Chris Davidson Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Jack, I agree. More digging necessary. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 Jack,I agree. More digging necessary. chris Thanks, Chris, for posting my comparison. It is obviously two different versions of frame 16. Fakery? Or two versions of film? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 thank you, Mr. Hogan. Yes, good find Mike. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 LOL even before seeing Alan’s post my impression was “indistinguishable blob, Rorschach test Photo analyst?, Yeah right” Lost? Make a left instead of a right at the Kennedy Space Center... Any luck wrestling Roland Zavada to a Z-film debate, yet? I'm patiently waiting..... I must of been taken off of Josiah Thompson and the Gang's email list, absolutely no news for 2 years, can you imagine that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Zoomed in Crop lightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 (edited) Thanks, Chris, for posting my comparison. It is obviously two differentversions of frame 16. Fakery? Or two versions of film? Jack Is it fair to say that there are two different versions of the Nix film??? It appears that in the Gif Chris posted ... that the first frame (the darkest) doesn't show anyone on the walkway through the colonnade. However, once the image is lightened and the pixels are visible .... the appearance of a possible figure (one without legs BTW) becomes visible. Does this mean that there are two versions of that frame or does it mean that the frame was altered until the shadows started to take on part of a human shape. I might add that the two white arrows pointing at this figure looks exactly like the image I had once done (arrows included) in a post on JFK Research. Bill Miller Edited August 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Thanks, Chris, for posting my comparison. It is obviously two differentversions of frame 16. Fakery? Or two versions of film? Jack Is it fair to say that there are two different versions of the Nix film??? It appears that in the Gif Chris posted ... that the first frame (the darkest) doesn't show anyone on the walkway through the colonnade. However, once the image is lightened and the pixels are visible .... the appearance of a possible figure (one without legs BTW) becomes visible. Does this mean that there are two versions of that frame or does it mean that the frame was altered until the shadows started to take on part of a human shape. I might add that the two white arrows pointing at this figure looks exactly like the image I had once done (arrows included) in a post on JFK Research. Bill Miller By Bond 4 there is no one there, but this strange [and all to common a] phenomena in JFK research needs more work.....to find out if another example of alteration [accidental or conspiratorial or forgery] or what... I don't get it ... is everyone so bored with the other evidence of the case that they must make things out of nothing??? The frame before and the frame after the one in question shows no one there. The other assassination images showing this location around the same time shows no one there. But let someone adjust the contrast and brightness to the point of causing part of a shape in one frame to appear that could be passed off as human, then we are to feel as though it needs investigated. The image is what it is ... A similar example was when a shadow on a column was thought to be Charles Hester. I also got news for everyone ... when Groden had the lab work on his best Nix copy - there was no one there in that particular frame either. It takes a bit of doing to play with the contrast and lighting of that frame to make it appear that someone is there and that isn't a mystery IMO, but rather an explanation that about anyone should be able to understand. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I realise my initial post was a bit flippant when refering to what Jack sees this shadow consisting of but, I wasn't being malicious, there was in fact a serious point being made. Some people see only what they want to see & I guess maybe we all do, to a degree. I challenge anyone capable of making a mark on a photo to point to the tripod or camera that Jack saw in the shadow. Then ask yourself if you can see the beret, white beard & skateboard that I saw after I had made my mind up that the shadow was a result of coping a poor image(ok forget the skateboard). Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Thanks, Chris, for posting my comparison. It is obviously two differentversions of frame 16. Fakery? Or two versions of film? Jack Is it fair to say that there are two different versions of the Nix film??? It appears that in the Gif Chris posted ... that the first frame (the darkest) doesn't show anyone on the walkway through the colonnade. However, once the image is lightened and the pixels are visible .... the appearance of a possible figure (one without legs BTW) becomes visible. Does this mean that there are two versions of that frame or does it mean that the frame was altered until the shadows started to take on part of a human shape. I might add that the two white arrows pointing at this figure looks exactly like the image I had once done (arrows included) in a post on JFK Research. Bill Miller By Bond 4 there is no one there, but this strange [and all to common a] phenomena in JFK research needs more work.....to find out if another example of alteration [accidental or conspiratorial or forgery] or what... I don't get it ... is everyone so bored with the other evidence of the case that they must make things out of nothing??? The frame before and the frame after the one in question shows no one there. The other assassination images showing this location around the same time shows no one there. But let someone adjust the contrast and brightness to the point of causing part of a shape in one frame to appear that could be passed off as human, then we are to feel as though it needs investigated. The image is what it is ... A similar example was when a shadow on a column was thought to be Charles Hester. I also got news for everyone ... when Groden had the lab work on his best Nix copy - there was no one there in that particular frame either. It takes a bit of doing to play with the contrast and lighting of that frame to make it appear that someone is there and that isn't a mystery IMO, but rather an explanation that about anyone should be able to understand. Bill Bill, In other words, if we are working with multi-generational films/photos, there is nothing to be discovered. Everything is enhanced pixels. Strange you should bring this up, for if I didn't lighten the Bell film and stabilize Mr.Hester, we would have never noticed him in the SHADOWS within the red square. Remember this!!! What did I do, I lightened the background. Did I create something that wasn't there before, not at all. And while I'm at it, did I also create the person in shadow, walking through the pergola, by lightening the frames using the same technique as I did on Mr.Hester? no The day the research community has personal access to the best material available, will be the day the analysis of sub-par material ends. Until then, the beat goes on. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 It seems to me that there's a simple way to approach this problem. Is Mr. DellaRosa being truthful -- to himself and to us? Or is he a victim of creative memory. Or a xxxx? From what I know of the man, I am persuaded to take him at his word. So ... With what are we left? Mr. DellaRosa's memories, plus those of others. I'm thinking of the exquisite, troubling Milicent Cranor, who also claims to have seen a motion picture of the assassination from a Z-like perspective but not the historic Z-film (Millie says she viewed the material at the Time-Life HQ, if I'm not mistaken; check with her). The issue of the "phantom" camerman is beside the point. Does the alternate film exist? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Any luck wrestling Roland Zavada to a Z-film debate, yet? I'm patiently waiting..... I must of been taken off of Josiah Thompson and the Gang's email list, absolutely no news for 2 years, can you imagine that... I've previously noted your Pavlovian cumpulsion to bring this matter up on unrelated threads. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we’re still waiting for you to make your “formal claim” (as you put it) which you promised you’d make “soon” several weeks BEFORE Zavada (who is in poor health and a generation older than you) said he’d write a treatise about the Z-film but that it would “take some time”. As for the “man” in the Nix frame it looks like an indistingusable blob to me people can see in it what the want. I imagine that the copies where “he” appears are several generations removed from the original and it is merely an artifact of one (or more) of the times it was copied. Same goes for the differences discovered by Chris. With analog technology differences between versions are to be expected. As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I think a lot of us want to see who killed JFK and how they did it and part of that evidence is hidden in the photos; some has apparently been altered in the photos and Jack White has found more things about/in photos that anyone and advanced the case greatly. Other than possibly the Back Yard Photos ... what alterations has Jack found while keeping in mind that making alteration claims is different than proving they exist. Jack certainly holds the record for the most claims of alteration. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 (edited) Any luck wrestling Roland Zavada to a Z-film debate, yet? I'm patiently waiting..... I must of been taken off of Josiah Thompson and the Gang's email list, absolutely no news for 2 years, can you imagine that... I've previously noted your Pavlovian cumpulsion to bring this matter up on unrelated threads. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we’re still waiting for you to make your “formal claim” (as you put it) which you promised you’d make “soon” several weeks BEFORE Zavada (who is in poor health and a generation older than you) said he’d write a treatise about the Z-film but that it would “take some time”. As for the “man” in the Nix frame it looks like an indistingusable blob to me people can see in it what the want. I imagine that the copies where “he” appears are several generations removed from the original and it is merely an artifact of one (or more) of the times it was copied. Same goes for the differences discovered by Chris. With analog technology differences between versions are to be expected. As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory". What ignorance! ("his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum"). There are several dissenters on Rich's forum. What he does not allow is unprovoked ad hominem personal attacks or dishonesty. One person (a member of THIS forum) was banished for ALTERING AN IMAGE to fit his argument without disclosing the alteration. He did this privately without public announcement of the banishment. Jack PS...bad memory. David promised to RESPOND to Zavada. We are still waiting for Zavada's report, or there is nothing to respond to. Edited August 25, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory". As I recall, DellaRosa could not remember exactly when he saw this alleged 'other film', and he couldn't remember who he was with or spoke to immediately after seeing this shocking piece of alleged footage. I don't even recall him knowing the month of the year so school records could be checked so to validate any films being shown at that time. I was 6 years old when JFK was shot and I distinctly remember where I was and who I was with. The same for when the shuttle exploded after lift-off, when the twin Towers fell, and so on. DellaRosa also categorizes other peoples names into one witnessing of the 'other film' as if they too have seen the same film despite their inconsistencies in the details from each others versions. DellaRosa lumps them all together as seeing the same film regardless if their tales of seeing it do not match each others story. How many 'other films' are there for crying out loud!!! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 It seems to me that there's a simple way to approach this problem.Is Mr. DellaRosa being truthful -- to himself and to us? Or is he a victim of creative memory. Or a xxxx? From what I know of the man, I am persuaded to take him at his word. So ... With what are we left? Mr. DellaRosa's memories, plus those of others. I'm thinking of the exquisite, troubling Milicent Cranor, who also claims to have seen a motion picture of the assassination from a Z-like perspective but not the historic Z-film (Millie says she viewed the material at the Time-Life HQ, if I'm not mistaken; check with her). The issue of the "phantom" camerman is beside the point. Does the alternate film exist? Charles Charles...Mili saw the OTHER FILM at either NBC or CBS in New York, not Time-Life. Rich saw it on three occasions. William Reymond saw it numerous times in France where it was known as the H.L.Hunt version. Greg Burnham saw it once; there are two others whose names I cannot recall. It is unlikely that six persons could be wrong. The independent memory of all these persons coincides. Mili told me her story many years ago before I heard of the others. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now