Now when we take that negative to the printing stage even more chages happen that take it even further away from the original. The person making the print has to make paper exposure and contrast choices both of which can throw away details that can never be recovered. You further add changes in the print processing stage when the the print maker makes even more choices on development time and processing chemicals. And finally we have additional image changes due to an additional lens in the system (the enlarger, unless the image is a contact print), possible focus errors by the print maker, possible plane of focus errors due to improper equipment setup and finally what type of light source was used to make he print.
So in the case of the Badgeman lets says that White/Mack used the UPI copy of the moorman. I'm not usre of the actual image they used...was it a first print from the original UPI negative? Or was it a print made from a copy negative of the UPI print which was made from a copy negative of the original Moorman polaroid? Or was the copy chain even longer?
In a best case the it was the print from the original copy negative the UPI made from the Moorman original. Even if this is the case, the image is different that the original. Details have changed due to all or some of the reasons stated above. In this best case they want us to believe that an area in the original moorman image that was about 1/69 of an inch or .368 mm contains enough detail to show "badgeman" and that this minute detail will survive the copy and print process multipule times. Never gonna happen.
And that assumes that the moorman lens/film/distance combo could even record the detail in the first place. I await some proof from the badgeman supporters that it was possible, but I'm not holding my breath that they can provide it. All the of efforts to do so to this date have failed.
So, is the image of hatman you posted really sharper and more detailed than the drumscan. NO! It actually shows less detail and what sharpness it does show is simply made up out of thin air by altering the print. In other words it is useless.
All of this is simply foolishness.
-
2 MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE VIEWS
In the images Jack shows, the LM actually DOES get larger AS12-48-7100 - but only very slightly. Check the hi-res images, and do the measurements to confirm this - do NOT take my word for it.
The LM is on the horizon, some distance away (the distance from the LM to Surveyor was 535 feet). Moving 50 feet closer to Surveyor will only make a tiny difference the LM's apparent size. The Apollo 12 Preliminary Science Report (PDF file) will probably have a site map, showing where images were taken from. I don't have access to that right now, as it is 24Mb and I'm on dial-up. Perhaps some else can post the site map.
Try this at home. Pick a similar scene with an object on the horizon at a comparable distance to the images shown. See if you can get any appreciable change in apparent size of the far object.
As for the focus, Jack has obviously never taken a photo that has a far backround in focus. His understanding of the "rules of photography" are very flawed. It's all to do with the apature setting, the lens focal legth, and the "depth of field" (as I call it - although Craig refers to it as 'depth of focus'. Who is right? probably Craig - I use the terms taught to me).
Craig explains the depth of field on the camera in this post.
Other references are:
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-...h-of-field.html
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fotot...tmls/depth.html
http://www.azuswebworks.com/photography/dof.html
Once again, grab your camera and try it for yourself. See who is right, Jack or Craig.
I actually use the term Depth of Field, but used the term Depth of Focus to make it more understandable for those who don't understand photography jargon.... -
After closely studying the Moorman Photo in the course of an exchange about Classic Gunman, I began to feel that I was seeing more images behind the wall. I sought Jack's help with getting "the best quality Moorman photo obtainable." I was surprised to realize that I couldn't intelligently answer his questions: "Which version? There are several. The early Zippo print without the thumbprint? Early wire service prints with pedestal cropped out? Later wire service prints? My copies made from the original? Gordon Smith copy from original, etc. etc. etc.? All are different." So I'm seizing this opportunity for clarification and/or an assist from Bill Miller regarding which version is the purest (perhaps "rawest" would be better, knowing Jack's position about tampering). I also question the thumbprint: how can there be versions without it?
Tim, I think I can answer your questions. Some of what I am about to tell you has been passed on to me via Robert Groden. If I remember it correctly ... Robert said that the clearest Moorman print that he had ever seen was an 8 x 10 print that Josiah Thompson had. Josiah's 1st genration print was made from a 'copy negative' made right from the original Moorman photograph. Robert then made a copy negative from the 1st generation print that Josiah had at the time. It was that copy negative that Robert made that was passed on to Jack White which was then used to retrieve the Badge Man images.
Sometime down the road someone had placed their thumb on the original Moorman photograph and their thumb lifted some of the coating off the photo, thus leaving behind a thumb print. So prints and copy negatives made before this time would not show a thumb print on the photo and copy negatives and prints made after the fact do show the damage. FWIW ... Groden also has told me that he made several copy negatives from various prints. However, the best print he tells me was one in particular that was owned by Josiah Thompson, who also has had several diferent levels of quality prints in his possession over time. The 'Drum Scan' is one such example which shows an inferior image compared to the copy negative Jack used in the Badge Man work.
Bill
I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he
says above. One print from Thompson and one print
from Weisberg were very good quality, and were used
for badgeman studies. Gary Mack and I labeled prints
that Gary had collected by quality. Thus Thompson 1 was
the best Thompson print and Weisberg 1 was the best
print from Harold (which unfortunately was marred by
some purple rubberstamp ink). Gary gathered about 10
prints. The first in the timeline we called the Zippo print,
because it includes a zippo lighter next to the Polaroid.
It is unique, because it was taken before the thumbprint
was applied; it is also very grainy because of small negative
size. I am attaching a copy of the Zippo print.
At some point Thompson selected his "best print"
and had a professional "drum scan" made of it. The quality
of the drum scan is miserable.
Jack
**to be completely accurate, Robert furnished not a print,
but a slide, and not to me...but to Gary Mack. Gary was
looking at the slide on a large screen monitor, and saw
the badgeman image, or as he would say the Badge Man
image. Gary passed the slide on to me, and I copied it
and made a print of optimal exposure.
Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level.
It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.
Another point of record. Gary Mack is concerned that I am somehow giving the impression that he and White used the print that was made from the drumscan negative as the source material for the badgeman alteration. As my post clearly states Mack/White did examine that print as part of their work. The print they actually worked from to make the badgeman alteration was a copy of the UPI moorman.
-
Everyone seems to go to such great lengths to discredit Jim Fetzer.. why is this so? Could it be possible that he has kicked the can and its opened a tin of worms? Could it be that he is right and many many stand to lose big time if even 1 iota of what he says is proven to be correct?
Fetzer's research can be insulted, put down, ridiculed and all other methods of disinformation that has been used but the facts remain. Things don't add up and Fetzer has done a fantastic job in pointing that out.
9/11 doesn't add up either, Fetzers once again done a great job dissecting that one.
Peole don't need to go "great lengths" to discredit Fetzer.He largely does it himself with his sloppy reseach and swollen ego.
That...and that he is a "target rich environment".
-
Craig,
do you not see how Tinks scan seems blurred & out of focus when compared to what Jack & Gary studied?
It seems obvious to me which would be the better one to study.
Am I missing something in your opinion?
Alan
Alan if you are refering to the crop of the "badgeman" alteration you posted, you are very confused.
Your crop is not a clear and sharp Moorman print, but rather a darkroom manipulation that APPEARS to be sharp and clear. It is neither. During the copy and printing process Jack has increased the exposure and contrast until tones from the original have been blown away or compressed to give the appearence of sharpness and detail. To understand exactly how much detail has been lost simply look at the detail of the wall below the supposed figure of badgeman. It's gone. A full frame print of the Moorman exposed and printed like the badgeman crop would look horrible.
Now here is the most imortant point. The polaroid film combined with a so-so lens that was stopped down to near f90 (and thus diffraction liimited...do a google on that) cannot produce the level of sharpness and detail that Jack shows in his Moorman alteration.
Now if the camera/film combo can't resolve that level of detail, where did it come from in Jacks badgeman alteration?
-
deleted
-
After closely studying the Moorman Photo in the course of an exchange about Classic Gunman, I began to feel that I was seeing more images behind the wall. I sought Jack's help with getting "the best quality Moorman photo obtainable." I was surprised to realize that I couldn't intelligently answer his questions: "Which version? There are several. The early Zippo print without the thumbprint? Early wire service prints with pedestal cropped out? Later wire service prints? My copies made from the original? Gordon Smith copy from original, etc. etc. etc.? All are different." So I'm seizing this opportunity for clarification and/or an assist from Bill Miller regarding which version is the purest (perhaps "rawest" would be better, knowing Jack's position about tampering). I also question the thumbprint: how can there be versions without it?
Tim, I think I can answer your questions. Some of what I am about to tell you has been passed on to me via Robert Groden. If I remember it correctly ... Robert said that the clearest Moorman print that he had ever seen was an 8 x 10 print that Josiah Thompson had. Josiah's 1st genration print was made from a 'copy negative' made right from the original Moorman photograph. Robert then made a copy negative from the 1st generation print that Josiah had at the time. It was that copy negative that Robert made that was passed on to Jack White which was then used to retrieve the Badge Man images.
Sometime down the road someone had placed their thumb on the original Moorman photograph and their thumb lifted some of the coating off the photo, thus leaving behind a thumb print. So prints and copy negatives made before this time would not show a thumb print on the photo and copy negatives and prints made after the fact do show the damage. FWIW ... Groden also has told me that he made several copy negatives from various prints. However, the best print he tells me was one in particular that was owned by Josiah Thompson, who also has had several diferent levels of quality prints in his possession over time. The 'Drum Scan' is one such example which shows an inferior image compared to the copy negative Jack used in the Badge Man work.
Bill
I congratulate Miller on the complete accuracy** of what he
says above. One print from Thompson and one print
from Weisberg were very good quality, and were used
for badgeman studies. Gary Mack and I labeled prints
that Gary had collected by quality. Thus Thompson 1 was
the best Thompson print and Weisberg 1 was the best
print from Harold (which unfortunately was marred by
some purple rubberstamp ink). Gary gathered about 10
prints. The first in the timeline we called the Zippo print,
because it includes a zippo lighter next to the Polaroid.
It is unique, because it was taken before the thumbprint
was applied; it is also very grainy because of small negative
size. I am attaching a copy of the Zippo print.
At some point Thompson selected his "best print"
and had a professional "drum scan" made of it. The quality
of the drum scan is miserable.
Jack
**to be completely accurate, Robert furnished not a print,
but a slide, and not to me...but to Gary Mack. Gary was
looking at the slide on a large screen monitor, and saw
the badgeman image, or as he would say the Badge Man
image. Gary passed the slide on to me, and I copied it
and made a print of optimal exposure.
Just a point of record here. Thompson did not have his "best print" "drum scanned". Jack is blowing smoke. Thompson had the copy NEGATIVE of the Moorman original print that was made for him in 1967 scanned on a drum scanner at 2400dpi. Its pretty clear that White has little or no knowelege of the drum scan process nor experience using materials created on the drum scanner. The drum scan of the Thompson Moorman negative is an excellent digital representation of the negative scanned to film grain level.
It was scanned without any post production applied to the resulting file and as such needs contrast and density modification to produce the best possible image. It should be noted that this is exactly what happens in a darkroom when a print is made from a negative. It should also be noted that the negative Thompson had drum scanned was the negative used to make the print that White and Mack examined and as such has the same information and details as the resulting print.
-
Will a professor of PHYSICS do?
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of
pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I
present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US
government.
We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides
eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv . The photograph below by Frank
Silecchia shows a chunk of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9-11. Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us
much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.
Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. Here is the building prior to and on September 11, 2001:
WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..
WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.
WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint
Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.
Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its demise begins:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flash...west_corner.htm
What did you observe?
Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?
Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.” Note that
reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality
photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and
at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../collapses.html .
Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are delineated here. Any rebuttal should address each
of these seventeen points.
1. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground
Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in
the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who
reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn
Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns
Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”
A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv . The
observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively
large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal can remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal
is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific
analysis would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to
melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction
generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be
smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed
observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2005; see also,
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/eviden...gy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large
quantities of metal.
The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with
NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.
(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the metal is
required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very
hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before
ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was
the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus,
about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.
But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best
ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as
evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why
steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely
not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and
Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.
Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of the hot slag being extracted at
ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following
table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm ) provides data regarding the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate
metal temperatures by color. Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.
READ THE REMAINDER AT....
FULL TEXT with many photos MAY BE READ BY CLICKING ON...
The short answer...NO!
-
I should add that Blakey and his lawyers would have had a
hard time discrediting me, since IT WAS BLAKEY WHO HIRED
ME AS AN EXPERT IN PHOTOANALYSIS FOR THE HSCA. How
would it look to jurors if he attempted to discredit me.?
Probabably about as bad as his "photogrammetry" ploy,
which backfired on him, and for which his staff apologized
to me after the lunch break.
Jack
Thats really funny stuff Jack!
To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you.
And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted.
envy doesn't become you, rofl..... you notice something, Jack? This guy posts nada, zippo, zilch when it comes to JFK related imagery.... just makes noise....
Wof wof...slink back to your dog house...guard dog.
<flush> you're outt'a here too, not worth the bandwidth 2 down --plonk--
David, you have never been worth the bandwidth...your only redeeming social value is the humor your b/s replies provide...
-
I should add that Blakey and his lawyers would have had a
hard time discrediting me, since IT WAS BLAKEY WHO HIRED
ME AS AN EXPERT IN PHOTOANALYSIS FOR THE HSCA. How
would it look to jurors if he attempted to discredit me.?
Probabably about as bad as his "photogrammetry" ploy,
which backfired on him, and for which his staff apologized
to me after the lunch break.
Jack
Thats really funny stuff Jack!
To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you.
And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted.
envy doesn't become you, rofl..... you notice something, Jack? This guy posts nada, zippo, zilch when it comes to JFK related imagery.... just makes noise....
Wof wof...slink back to your dog house...guard dog.
-
I should add that Blakey and his lawyers would have had a
hard time discrediting me, since IT WAS BLAKEY WHO HIRED
ME AS AN EXPERT IN PHOTOANALYSIS FOR THE HSCA. How
would it look to jurors if he attempted to discredit me.?
Probabably about as bad as his "photogrammetry" ploy,
which backfired on him, and for which his staff apologized
to me after the lunch break.
Jack
Thats really funny stuff Jack!
To dicredit you is simple...just ask you a question about perspective or light and shadow...or really most any question about photography...and your answer will discredit you.
And BTW..his "photogrammetry ploy" worked perfectly. It made you look the fool. And more importantly showed you to be ignorant of the very subject in which you were attempting to profess expertise. Pretty powerful stuff really. You got toasted.
-
Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others here
were, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA
lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why
are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is
their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation?
A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site,
and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages
some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more
than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB.
Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Old
retired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like
Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job.
Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley
where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels".
These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK
forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work.
Jack
LOL! Whenever Jack White and his "boys" find their tit in a wringer they drag out the ...must be cia... routine. Its pretty sad really that a grown man like White has to run around like this with a tinfoil hat on his head!
Grow up Jack!
-
Top Post
If I have to see a cite that -- you have even less knowledge about optical film printing and cinematography special effects than I thought -- ALL titles, every film has special effects -- Miller get rid of this guy -- he's pure embarassment for you.....
Yeah sure re Zavada -- get him over here, why's a little ole editor, one he's spoken with before scared off -- we had great conversations -- now speed on down to the last post I addressed from you -- I'm finished with you, your dismissed....
In case you don't read that last post <plonk> I think you know what that means
Mr. Colby wroteCould such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of oth er movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004.
[...]
______________
then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here:
put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time!
Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk...
help this guy out Craig.....
Throwing around these guy's names like you do can get nasty stateside.... where are you again?
So let's start will Roland do you need his phone number, email address?.....
Dave if you had been paying attention you would know that I am in touch with Zavada. He OKed the text of the post in which I cited his and Feilding's position concerning alteration of the Z-film. Zavada's position that the Z-film sould not have been faked is online I posted the link several times already.
As for Fielding's opinion, I reported what Rollie Zavada told me, do think I'm making it up or he is? If you think I'm making it up e-mail Rollie and ask him to confirm it. If he says I made it up you have scored quite the coup. On ther other hand if he confirms what I said you have to admit Fielding disagrees with you or assert that Rollie is being deceptive. So go ahead e-mail Rollie today and ask him if my post reflected his views, if he says otherwise post his reply here. What do you say, is a week enough for you to hear back from him? If you remain silent on the subject we can all assume he confirmed what I said. He doesn't really want to get involved in this absurb debate, can't say that I blame him.
Speaking of being deceptive Rollie was not happy about your insinuation that be backed away from his position that the Z-film is a camera original. He told me he was going to e-mail you about that, did you get the message yet?
Your double standard is amusing, you ask me for cites but keep insisting that Fielding's book backs you position without providing any quotes.
I quoted Sobel as an after though along with Zavada, Fielding and Stone, his resume is quite impresive and imagine far more so than yours, his IMDb listing has 30+ movies/TV series on it I imagine many of those use optical printing, have you seen everything his made? As for bonafides we're still waiting for us to tell you about your experience.
Can you explain to us how the "forgers" were able to composite the "altered" z-film without any errors when Disney was unable to? Jack and Costella cited Mary Poppins and other Disney classics as evidence that such fakery was possible - until your mention Citizen Kane IIRC all the films you side cited were Disney productions. How were they able to do so without any matte lines when George Lucas was unable to do so almnost 20 years later. Let's not forget that would have had only a few hours to do the initial alterations.
PS - Any luck on explaining how they secretly developed a roll a Kodachrome at 3 AM?
EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effectsI'll need a cite for that, Every film made since 1926? Are you sure? Earlier you said every film made from the 20 - 70 used them. So if we are to believe you every film made 1920 -present has optical special effects
In that case Sobel should be quite the authority he directed about 13 and editted 3 of those.
Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others herewere, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA
lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why
are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is
their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation?
A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site,
and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages
some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more
than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB.
Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Old
retired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like
Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job.
Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley
where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels".
These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK
forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work.
Jack
they're figments of their wild imaginations, Jack
Zavada teamed up with a guy from Brazil? Next we'll hear this guy is a charter member of SMPTE roflmfao I'll email Rollie the post.... Gary's busy again....
Lamson wrote:
Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork.
__________________
It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist
as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me!
"No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork."
You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO?
If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign.....
This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out
David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO!
Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer.
Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL!
well Craigster -- you really mean its THE art? That same art utilized by optical film printer technicians, that art? Can't quite get around to discussing the issue, can you? By the way, what do you know about art?
--the whiners moan and moan and MOAN -- tell me all about 8 and 10 bit color Craigster -- I need a lesson? Why not post a swimming motorhome or a flying boat -- got any stock footage your selling along those lines.... ROFLMFAO!
Lets define the ART shall we David. It seems you do need a lesson. A matte is art, a glass painting is art, an animation cell is art, a masked continous tone image is art...and all of it must be perfect to create a composite that is undetectable as a composite. It matters not a witt if said composite is created on an optical printer, an animation stand, under an enlarger or even a lightbox and a brownie camera. Humans create this art and as such its prone to errors. Hell even your two attempts at composites have been riddled with error and you produced them on a computer. Have you ever assembled the art reguired to create a composite ON FILM and actually put them together ON FILM and had them stand up at high magnification? I did'nt think so.
8 bit color? 10 bit color? My are you backwards....my camera raws convert to 16 bit color...can work in 32 bit color if I want too....8 bit color? LOL! you vidoe guys living in a cave?
My website is filled with computer comps, my pbase page as well...have at it David...I'm an open book on my work.
You on the other hand...well lets just say we've been waiting a long time to see some of your film composites, but after seeing how poor you are WITH A COMPUTER I can understand why you have yet to post any....you don't have any! LOL! Pretty weak here as well:
www.netstarproductions.com
I can see why you would want to keep that a secret! ROTFLMAO!
Back to the bench David, you wiffed again.
-
Lamson wrote:
Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork.
__________________
It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist
as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me!
"No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork."
You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO?
If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign.....
This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out
David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO!
Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer.
Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL!
How tall were Zappy and Sitzy?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
PHOTOGRAMERTY