Craig Lamson
-
Posts
5,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Craig Lamson
-
-
Just bumping this topic.
I continue to be troubled by the image of Norman.
Imagine that....
-
YOUR memory? that'll be as accurate as the WCR...
Wanna play memory games little boy? You will get soundly trounced like you have here with first frame overexposure.
Sorry you can't come to grips with the reality of the evidence and what your EXPERT Rollie concludes...
In every instance of a stop/start on the Zfilm's side A, the FFO is obvious
In the transition from the "test" frames on side B to Z001... wuddya know... there is it again.
The only place where there is no significant change... or a change that resembles any of the other stop/starts... is at 131/2/3/4....
Ah but you lose again. There IS first frame over exposure. So WHERE did it come from? Lets see. DO you even KNOW how the camera works? Do you even understand what a rotating shutter is or how it works? Of course not. You are just a whiner of a little boy who can't deal directly with reality.
A few sentences above on page 39 he says 1 of his 5 cameras repeatedly produces FFO.
"Mr Z's camera seems prone to the problem" is what Zavada also says.
Finally... I only post the frames available to me... if I had the 6K scans Horne does, I would post those....
Whine, Whine Whine. You are such a hypocrite, and that's being nice.
But I don't need to old man... Rollie did the work for us and on the supposed originals... and he explains quite plainly the anomolie does not appear as it did on all the other occurances...
as anyone can see from these frames... Z134 looks just like z001....
So tell us Big Brain... if it did not happen at any other Stop/Starts on either the A or B side of the film... why doesn't Rollie call it out to substantiate the randomness of it? To prove this one occurance at a location Zapruder himself says he never stopped filming... was simply that.. a random NON occurance... he doesn't, cause it wasn't... and he knew it.
Just like all the rest of the anomolies he can't explain or deal with... maybe you should refresh that aging memory of yours and read the Zavada report again. Count how many problems he explains away by saying... "well, it's on the SS copy of the film so it MUST have been on the original, even though it's not"
Consistently getting beaten at your own game must really suck for you old man... but I suppose you're getting used to it by now...
poor, confused old man....poor ignorant little boy...
Lets beat you into a pulp once again, it seems such a shame to do it to such a little boy as you , but its gonna happen so man up and take it baby davie jo.
Lets go back to Zavada and see what he told Tink Thompson about this very issue. Opps, this is really gonna hurt davie jo.
"Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised.
What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked.
Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced on pages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. "
Meanwhile, the solution to the alleged mystery of first frame over-exposure is quite simple. Most often, it is caused by the inertia of the camera as it starts up. This leads to the first frame in a sequence picking up more light than later frames. In cases where the camera mechanism has been idle for some time, the first frame over-exposure is quite obvious. In cases, where the mechanism has been idle for only a few seconds, the over-exposure is minimal. As with the short time gap between Z-132 and Z-133, the backyard sequences shown below indicate that the camera has only been stopped for a few seconds or minutes.
(see it all here including the images )
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination
Yet another case of little boy davie jo wearing his reality filtering CT goggles and...well missing actual reality.
Not to mention yet another example of his complete ignorance of all things photographic.
You are DONE you silly little boy. NOTHING you can say will put this argument back on your plate. You are beaten to a pulp. Was that fun or what?
I fully expect you to post even more obtuse nonsense about things for which you have absolutely no clue nor understanding. Its just what you do, and your arrogance and ignorance shows through completely. Not that your arguments will make a lick of sense nor be technically correct. You are not mentally capable of playing here.
Time for you to slither back into your hole little boy.
-
Hey daive jo, did you somehow miss the startup frame overexposure in 131/132 in YOUR OWN GRAPHIC? What can we CONCLUDE about you?
You got no eyes? Channeling Ralph Cinque?
Not me old man... I have never looked at the original film's frames directly... your hero Zavada tells us that when looking at the original as presented to him, HE could not detect any significant change...
Opps, you look like a fool again...YOUR WORDS...
davie jo sez: "These are the side by sides I did to show that nothing like we see at 001/2/3 is evident when the camera supposedly stopped and restarted at 131/2/3".
You do that with original frames silly boy?
even posted the link for you since I know how computer & mentally challenged you are.. .
When have YOU looked at the original frames old man so you can actually make an educated comment about it?
And yet you, who posted multi generational images are free to make comments? Hypocrite. And really. really silly. Always fun to catch you with your fingers in the cooking jar.
Zavada is pretty direct in his statement... your old eyes must be too tired to read things correctly any more I guess. Let me help...
"I did not detect" means that he could not find the same anomolie occuring at a place IT SHOULD BE
"any significant exposure change" means that while the other stop/start transitions had SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE CHANGES (as I illustrated) there was none ... where?
"at this transition" the 131/132 claimed stop/start...
So your argument is with ZAVADA old man, not me. I'm simply here to report what your EXPERT told us and put into some context.
An EXPERT, mind you, that never got to test the original camera...
You remember CONTEXT, that which you refuse to incorporate into your "posting" behavior...
it's what separates people like you... from people who know better.
Whoop, Whoop. Whoop, back your silly bus up little boy.
YOU got no context little boy, you read once again with your CT goggles on , which filter out reaiity. Thats why you look so silly every time you post. You post nonsense.
SO lets Look at the real ..reality based context.
Zavada tells us the was no SIGNIFICANT OVEREXPOSURE...NOT THAT THERE WAS NONE. Little boy davie jo looks silly..part one.
Zavada tell us later that found some overexposure when he looked at the film with a densitometer. I'm going from memory here since I simply NOT chasing this down for you...and that overexposure was 10 or 15 %. Overexposure but not SIGNIFICANT overexposure. Littleboy daive joe looks silly , part two
Then we can look at the side by side YOU prepared ( not original files I might add, and gee you COMMENTED...) and we can clearly seehtis overexposure. The easy place, the side of the lihgt blue Lincoln. Educated guess...1/3 of a stop over exposure. Significant...(whatever that means)...Nope. First frame oversexposure...YEP Little boy davie jo looks silly part three.
On page 39 Zavada once again admits that the Z camera was prone to the First Frame Overexposure and that while he mentions the z131 stop/start he includes:
(I did not detect any significant exposure change at this transition)
He also tells us the condition is hit or miss, and that it is not a GIVEN on every cameras or at every time. These are low tech, low tolerence mechical devices.
Welcome to reality...oh wait your CT goggle prevent reality from entering your brain. Too bad, condenmed forever to bising silly...
And guess what there is first frame OVEREXPOSURE. YOU proved it. ROFLMAO!
Silly little boy.
Time for you to slink back into your hole.
-
Hey daive jo, did you somehow miss the startup frame overexposure in 131/132 in YOUR OWN GRAPHIC? What can we CONCLUDE about you?
You got no eyes? Channeling Ralph Cinque?
-
...
The davie Jo fantasy continues..."we can conclude". Roflmao
and you thought Z-film alteration was dead..... you're getting old and tired, Craigster... tough to keep up, eh? LMAO!
It IS dead davie. Just look, here you are trying in vain to keep it alive. You are so predictable and hollow.
zfilm alteration...son of Oswald in the doorway...and even more whacky.
-
Hey there Lindsay,
These are the side by sides I did to show that nothing like we see at 001/2/3 is evident when the camera supposedly stopped and restarted at 131/2/3.
When added to the testimony of both Zap and Sitz it is really not hard to see this is a splice and not a stop/start.
Since his camera was not made to stop and start with such single frame precision as we see from 131 to 132...we can conclude this is an alteration
Page 4 of Part 4a of the Zavada study states that First FrameOverExposure occurs AT LEAST twice on the family side and at z frame 001 on the B/Motorcade side
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy4a.pdf
and on page 37 part 4c
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy4c.pdf
On page 39 Zavada once again admits that the Z camera was prone to the First Frame Overexposure and that while he mentions the z131 stop/start he includes:
(I did not detect any significant exposure change at this transition)
So while each and every other STOP/START has this tell tale sign of such activity... and are included in the report images... There is no such anomolie at 131/132.
He also states that 1 of the 5 cameras he DID TEST (just not the Z camera) REPEATEDLY produced First Frame Overexposure...
====
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.
Now watch Towner.... when did this occur?
The davie Jo fantasy continues..."we can conclude". Roflmao
-
yes there is indeed a lot going on.... but I'm going to have to agree with CL here... SEARCH. Include "Chris Davidson", "Tom Purvis", "Survey" "Drommer plat" and "Math" in your searches.
Once the alteration is no longer a question (like conspiracy/cover-up) in your mind, as it has in mine... HOW becomes the next task. I can't give you the Reader's Digest version of years of work on this.
A hint though... distance and time are related to frames per second. If the limo is moving 1 foot per frame, this equates to the limo's speed IF we accept 18.3fps. If the distances covered do not reveal a steady rate of speed - which they dont - and speed up/slow down is included as they are in real world events - the information offered us by the WCR proves what we see is not what occurred. IE the transition to 207-208 jumping from 12 to over 28mph and then back down again or the jump in 171 from 3.74 to over 17mph...
Lamson will stomp and scream and misdirect and whine alot, but will never refute. He does not understand the math or the analysis and his only purpose is to xxxxx....
If he had soemthing to offer... believe me he would, he never shuts up about his 3 little inches... but a simple search will prove time and again he has little to say on this subject other than adhoms.
You recap of what the math shows in question form is interesting... the MATH helps explain how what we see and what has been offered as evidence, was created and/or supported.
David - could you further unpack the following for me please, there is a lot going on here!
If we accept that z313 is the last shot...
using the math that took me quite a while to grasp shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot,
why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, and why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder.
You say that using the math shows
- why z133 is when we see the limo appear,
- what is so special about 161-166,
- why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot,
- why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313),
- why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him,
- why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder.
Am I breaking down that paragraph of your post correctly?
Is the math something that I (with a bit of work) can do and will the results of the math show all of the above?
Are you able expand on each of the above points or are they just self evident once I run the math,
Also
He never stopped filming Lindsay... and the attached shows that the restart frame z133 does not have the telltale start-up signatures... it just STARTS
I hadn't ever considered whether the Zapruder images I'm familiar with included any stop starts, I just always thought it was one continuous shot.
Why do you say z133 is a restart frame and what are the 'telltale start-up signatures' that should be there and are missing?
I posted an image that clearly shows the difference between a start-up frame - Z001 - and one that is not - z133. I also include testimony that substantiates Z filming the motorcade without stopping.
I'm at a loss for how that is not clear in my post....
Please take some time and do some diligence. If you grasp the math first time thru... wonderful, let me know. But it will be up to you to connect the dots...
Curious... are you a long time student of the case... just dabbling right now... are you aware of the Altgens/Hudson references made and just addressing the MATH here...
I'm a bit perplexed ??
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.
Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.
Always a good omen when other "doubters" recognize that, provided the evidence is factual, understanding the REASON is critical to gaining an understanding as to the WHY?
Tom
P.S. All that one has to do is take a good look at CE884 (within any set of the Warren Commission evidence) in order to recognize the alterations.
It of course helps to have in hand a true copy of the West/WC survey plat as well as the survey notes.
Why do you assume either recreation has it correct?
- why z133 is when we see the limo appear,
-
Reality =
Chris understands completely what he is posting.
Craig doesn't understand what Chris is posting.
Once Craig understands the 15.5ft conversion process, then Craig will understand what Chris has posted.
I haven't given up on you Craig, I'm just inching along. (Plat talk verbiage).
chris
There is no 15.5 conversion process. It's a figment of your garbage measurements and failure to even understand what you read, Chris can't even figure out what the face of the TSBD looks like
That's reality. It's beyond your ken.
Your game is over. Deal with it.
.
-
Lets drag this back to the reality davie is trying to obfuscate.
Chris can't read nor understand this simple document he posted...
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20094&st=60#entry271165
-
sorry to dissappoint ya there Lampoon, as a published author, which I sure much to your regret and chagrin, my claims are on the record, both written and on video. Search is your friend poopsie!
ROFLMAO! "published author" LMAO! can you still get your head in the door? LOL! You did pretty poor job of it ("took" a few photos too). And geeze, I write like crap but man...you are about as bad as they come.
So what where those "claims" again davie? Why don't you summarize them for the lucky souls that have yet to read the dreck you wrote. LOL!
I do however recognize you as the country's leading photographer of movie theater loge seats (en masse and singular) and no one can take a picture of a school bus better than you. Satisfied?
Sheesh you can't even get something as simple as this right davie. You wanna try again? Oh wait I suspect you would only fail again.
And yet again, I post and you can't help yourself.
But wait, surely Tink Thompson and Gary Mack-Dunkel have forgiven you for not knowing a damn thing about film-photo composition, haven't they?
Wanna go head to head on compositing daive? Or are you afraid the world will find out you are all copy and no actual experience? Oh wait you did you take a 101 class somewhere? LMAO. You are a xxxxx davie, pure and simple.
Projecting? Pssssst, the Zapruder film is tainted, forever suspect, as is your beloved WCR...
So say the goofballs. And yet in 50 years none of you can prove it has been altered. All you have is very empty rhetoric.
I didn't realize you had a Civil Engineering degree, where from, Walmart or K-Mart?
Whats the matter? This to hard for you to comprehend?
-
I have you on the end of a string hon, and have so 10 years running now. I post, you feel a desperate need to respond. Always have ALWAYS will.
Not too bad for a guy who claims he can't prove the Zapruder film was altered, eh Craigster? LMAO!
You really are delusional davie...I post YOU feel a desperate need to respond... 10 years worth. Your attempts at damage control are really weak and totally transparent. And usually completely void of any substance. Does that make you a xxxxx davie?
Where would you be today if not for The Great Zapruder Film Hoax --2003?
Same place I was before that piece of garbage killed a few trees and poisoned a few minds....trashing silly CT alteration claims.
Btw, Chris is running you around in circles, imagine what he could do to your camp testing the alleged in-camera Zapruder original... perhaps you can explain to our audience here how parallax effects the official Dealey Plaza topo's?
Once again you prove you are deathly afraid to go on the record. Color me shocked. [/sacrasm] You really are a xxxxx. Poor Chris can't even read and understand the words he posts let alone have the first clue what he would be looking at if he had the Z film in his hands.
And you prove you can't read either... let me refresh your failing memory.
"...like in this instance...simple reading and comprehension correct". His failure (and now yours) has nothing to do with parallax.
Parallax DOES however play a role in some of the elevations West surveyed, given many of them were the the result of visually TRYING to align things from a DIFFERENT location that that of the Zapruder camera. GIGO I guess you must have failed photo 101 while you were learning to become a video camera repairman.
Perhaps your lone nut/LHO did it all by his lonesome schuck-n-jive has run it limit, eh?
You projecting again davie?
-
of course you care, who are you kidding... case photo's are subjective, no one, NO ONE will be putting the photo-film originals (if, in fact they can be proven to be originals) under the microscope for forensic testing, there will be NO forensic testing... so, all you've been doing here is fanning speculation, which does nothing more than reinforce WCR disinfo. There is no other purpose for you being here, unless you care of course, which you've told us you don't..... LMAO!
My my davie your fear really runs deep. What's the problem? Getting too hot for you? Must be since you mostly only post to try and defuse a CT getting trashed. And here you are trying to save poor Chris. Well keep it up, it speaks volumes.
And Forensics? Really? ROFLMAO! SIlly CTs have been making alteration claims for decades. and you want to tell me that we need forensics to show they got things like parallax, properties of light and shadow, perspective, or even ...like in this instance...simple reading and comprehension correct? LMAO!
When davie speaks the laughter begins. Keep up the good works davie. The entertainment value is priceless.
Now back to business. Tell us davie, does Chris have the work in question correct? Come davie, get in the game, put your sorry fanny on the line. You got it in you?
-
...
Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.
...
10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.
Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?
the controversy isn't WHO murdered JFK, it's: did a CONSPIRACY murder JFK? Hence the question!
You're artfully dodging the question,again. Further, I can't recall you taking a side, no. Not any more than one could say I (meaning me) believe LHO was the sole gunman in Dealey Plaza.
Is it within your realm of possibility that LHO was part of a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States, whether wittingly or UN-wittingly?
Don't care about THAT either ( and its really the same thing) davie boy. Its the photos...Got it? Oh wait you never will, not in your worldview.
-
...
Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.
...
10,000 posts all over the internet and you don't care> Aw shucks, does ANYONE believe that flight of fantasy? **FLASH** Dude, your right square in the middle of the argument.**FLASH** Sorry to burst your bubble.
Tell me davie.... Have you EVER seen me take a side on who killed JFK? EVER?
-
The snipers nest is not above the entrance.
So, as you said about the curbs, who cares about the entrance.
chris
Can you be any more silly.
Your green lines put one of the windows OVER the right side columns of the entrance ...on the incorrect WEST drawing. Oh yea, silly Chris says the position of the entrance does not matter!
Then you said
"The snipers nest window aligns in all of them and Station# 2+50 runs through the snipers window. (Green Lines)"
Aligns WHERE? Center of the window? Right side? Left side? Why does the position of the entrance matter? It LOCATES the center of the sniper windows. You need to relocate the 2+50 position by a few feet to make it work with the correct windows compared to the crap you posted on the incorrect WEST drawing.
Oh yea this is yet another example of the great Chris Davidison GIGO...just make up any new position that fits his fantasy. and move it around to at will...really precise stuff.
But thanks for this wonderful exercise. We can full see you are clearly lacking any actual idea of what you are doing. and you are sorely lacking in the truthful intellectual discourse department
Of course this is all fluff. 2+50 is meaningless. It has zero to do with the data the WC presented and you still have no data to support your claim they moved the measurements by 15.5 feet in this area. In fact it has been fully established that you don't even UNDERSTAND their measurements.
Once again you are back in the garbage can.
-
Craig,
You might want to start with a correctly scaled plat from Martin.
I do believe the street corners should be parallel with each other, something Martin needs to fix.
Then you can scale (54%) what I use, to Martin's, and they will align like this.
Snipers nest inline with Station# 2+50.
http://www.mejuba.co...9/show/original
chris
You really don't have the first clue. It's NOT the curb that's the problem. It's the FACE of the TSBD that West got wrong. He has the entrance in the wrong location.
Need more proof to see you live in a fantasy world? Just look at photos of the TSBD.
[/url]Oh wait, reality scares you. Earth to Chris.
-
CL... you continue to blow smoke for as long as you like....
====
I'd ask the moderators to simply abide by the rules of the forum... and keep this person from infecting each and every thread he visits with do nothing, go nowhere posts without even the HINT of validity
or, if you prefer, allow him to do his thing and drive those actually INTERESTED IN JFK, away. He's been doing it for years now.
THIS is the man you let run rampant, like a mad dog, all over your forum. "Its entertainment, pure and simple"
http://educationforu...st&p=271725Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.
Why JFK? Why not. I started into the JFK photo material because I was arguing faked Apollo photo nonsense with Jack White on Dellarosa 's forum and was told I had to do JFK if I wanted to continue to post.
Its entertainment, pure and simple.
Poor davie Jo, lost in his fantasy world with no escape hatch. Your problem is you don't have the first clue about what is valid or not...why just look at your last post to Healy. Is there anything valid in that post? Nope, not even close....
Your theory is laughable, from a technical aspect. You don't even understand 18.3....
And what's wrong with entertainment? Why you offer loads of it with every post.
Are you done crying now?
-
added background via Doug Horne's excellent:
The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration
by Douglas P. Horne
Horne's
Zavada....
-
Thanks David... now a question for you...
Is what I'm proposing possible and more probable... than traveling mattes and replacing backgrounds? The plate touch ups make sense as only a handful of frames, after the alteration, would be necessary to retouch.
48fps as the limo finishes its WIDE turn onto Elm and on thru till at least z385 in the extant film.
Removal of 3/4 of the frames in key areas... no need for mattes as the backgrounds will still match just fine
Refilming the altered "master" at 16fps yet with enough frames to run smoothly at 18.3fps
Sproket areas are correct
the 132 to 133 "splice" works just fine...
Some of the frames that did not get removed are "damaged" 157, 208-212, 341, etc... on the new original
I will continue to contend that the "viewings" of the zfilm on Friday was not as forthright as we would be led to believe... but that's another discussion I'd like to have with you
Cheers David... and thanks for helping on these threads... I value your opinions very much and hope you can help me finalize my evolving theory on how/when it was done.
DJ
My oh my, aren't you a technical wiz. Can't WAIT to see Healy reply, if he has the chops. Lets pop some popcorn!
-
"There It Is" made in 1928.
Oh geeze, not that crap again...
-
Craig,
Relationship between Station# 2+50 (snipers nest street parallel) and Station "C" 2+34.5, a street difference of 15.5ft.
One side of the right triangle should start from Station 2+50.
You have two of the distances for Z161 on CE884, what's the missing sides height.
chris
2+50 is NOT the street level snipers window, you silly boy. Get this through your fantasy filled brain. The West plat has the face of the TSBD drawn incorrectly. Don't believe me? Ask Martin Hinrichs.
Martin's CAD drawing
And NOTHING starts at 2+50 Chris....NOTHING when it comes the the data the WC published. That's YOUR imaginary concoction.
The data for 161 gives us the distance from station c, the distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand in ( at 429.25 elevation above the street.) to the rifle in the window.
Opps they only gave you ONE leg of the triangle (hint its no longer a right triangle). So what are the rest? One is the distance from the base of the TSBD to UP to the rifle in the window. West shows us 60.9' but we don't know WHERE that mark stops. Finally we have the distance from the chalkmark to the base of the TSBD UNDER the rifle location.
You don't have the first clue what you are even calculating.
Once again you offer gigo, and you continue to look silly. Imagine that.
-
But I think we also see too great a duration of empty greenspace behind the limo, and I suspect it's been used to help conceal the precise limo motion.
That Birds piece was really pretty bad, for close inspection. And I can't imagine any piece of motion picture film that has had more close inspection done on it than the Zapruder film.
But lets talk about the grass. And panning.
In a situation of filming the limo driving down Elm, the things that show the effect of speed is the movement of the background in comparison to the foreground.
From Zapruder's position, following limo down the street, his pan rate starts out slow at the top of the street and increased to its maximum speed when the limo is directly in front of him. After this midpoint the pan speed starts to slow down again.
What does that do the apparent speed of the limo? The faster the camera pans the more background flies past the lens. At the mid point of the film the limo could actually be going slower than at the top of Elm yet APPEAR to be moving faster or at least the same due to the increased panning speed.
This is pretty basic stuff. A slowing limo can look like its moving faster. Anyone can check out how the panning speed changes, test it with any car on any street, just pan the action like Zapruder did.
No need to conceal anything.
-
The film, by the 25th, was no longer the original....
Was there an "original" in the sense you mean? Let us accept there was, if only for convenience's sake.
No, the film hadn't been altered by the time Rather saw it, not according to the contemporaneous evidence.
What you're assuming as definitive is, in essence, CIA limited hang-out, introduced to the HSCA in the mid-1970s, and elaborated upon by an elderly group of Agency loyalists before Doug Horne and the ARRB two decades after that.
The purpose of this limited hang-out was to portray the Agency as essentially passive-reactive. The real deceit, we are to believe, was being conducted elsewhere, at Kodak, by a person (or persons) unknown.
Rather could be saying anything he likes... and I have listened to his words a number of times now..."immensely detailed" ?? only in the fact that he repeats a number of times how the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor...Again, not so. When Rather began describing the film on November 25, it hadn't been sold: CBS could still have gained the film rights, and broadcast it. Are we to believe he was stupid enough to have taken the risk of repeatedly offering detailed descriptions - and for a short piece of film, they unquestionably are, from the limousine's left turn from Houston onto Elm, to Jackie's actions - only to be exposed, almost immediately, as a xxxx?
That dog doesn't hunt.
If you have links or access to these "print descriptions" I would love to see them...All I've ever seen are 2nd hand reports of what was said... not the actual statements themselves..Happy to oblige. I suspect you'll enjoy the "35 seconds" one:
Eleven early print descriptions of the Zapruder film
Seventeen early print descriptions of the Zapruder film and its contents
Wow, we are watching Fantasy Island!
-
Firstly thanks alot for the directory assistance. I appreciate it and will be spending careful time going through that topic. So then am I to correctly assume that you believe the official u.s government position as established by firstly the warren commission?
Well lol.....its just not everyday you see an adult post with such......I don't know what to call it lol.
Let me be quite clear. I don't care one way or other who killed JFK. Never have, don't suspect I ever will. Besides after 50 years its still an argument, and I don't care to play. I'm a photographer by trade and my area of interest here is simply the photo evidence.
Why JFK? Why not. I started into the JFK photo material because I was arguing faked Apollo photo nonsense with Jack White on Dellarosa 's forum and was told I had to do JFK if I wanted to continue to post.
Its entertainment, pure and simple.
poor, confused old man....
Norman looks SO STRANGE in this Dillard image - why?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
davie jo fails how the sun works 101....