Craig Lamson

Good grief David...the one needing the help in this thread is you and your "a" team. LOL! You got killed in this thread starting with that piece of crap art you post at the top..LOL! Anyways, on the subject of credentials, exactly how many composite frames of film similar to what you say was done on the Z film have you PERSONALLY created on an optical printer? Your current computer experience is a no go, as is your news cameraman background...just your actual experience with creating comps on an optical printer. Finally a little emperical evidence from your "a" team would be interesting. Where is your attempt to produce a "fake z film" made today using that 1963 tech? Surely you guys have the talent and the resouces. With such a wonderful artist like White, your peresonal optical printer skills, and Costella to provide the "physics..lol!". And geez there is all that money from the profits of Fetzers books...you know them money he says funnels right back into jfk research....hell that alone should be a huge bankroll...profit from what...500 books? LOL! Get with the program David! You made the claim its possible...produce some emperical evidence that it is. The burden of proof is on you and so far you have provided nothing...oh wait I'm wrong...you read a book... ROTFLMAO!

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.

And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... I expected as much from you, evidently artisty is a misconception for you -- I await Roland Zavada -- and Raymond Fielding's comments -- those that may have a modicum of knowledge regarding the film printing craft. I'll also say with utmost of respect -- I think both these gentleman will have to consult others they know in the optical film printing craft. I'll also hasten to remind you, in particular -- because Roland Zavada is/was Kodak's go to guy regarding 8mm film properties, doesn't mean he knew how to thread a 35 mm projector.... As for my computer skills --- done me pretty good for the last 20 years -- I doubt you even know what Painter IX, not to mention After Effects nor MOTION nor 3D Studio nor POV-Ray and YES, Lightwave GOD bless those toaster folks truck on Photog - truck on So lets recap..you show as a very poorly done comp created on a computer and tell us this indicates its possible to alter the zapruder film on film in a manner that will not be detectable when studied as still frames. Good grief David you really are grasping for straws. Your silly claim is like me taking a drink of orange juice and proclaiming diet coke is sweet. What a stupid argument. No wonder you are precieved as a tinfoil hat kind of guy. As for your computer skills, all I can say, based on the only examples you have posted in regards to the zapruder film, is that you suck. This last piece is horrid. I've seen better work by my 15 year old neice. So go ahead and toss around all the big sounding terms you think makes you look like an authority...your actual work as posted makes you look like a hack. You sure did your dads company proud on this one LOL! Maybe you should stick to cowboys and horsies....

And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer.....

Then dont read the threads. No one is pointing a rifle to your head. And perhaps I might suggest you take a look at your own backyard and re-read some of your posts to Gratz. You've no room to talk.

when you know your gig -- you don't have to flail around.... I know, thats why you are flailing around...

Excuse me? Thats never been my argument. If you think you can somehow prove that it was be my guest. Otherwise quite making up lies Healy. Back to the drawing board bucko..... BTW, I've posted a link on this forum to a film based composite created by me, where is yours? Missed it? Tough. Do some research.

You have doing the backstroke down pat David....

John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book. Jack Thats just not true Jack. What John is asking for IS NOT in the book.

I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark. "background and experience..." ROFL -- maybe you'll be so kind as posting your resume here, huh? So what praytell, does photographing mobile homes, washers and dryers have to do with optical film printing -- possible Zapruder film alteration? Come to think of it, your team ever find someone with credentials, ANY credentials to refute the SMPE/SMPTE articles of Ray Feildings book? You find anyone, anywhere of that stature bring 'em in here Craigster -- then we'll discuss the Zapruder film why would you assume anything new regarding the Z-film studies would be run past the Lone Neuter's, you included? "Truth is truth..." LOL, save it for the uninitiated, Craigster, that one goes way back to comp-u-serve days - you or your supposed knowledge impresses no ONE that I know, facts being what they are, you're not even on the radar screen As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care. of course you don't, thats why you can't stay away from here, or is this a paying job? Chow Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about. Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit. In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong. But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites, and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination. There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal. BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period. That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs.

I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints? Back-on-point, still photog - back on point So lurkers stay tuned! ... Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark. As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care.

I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David.

Thats clearly a good possiblilty and the one that crossed my mind when the image was first posted. Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight.

Well, throw in a conspiratorial mindset to colour the picture, perhaps not so obvious.. Tom, I think this is one for Pat and David. What I see is (with my understanding of what they say) a 'cut out' for a rifle image where the photo here is unaltered. It's not a very precise attempt as the edges in places are blotchy so it could be a first attempt, put aside/discarded and now re-surfacing.I suppose that this cut out could then have been used to analyse the backyard photo's. nothing fishy. _____________________ Circa 1963-64 mattes material (ruby - color of the transparant mask material) or masks were cut with a knife -- when complete, they were very, VERY accurate -- it appears they (whomever) had not begun the cutting process... btw John, Tom Purvis is quite able discussing Dealey Plaza photos/motion film - backyard photos... Come on David, a ruby is only as accurate as the person cutting it. In any case the accuracy also depends on the subject being masked. Quite a bit of difference where accuracy is concerned when cutting around the hair on a head or a solid line on the barrel of a gun. In any case a ruby makes at best a good ROUGH outline device. It won't hold up under close inspection.

Thank you once again Jack, you have just shown that from Weigman the Pedestal is in backlight. BTW, when I get time tomorrow I'm going to destroy your statments about the tone of a tan dress and how tones photograph. You might want to take some time tonight and bone up on the zone system and the exposure properties of film, because you really need it. I might suggest www.google.com as a start. Till tomorrow....

You are talking about Moorman being a babe right?

Good point, I didn't spot the addition to the post as I first responded. I don't see Sitzman sitting, I see what could be interpreted as such. I see faintly Zapruder in the process of jumping off. If it can be established he was holding the camera in his left hand and put his right hand on the edge to 'dismount' it would lend support to this. On the whole it is in the eye of behiolder and therefore borderline as any sort of evidence that Zapruder was not there. However there appears to be much clear evidence that he was. Clearly this is an exercise in subjectivity. None of these Weigman frames are worth a dang, at least not the net version. I usu ally dont like playing this game because it is subjective and no clear answer can be found. However I did work on two of the weigman frames posted and have put together some quick graphics to support "subjectivity" Rather than post here and I simply put them up on my webspace. www.infocusinc.net/sitzman/index.htm

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit. ________ What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position. What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him. Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames. Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve. Steve...I think you will find this illustration of interest. It shows the Weigman clear frame lightened and colorized. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE PEDESTAL. It also shows Sitzman in the very light colored dress she was wearing. Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting. Jack Here is another Wiegman which seems to show a large black box atop the pedestal. Jack Nice post Jack, on this one you can clearly see Sitzman sitting on the pedestal with her back to the camera.

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit. ________ What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position. What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him. Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames. Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve. Steve...I think you will find this illustration of interest. It shows the Weigman clear frame lightened and colorized. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE PEDESTAL. It also shows Sitzman in the very light colored dress she was wearing. Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting. Jack Yes Jack I know the difference between side and back lighting..side light is 90 degrees or less, and Weigman was at least at 120 degrees, which makes it backlight. Its really pretty simple. You say no one is on the pedestal yet plain sight is Sitzman sitting on the ped in her tan dress, with her legs hanging over the edge. I suspect that Zapurder is leaning down placing his camera on the Pedestal as is written he did after he became dizzy after the shooting. He's the black blob besides Sitzman. And surely you know about the properties of film and the threshold of exposure ? You think it might apply here? Given that both people ont he pedestal had their shadow sides facing the Weigman camera, what zones do you suppose zapruders black suit or Sitzmans tan dress were in the Weigman photo and how does that compare to the threshold of exposure based on a camera exposure set for full sun? (you know the sunny 16 rule right?) I'll give you a hint. Most films have a threshold of exposure of about 4 to 5 stops under middle gray. The difference between a full sun exposure and open shade is 3-4 stops.

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit. ________ What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position. What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him. Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames. Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve. Steven, quite a few in this thread alone.

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit. ________ What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position. What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him. Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames.

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.

Sidelit is not backlit, especially with regard to midday sunlight. The perspective arrow in the previous post shows the sun to be at a lateral angle no greater than 90 degrees; backlit would be 180. We are talking about midday sunlight, no more than 90 degrees from straight on. Tim High noon or not, from the Weigman camera position Zapruder is backlit for all intents. Its not 180, but at least 120 140 degrees. That qualifies as backlit in my book. One thing is for sure, he's not front lit in full sun. For a good indication of the shadow angle look at the back of the 59 chevy.

In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL, I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like. Jack Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point? Anyways, you cant see him on the pedestal? I'm shocked! In any case a backlit subject in dark clothing against a very dark background, blurred by camera movement...you call this evidence that Zapruder was not on the pedestal? Even more in light of the fact that everything else shows him htere?