Jerry Logan

OK! Thanks Chris - now I see what you mean. That's interesting. Best to you, Jerry

Thanks Chris. I guess that's what has me puzzled. I don't see anything in the paper to paper comparison that can't be accounted for by losses in the reproduction process. And I really don't see anything in the SF Chronicle that's not in Thompson/Corbis - except for a tiny circle_ish object that's a defect or contamination on the printing medium. What I see in your circled area looks all the same to me - can you be more specific?

Chris, I didn't mean the Pennsylvania photo. I was unclear - I'm asking what you see in the SF Chronicle photo that you don't see in Thompson/Corbis. Best to you, Jerry

Hello Chris! I'm puzzled. Exactly what detail do you see in the newspaper print that is not present in the Thompson/Corbis images? Best to you, Jerry

Thanks Dawn, it's good to hear from an actual Texas lawyer. Although there are some that say Austin isn't really a part of Texas :>) Best to you, Jerry

No, I did not. I only removed his original words. It just highlights the fact that he is not willing to have his opinions questioned by the experts on this forum. It is interesting that Gary Mack, the gatekeeper of truth concerning the JFK assassination, was the one who complained to the email group of my posting Dale Myers' account. Of course, he is another one who is scared to engage in debate on this forum (even though he is a member). John, Just for my information, can you tell us exactly what email group Gary alerted? Best to you, Jerry

John, Myers has some control over his words via copyright protection though I think fair use would prevail - in any case he has absolutely no legal power to preclude discussing his ideas. Ironic, since Pat has suggested an idea that extends Myers thoughts - but maybe that's the problem. Myers wouldn't like it if someone showed a simpler and more direct route to his convoluted conclusions. Best to you, Jerry

Pat, You've definitely identified a weak spot, but it's not an obvious slam dunk. As I wrote, there are two two parts- 160 v. 175 and the sync between the last McLain frame in Hughes and the Zapruder frames. Thomas thinks your Z150 is way off, in fact Myers puts it at Z150. Thomas wants to put the sync way earlier, perhaps (and this is just a guess on my part) all the way into the 132, 133 gap. FWIW, I think you're on the right track. McLain has to traverse 174 feet to get to the right spot. He's traveling 14.7 mph as he rounds the Main/Houston turn. How long is it reasonably going to take him to travel the 174 feet? Work back to see what Z frame that implies for the Hughes/Zapruder sync issue. Maybe it implies something ridiculous or impossible, maybe it doesn't. We've got to run the numbers and look at the photos. Best to you, Jerry Edit: Visual syncing is right up the alley of some of the best photo people around, Chris Davidson, Martin Hinrichs, Robin Unger and yes, even Craig - I bet we could do a bang up job without going epipolar - are you up for it?

Pat, Thomas puts the first shot at Z175, not 160. Also, it's not so clear that the last Hughes frame = Z160. Best to you, Jerry

Chris, It doesn't look bad - but, if you tried to pass it off as an 18 fps movie, the limo would be passing the background objects at around 21 mpg. Best, Jerry

Thanks Jack, Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602 You probably just missed it. Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid. He wanted a larger view of them. I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are. chris Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd. Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts? Best, Jerry Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work. Jerry, For your friend. The gentleman on Houston St. Back and forth loop. Slower than 18FPS for easier viewing. John nailed it, I believe. I have an idea about the blurred frames in this sequence, in relation to the speed question, let me see how it looks, then I'll post that also. chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/4ADAE/PAPER.gif Chris, your talent with videos never ceases to amaze me. A paper and even a shadow from the paper in the right place. I think John and you've got it! Actually Herbert and I aren't .... er,close..... but I thought he might have had something. My very best and thanks to both of you, Jerry

Thanks John, Good observations. By motorcycle or car I meant the in-frame cars passing on Houston street just barely visible through the Houston bystanders. (Not the limo/cycle visible at the bottom of the adjacent frame). But never mind, I think you're probably right about what's in-frame. Although, it would be extremely interesting if that were a motorcycle. Best to you, Jerry

Thanks Jack, Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602 You probably just missed it. Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid. He wanted a larger view of them. I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are. chris Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd. Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts? Best, Jerry Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work.

Chris, Many thanks. Whichever and whenever is easiest for you - but I do find your recent version sharper than MPI. Here's the guy Herbert noticed - Herbert has problems with what appears to be the man's right arm. Best, Jerry

Chris, I'm still pondering! Craig is surely right about the change in panning angles and the apparent motion of the limousine and motorcycles relative to inter-frame background objects. However, I'm still puzzled by the clapping - maybe AMC was just a fast clapper...or.....? Is there any chance for an enlarged stabilized view? Don't bother if you're working on something more interesting - it's just kind of a personal question for me at this point. Best to you, Jerry Also, Herbert Blenner noticed what he thought was a speed anomaly involving the arm of the man directly behind AMC on Houston Street 223, 224, 225. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Chris, That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while. My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed. As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off. More later. Best to you, Jerry Jerry and all, The best I can do is footage from my digital camera. If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below. A brief description: All 3 are from the same footage. It was shot at 30FPS. I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them. The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS. The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc. The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc. After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv thanks, chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv Chris, I'm definitely not rejecting your idea. It's very suggestive and deserves some serious thought. I have three gut reactions that may or may not be true and could possibly be overcome by other adjustments. First, removing every other frame or every 2nd and 3rd frame is the easy case. It seems to me that an altered film would need to be more lumpy - as Jim noted previously, it seems like what someone would want to eliminate would probably be longer than 1/24th of a second duration. Second, it seems like removing frames speeds up the apparent motion. Wouldn't the limousine have to have been moving really, really slowly to to have every one or two frames removed and still look as slow as it does in real time? Third, in relation to the motorcycles speeding up after the splices - don't they speed up in relation to the other objects in the frame - so their increased speed, for instance, shows them advancing on the limousine? If the increase in speed were due only to deleted frames then it doesn't seem to me they would be closing the distance - the limousine and motorcycles would appear to move faster equally. I repeat, just some quick reactions for your thoughts. I'm really gonna have to puzzle over this one. Best to you, Jerry Jerry, I'm not necessarily saying that this is the exact process that was used. Either 1 or 2 frames at a time. I just introduced the idea so a comparison could ensue. When I asked about the speed of the motorcycles, I should have been more descriptive. Actually, I should have broken the cycle clip into distinct parts. What I'm seeing is a very noticeable speed increase in the panning and inner frame (all elements) movements between the first part and the last. The two gifs running side by side, will give you a better ideal of what I'm describing. Both gifs are set with a .06sec delay between frames. When played back in Quicktime Pro, this equates to 18FPS. Or, play them in 2 separate browser windows simultaneously. chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/95FBB/2A.gif http://98.155.4.83:8400/8317A/3A.gif Chris, That's very interesting - I'm going to study this for a while. In the mean time, what do you make of Apron Man's clap rate in 3A? Does that look natural to you? Best, Jerry

Noted! Thank you, my friend...I will. Greg, I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple. You wrote.... "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" --" Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film. Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question. Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film? These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong. I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is", You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder. In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those. "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand. Jerry This is not my last stand. Why suggest it is? In fact, why are you raising issues (that I didn't raise) and then attributing them to me? Knock it off! It's a poor representation of your intellectual prowess. Seriously, Jerry...you are attributing WAY MORE to me than what I actually said. I don't like it. Even Jim D is getting swallowed up in it...not his fault. He is agnostically gullible on this issue. But you are not. 'nuff said-- Greg, I'm more than willing to drop the subject. Everyone who cares can read my questions and your statements and judge for themselves. However, I'm pretty sure that Jim DiEugenio can take care of himself :>) Jerry

Noted! Thank you, my friend...I will. Oh dear! Have I been had? You're too trusting Bernie...... No Bernie, no....don't go tribal on me. I'm a lawyer. My natural inclination is to ask questions and probe for weaknesses. All I did was ask Greg a question he can't seem to answer - "...exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed...the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?" Does that makes me part of the suppression apparatus? Jerry

Noted! Thank you, my friend...I will. Greg, I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple. You wrote.... "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" --" Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film. Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question. Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film? These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong. I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is", You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder. In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those? "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand. Jerry

Greg, I'm not trying to be difficult (well..maybe just a little but not in a mean way). You're the guy who started the thread about how all the technology arguments were irrefutably rebutted by the existence of "There it Is" in 1928. It's disappointing to learn you started a thread on "irrelevant issues" about which your film experts haven't even expressed an opinion. That's why I wrote (and I should have used kinder language) that the thread was embarrassing. Because there's an entire host of technical issues on which "There it Is" is completely silent and the first time I raise just one of them it's time to change the subject to content. Hey, I'm willing to go there - I thought the whole thread was silly from the very start. So if you've got something post it in a new thread and let's look at content. Jerry

Greg, I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out. In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie. Of course! It is 35 years later, why wouldn't 1963 technology not be ahead of 1928? That's a no-brainer, Jerry! Is it really the opposite process? Are you sure? I think not. I believe that stop frame was not the "end all" process, but was, in fact, incorporated when the film frames were individually re-shot. Well, that's only partially true, Jerry. Stop frame can also be used to alter images "frame by frame" in a studio... and you know it. The (pre-recorded) "scene" can be changed and then re-recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion making the source of "graphic violence" appear to be uncertain, too. Uhhh, no that is not correct, as it is based on a non-sequitar. It might make you look foolish, my dear condescending one, but not me. That is an insulting and quite embarassing (for you) statement! Why use intimidation as a deterrent if your case is so strong, Jerry? It is beneath you. Thanks...but, try again. Oh, and BTW: there are a number of professional film makers who do not agree with your assessment either. However, that proves nothing--except that we both know professionals with opposing views on the subject. Greg, I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds. h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film? Jerry

Chris, That's a very interesting idea and I'm going to have to think about it for a while. My immediate reaction (and it's definitely open to revision) is that is that a 48 fps film from Zapruder's camera would have been shot at a 1/100 sec shutter speed as opposed to a 1/36 sec shutter speed at 18 fps. It seems to me that there's too much motion blur in the Zapruder frames for the relatively short 1/100 shutter speed. As I said, it's a very interesting thought - and an idea that can actually be tested! Since you're not really concerned about emulsion characteristics or ghost images it would be easy to run some film through a 414PD at 48 fps and see if you can make a plausible 18 fps movie by selectively and periodically deleting frames. Obviously you'd have to set it up right with a moving subject and objects/people moving in the background. (Please - no sleeping cats:>). I suspect it might be impossible to make it look right but it's an easy test and would make a powerful demonstration if you could pull it off. More later. Best to you, Jerry Jerry and all, The best I can do is footage from my digital camera. If you're interested in what the difference looks like, the links are supplied below. A brief description: All 3 are from the same footage. It was shot at 30FPS. I then reduced the FPS to 15 for all of them. The one labeled ORIG is 30FPS to 15FPS. The next one labeled ORIG -1 has every other frame removed. So it consists of frames 1,3,5,7 etc etc. The last one labeled ORIG -2 has every other 2 removed. This consists of frames 1,4,7,10 etc, etc. After looking at these, take a look at the cycle speeds again, using the damaged frames (157 and 207) as the speed increase markers. http://98.155.4.83:8400/57A42/Cycles.flv thanks, chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/23854/ORIG.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/00E51/ORIG_-1.flv http://98.155.4.83:8400/94C8D/ORIG_-2.flv Chris, I'm definitely not rejecting your idea. It's very suggestive and deserves some serious thought. I have three gut reactions that may or may not be true and could possibly be overcome by other adjustments. First, removing every other frame or every 2nd and 3rd frame is the easy case. It seems to me that an altered film would need to be more lumpy - as Jim noted previously, it seems like what someone would want to eliminate would probably be longer than 1/24th of a second duration. Second, it seems like removing frames speeds up the apparent motion. Wouldn't the limousine have to have been moving really, really slowly to to have every one or two frames removed and still look as slow as it does in real time? Third, in relation to the motorcycles speeding up after the splices - don't they speed up in relation to the other objects in the frame - so their increased speed, for instance, shows them advancing on the limousine? If the increase in speed were due only to deleted frames then it doesn't seem to me they would be closing the distance - the limousine and motorcycles would appear to move faster equally. I repeat, just some quick reactions for your thoughts. I'm really gonna have to puzzle over this one. Best to you, Jerry

Jerry, Just to be clear, I did not say that I believe the same technology was used in both films. If you re-read my entire post, you'll note that I am only arguing against the position of some of the anti-alterationists who have claimed that (re-phrased for clarity): "The Zapruder film is legitimate because the state of alteration technology was not developed sufficiently to have pulled it off...believably in 1963." In my opinion, that argument is not well founded because film manipulation had come a very long way, even by 1928. If my original post lacked clarity, my apologies. Greg, I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out. In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie. As you've noticed, the start of the film refers to Charlie Bowers and the "Bowers Process". Bowers was famous for creating wild looking films with a patented method for stop frame animations. "There It Is" is one of his most famous films and rightly famous for the mentioned stop frame animation. As I've written before, stop frame animation is just the opposite process that would be required to alter the Zapruder film. In stop frame the film is completely unchanged. Instead, the camera is stopped and the underlying reality is changed. It's not the film that's altered - it's the scene that's changed and then recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion makes magical things appear to happen. Honestly, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with things like retouching, compositing, matting, traveling mattes, emulsion matching or any number of other things required to make an authentic looking Zapruder forgery. It's a completely different and opposite process. I think I understand the point you were going for but you just picked a completely inappropriate and inapplicable example and that makes us all look foolish. I know a number of professional film makers are monitoring the forum and they'd instantly recognize the obvious mistake. I know that you have some good stuff Greg, I just wish you could find a way to show it to us. Sincerely, my best to you, Jerry

Bernie, You're absolutely right! I think Avatar is a lot further from Mickey Mouse than Zapruder is from the 1928 film. There are way points in technological development and the serious question is if technology had advanced sufficiently in 1963-64 to permit a realistically faked Zapruder film. No analogy can be conclusive because we want the answer to an empirical question that can only be answered with actual facts, not analogies. So what tools and techniques would have been required to produce a plausibly faked Zapruder film and what tools and techniques were available in 1963? That's the real issue. And offering the 1928 film doesn't provide one bit of useful information on that issue. Just like viewing Mickey Mouse doesn't tell us anything about when Avatar became possible. The analogy wasn't made to conclude the argument - no one (including me)is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar and I'm not trying to move the goal posts with the analogy by implying a Zupruder fake would require Avatar like tools. Instead, I was pointing out that the title of the thread "Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" is absurd on its face. It's the sort of thing that's going to make it very hard for even someone as talented as Chris Davidson to be taken seriously if he does find a problem. We're not advancing the argument or knowledge with the pointless posturing implied in the title. OK, third try :>) It's like saying "Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928." ...because that's when Mickey Mouse demonstrated the concept of a fully animated reality. I'm betting we'll get it right eventually :>) Best to you, Jerry Hi Jerry, Firstly a big thank you for conducting this debate with some decorum and some manners. Much appreciated: and much needed on here. But your analogy still flounders... Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" And... "Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928." Jerry that is two completely different questions. You missed the "alteration" word out. And that is the nub of it isn't it? The fact remains that in 1928 it was possible to alter 'reality' by manipulating film. Never mind how simple the techniques were: it is a straightforward fact that it could be done! No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap. This thread illustrates that, it was possible through the medium of film to create a seperate reality back in 1928 and probably even before that. Taken in isolation, how can anyone argue that fact? Bernie, Reason begets reason :>) Thank you for taking the time to think about my comments and offer constructive criticism. Sure, people were manipulating photos and films long before 1928. They were, for example, inserting retouched photos into flip books in the 1890's to show "moving ghosts" visiting the living! So of course, taken in isolation, everyone should agree moving pictures can be and were manipulated prior to 1963 and anybody who's talking about film alteration should already know that. No problem. As you say, it's a truism. However, I think you're mistaken when you say that " No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap." That sentence is hard to reconcile with the first sentence of Greg's original post which was "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film." I didn't imagine the leap, I didn't make it - Greg stated it clearly and directly just as he jumped into his own, personal version of reality. Seriously Bernie, that's not an assertion about the simple concept of alteration. It's a specific claim that the technology used in the 1928 film could have produced the Zapruder film - and that's what seems to me absurd and counter-productive. The technology (tools and techniques) of the 1928 film have nothing whatsoever to say about the techniques and tools required to produce an authentic looking Zapruder alteration. Given what you've written, I suspect you may agree with me on this. In our exchanges you've taken and defended a very reasonable position that, unfortunately, is not the position of Greg and some others. The kind of work that people like Chris Davidson is doing is actually useful and could be monumental.I think everyone who's interested in this sort of thing would do well to focus on serious questions and real evidence instead of trying to score cheap debating points that reveal their ignorance. Obviously, I don't count you among that unfortunate group. I also suspect we disagree about the current state of alteration evidence but some of my best friends (Well...at least friends) are alterationists so there's still hope for the two of us! Best to you, Jerry PS I think Avatar, by definition, implies the ability to alter film. I'm still kind of liking the analogy.

Bernie, You're absolutely right! I think Avatar is a lot further from Mickey Mouse than Zapruder is from the 1928 film. There are way points in technological development and the serious question is if technology had advanced sufficiently in 1963-64 to permit a realistically faked Zapruder film. No analogy can be conclusive because we want the answer to an empirical question that can only be answered with actual facts, not analogies. So what tools and techniques would have been required to produce a plausibly faked Zapruder film and what tools and techniques were available in 1963? That's the real issue. And offering the 1928 film doesn't provide one bit of useful information on that issue. Just like viewing Mickey Mouse doesn't tell us anything about when Avatar became possible. The analogy wasn't made to conclude the argument - no one (including me)is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar and I'm not trying to move the goal posts with the analogy by implying a Zupruder fake would require Avatar like tools. Instead, I was pointing out that the title of the thread "Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" is absurd on its face. It's the sort of thing that's going to make it very hard for even someone as talented as Chris Davidson to be taken seriously if he does find a problem. We're not advancing the argument or knowledge with the pointless posturing implied in the title. OK, third try :>) It's like saying "Was 2009 film technology adequate to produce Avatar? No problem -- not even in 1928." ...because that's when Mickey Mouse demonstrated the concept of a fully animated reality. I'm betting we'll get it right eventually :>) Best to you, Jerry