Frank Agbat Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Cliff, Just so I understand correctly... The red line in this image: represents the point where JFK's hand (which is in front of his head at the point when this image was taken) is obscured by his head/neck area, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Post #112 You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not. Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game. I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime. That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care. What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me. I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them! On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking" People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview. I’ll take reality. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #115 Translated from Rigby speak..."I simply don't have a clue why both Zapruder and Altgens are perfectly correct. God, please don’t make me defend my foolish claim’” What’s the matter Rigby, you can't show us WHY your claim about the Z film is correct? You just expect us to believe you have a clue? How many more days do you need? Not getting much help over there at the Deep Paranoia Forum are you? Maybe you should learn to stay away from things that are simply beyond your limited ability to understand. You are just another of a very long line of CT's writing photographic interpretation checks their minds can't cash. Talk about entertainment! Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is, or what tone it is. Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy is a world of hurt. Not that you would really be much help. After all you can’t figure out angle of view. Not much hope you can progress to something as difficult as how a simple shadow works. ROFLMAO! Hell even Jack White the “legendary” CT photo guru (now there’s humor for you) can’t even understand something as simple as how a shadow works. Jack White makes a fool of himself by failing to understand how shadows work. It must be something in the air that only affects CT crazies…seems to be a run on ignorant ct’s making ignorant photographic claims….. Why not make your case instead of running way? Or is that the best you can do? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #119 Did you actually pay attention when you read my post Don? Based on your reply it appears not. My interest is in the PHOTOGRAPHY Don. I find it challenging, rewarding educational and entertaining to study the claims CT’s make about the photography. You claim to want to find the truth, but when you endorse work like Varnell’s you are doing just the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite Don, and it s big part of my true feelings about you. You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy. It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186. That puts a very different spin on what is the truth and what’s not, don’t you think? You should have paid more attention instead of getting caught up in your worldview. Let’s get real Don. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you somehow prove that there was a CIA (or whatever) involvement in the death of JFK. What’s it been, 45 years? Do you actually think anyone would really care beyond a few days of news coverage? Do you actually think it would change the fabric of the republic? And it’s a national security issue how? We have bigger fish to fry right now, this is ancient history, and I think you are tilting at windmills. Now pardon me, I still have CT photographic bubbles to burst. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10...thousand-words/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 The reason I don't distrust the location of the hole in JFK's back in the autopsy photos is because its still too low in my view to align with JFK's 'Adams Apple' and Connally's back wound. When JFK was shot in the throat ... he was turned to his immediate right. So I see no reason to have moved the back wound to a place that doesn't support a lone assassin. They had no solid idea where to move the back wound, they were guessing. That's why there are two different wound locations listed in the autopsy report -- "just above the upper margin of the scapula" (T2), and "14cm below the mastoid process" (C7/T1). For good measure, Humes came up with a third location for the Warren Report, the Rydberg drawing. The T3 back wound is the key to understanding both the "how" of the assassination and the "how" of the cover-up. The other reason I don't get hung up on this subject is because I have sat down many times in my suit coat and it rides up slightly every time. Bingo! The key word is "slightly." Lift my arm as high as JFK had his resting on the door, then the coat slides a bit further up the back. Bingo! The key phrase here is "a bit." What you are describing here, Bill, is the "normal ease" of your clothing as you make "normal movements." The location of the holes in the clothes corroborate the "normal" movement of the jacket -- the hole in the shirt is 4" below the collar, the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the collar. The jacket rode up a "a bit." According to LN theory, however, JFK's normal movements created "gross" movements of his clothing. That is impossible. Which is why true-believers like Lamson will make baseless claims without ever replicating them So in my view it would be a waste of time for me to involve myself over such nit-picking concerning a hole in the coat in relation to the hole in the back. Bill Miller That marks you in distinct contrast to Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and Robert Groden -- to name just five major researchers who have declared the clothing evidence as definitive proof of conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy. We're not nit-picking here, Bill. It involves entire classes of evidence that put the wound at T3. Let me put it to you this way -- you obviously believe it is important to establish the legitimacy of the Zapruder film, correct? Why isn't it at least as important to establish the legitimacy of properly prepared official documents, such as Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report,or the sworn testimonies of Clint Hill, Glen Bennett, Roy Kellerman, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert, or the witness statements of James Curtis Jenkins, Dr. John Ebersole, Jan Gail Rudnicki, Diana Bowron, Edward Reed, Chester Boyers, and Floyd Reibe? Seems to me the people railing on Fetzer and White for their mistaken claims about the Zapruder film need to look at their own mistaken claims about the medical evidence. This is what Barb J doesn't get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Cliff,Just so I understand correctly... The red line in this image: represents the point where JFK's hand (which is in front of his head at the point when this image was taken) is obscured by his head/neck area, correct? Frank, let's study frame Z186. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg Looks to me like the hand/arm is to the immediate right of JFK's head -- right where Craig said the hand HAD to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #112 You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not. Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game. I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime. That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care. What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me. I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them! On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking" People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview. I’ll take reality. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #115 Translated from Rigby speak..."I simply don't have a clue why both Zapruder and Altgens are perfectly correct. God, please don’t make me defend my foolish claim’” What’s the matter Rigby, you can't show us WHY your claim about the Z film is correct? You just expect us to believe you have a clue? How many more days do you need? Not getting much help over there at the Deep Paranoia Forum are you? Maybe you should learn to stay away from things that are simply beyond your limited ability to understand. You are just another of a very long line of CT's writing photographic interpretation checks their minds can't cash. Talk about entertainment! Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is, or what tone it is. Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy is a world of hurt. Not that you would really be much help. After all you can’t figure out angle of view. Not much hope you can progress to something as difficult as how a simple shadow works. ROFLMAO! Hell even Jack White the “legendary” CT photo guru (now there’s humor for you) can’t even understand something as simple as how a shadow works. Jack White makes a fool of himself by failing to understand how shadows work. It must be something in the air that only affects CT crazies…seems to be a run on ignorant ct’s making ignorant photographic claims….. Why not make your case instead of running way? Or is that the best you can do? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #119 Did you actually pay attention when you read my post Don? Based on your reply it appears not. My interest is in the PHOTOGRAPHY Don. I find it challenging, rewarding educational and entertaining to study the claims CT’s make about the photography. You claim to want to find the truth, but when you endorse work like Varnell’s you are doing just the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite Don, and it s big part of my true feelings about you. You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy. It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186. That puts a very different spin on what is the truth and what’s not, don’t you think? You should have paid more attention instead of getting caught up in your worldview. Let’s get real Don. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you somehow prove that there was a CIA (or whatever) involvement in the death of JFK. What’s it been, 45 years? Do you actually think anyone would really care beyond a few days of news coverage? Do you actually think it would change the fabric of the republic? And it’s a national security issue how? We have bigger fish to fry right now, this is ancient history, and I think you are tilting at windmills. Now pardon me, I still have CT photographic bubbles to burst. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10...thousand-words/ Still unable to come to grips with your own failing at photo analysis I see Tom. Not to worry, you have LOTS of company here. This place is a target rich environment. You ever take that photo of your truck mirror yet? ROFLMAO! Maybe YOU can help old Varnell out, he sure needs it. Bentzer has him stumped. He thinks he sees a 1/8 inch fabric bunch (ever try to make a "bunch" that’s only 1/8 of an inch...oh well that’s another story) and a pointy black hand and arm. Poor guy, he's based his entire internet persona over the last few years on his arrogant claim that Bentzer proves that JFK's jacket fell and thus he has proven more than one shooter. Poor guy, what's he going to do now that his claim is busted, beyond a shadow of a doubt (or it a shadow erases all doubt...)? You think he's going to have any of that intellectual honesty he is always harping about and admit his error, or will he just be your standard variety CT and go on claiming he is correct regardless of the unimpeachable evidence that shows he is wrong. I'm voting for the latter, Varnell has already shown his complete lack of intellectual honesty, and he is way too invested in his fantasy to admit it is just garbage. Time will certainly tell. You, I don’t know, you seem a reasonable sort but you can’t seem the shake the CT photo analysis sickness. I’m still convinced it must be something in the air…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Cliff,Just so I understand correctly... The red line in this image: represents the point where JFK's hand (which is in front of his head at the point when this image was taken) is obscured by his head/neck area, correct? I think Frank has correctly found the right hand, shirt cuff and forearm of JFK. The hand I'm sure Frank has discovered will not be Varnell black but rather a nice rgb 80, 80, 80 or there abouts, just like the shadow side of the peoples faces seen at the curb ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Maybe YOU can help old Varnell out, he sure needs it. Bentzer has him stumped. He thinks he sees a 1/8 inch fabric bunch (ever try to make a "bunch" that’s only 1/8 of an inch...oh well that’s another story) Or a 7/8" bunch! Doesn't matter, any fraction of an inch ease of the fabric destroys Lamson's fantasy. Hell, any ease of fabric under two inches destroys his delusions. and a pointy black hand and arm. And a black left-back of JFK's neck. Don't forget that one. Poor guy, he's based his entire internet persona over the last few years on his arrogant claim that Bentzer proves that JFK's jacket fell and thus he has proven more than one shooter. That, and the "close to the torso" fit of his suit and jacket, the death certificate (marked "verified"), the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified"), the FBI autopsy report, the wound diagrams of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, the WC testimony of SS agent Clint Hill -- who went to the morgue right after the autopsy for the express purpose of bearing witness to the location of the wounds -- and SS agent Glen Bennett. Not to mention the highly specfic and detailed description of the back wound by autopsy-attendee James Curtis Jenkins, the specific placement of the low wound by Chester Boyers and Dr. John Ebersole, to say nothing of the statements of Diana Bowron, Edward Reed, Jan Gail Rudnicki and Floyd Reibe. But according to Craig Lamson all these people had the exact same hallucination. Craig, you are making a spectacle of yourself that is amazing to watch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) deleted dupe Edited April 29, 2009 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #112 You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not. Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game. I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime. That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care. What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me. I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them! On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking" People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview. I’ll take reality. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #115 Translated from Rigby speak..."I simply don't have a clue why both Zapruder and Altgens are perfectly correct. God, please don’t make me defend my foolish claim’” What’s the matter Rigby, you can't show us WHY your claim about the Z film is correct? You just expect us to believe you have a clue? How many more days do you need? Not getting much help over there at the Deep Paranoia Forum are you? Maybe you should learn to stay away from things that are simply beyond your limited ability to understand. You are just another of a very long line of CT's writing photographic interpretation checks their minds can't cash. Talk about entertainment! Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is, or what tone it is. Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy is a world of hurt. Not that you would really be much help. After all you can’t figure out angle of view. Not much hope you can progress to something as difficult as how a simple shadow works. ROFLMAO! Hell even Jack White the “legendary” CT photo guru (now there’s humor for you) can’t even understand something as simple as how a shadow works. Jack White makes a fool of himself by failing to understand how shadows work. It must be something in the air that only affects CT crazies…seems to be a run on ignorant ct’s making ignorant photographic claims….. Why not make your case instead of running way? Or is that the best you can do? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #119 Did you actually pay attention when you read my post Don? Based on your reply it appears not. My interest is in the PHOTOGRAPHY Don. I find it challenging, rewarding educational and entertaining to study the claims CT’s make about the photography. You claim to want to find the truth, but when you endorse work like Varnell’s you are doing just the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite Don, and it s big part of my true feelings about you. You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy. It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186. That puts a very different spin on what is the truth and what’s not, don’t you think? You should have paid more attention instead of getting caught up in your worldview. Let’s get real Don. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you somehow prove that there was a CIA (or whatever) involvement in the death of JFK. What’s it been, 45 years? Do you actually think anyone would really care beyond a few days of news coverage? Do you actually think it would change the fabric of the republic? And it’s a national security issue how? We have bigger fish to fry right now, this is ancient history, and I think you are tilting at windmills. Now pardon me, I still have CT photographic bubbles to burst. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10...thousand-words/ Still unable to come to grips with your own failing at photo analysis I see Tom. Not to worry, you have LOTS of company here. This place is a target rich environment. You ever take that photo of your truck mirror yet? ROFLMAO! Maybe YOU can help old Varnell out, he sure needs it. Bentzer has him stumped. He thinks he sees a 1/8 inch fabric bunch (ever try to make a "bunch" that’s only 1/8 of an inch...oh well that’s another story) and a pointy black hand and arm. Poor guy, he's based his entire internet persona over the last few years on his arrogant claim that Bentzer proves that JFK's jacket fell and thus he has proven more than one shooter. Poor guy, what's he going to do now that his claim is busted, beyond a shadow of a doubt (or it a shadow erases all doubt...)? You think he's going to have any of that intellectual honesty he is always harping about and admit his error, or will he just be your standard variety CT and go on claiming he is correct regardless of the unimpeachable evidence that shows he is wrong. I'm voting for the latter, Varnell has already shown his complete lack of intellectual honesty, and he is way too invested in his fantasy to admit it is just garbage. Time will certainly tell. You, I don’t know, you seem a reasonable sort but you can’t seem the shake the CT photo analysis sickness. I’m still convinced it must be something in the air…. The (your) postings were of sufficient factual statements and analysis that they warranted a "reposting". And, anyone who has a tendency to "call um as I see um", (with an experienced and factual analysis) will (in my book) continue to stand well above the frequently silly as well as asinine claims which you so elequontly tend to tear apart. In the realm of "politically incorrect", one will, if they look to the far right, frequently find "Tom". Always a pleasure to observe and hold discussions with anyone who is repeatedly farther to the right than myself on the politically incorrect scale. Please recall the adversarial process through which I and one of the few "true shooters" to ever frequent this forum went through until a final meeting of the minds apears to have been achieved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_process And in keeping with the original discussion of Perspective (objective v. subjective) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007..._and_photo.html [b]I think it's safe to say a modified or staged photograph is "false". [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #112 You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not. Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game. I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime. That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care. What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me. I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them! On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking" People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview. I’ll take reality. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #115 Translated from Rigby speak..."I simply don't have a clue why both Zapruder and Altgens are perfectly correct. God, please don’t make me defend my foolish claim’” What’s the matter Rigby, you can't show us WHY your claim about the Z film is correct? You just expect us to believe you have a clue? How many more days do you need? Not getting much help over there at the Deep Paranoia Forum are you? Maybe you should learn to stay away from things that are simply beyond your limited ability to understand. You are just another of a very long line of CT's writing photographic interpretation checks their minds can't cash. Talk about entertainment! Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is, or what tone it is. Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy is a world of hurt. Not that you would really be much help. After all you can’t figure out angle of view. Not much hope you can progress to something as difficult as how a simple shadow works. ROFLMAO! Hell even Jack White the “legendary” CT photo guru (now there’s humor for you) can’t even understand something as simple as how a shadow works. Jack White makes a fool of himself by failing to understand how shadows work. It must be something in the air that only affects CT crazies…seems to be a run on ignorant ct’s making ignorant photographic claims….. Why not make your case instead of running way? Or is that the best you can do? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #119 Did you actually pay attention when you read my post Don? Based on your reply it appears not. My interest is in the PHOTOGRAPHY Don. I find it challenging, rewarding educational and entertaining to study the claims CT’s make about the photography. You claim to want to find the truth, but when you endorse work like Varnell’s you are doing just the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite Don, and it s big part of my true feelings about you. You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy. It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186. That puts a very different spin on what is the truth and what’s not, don’t you think? You should have paid more attention instead of getting caught up in your worldview. Let’s get real Don. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you somehow prove that there was a CIA (or whatever) involvement in the death of JFK. What’s it been, 45 years? Do you actually think anyone would really care beyond a few days of news coverage? Do you actually think it would change the fabric of the republic? And it’s a national security issue how? We have bigger fish to fry right now, this is ancient history, and I think you are tilting at windmills. Now pardon me, I still have CT photographic bubbles to burst. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10...thousand-words/ Still unable to come to grips with your own failing at photo analysis I see Tom. Not to worry, you have LOTS of company here. This place is a target rich environment. You ever take that photo of your truck mirror yet? ROFLMAO! Maybe YOU can help old Varnell out, he sure needs it. Bentzer has him stumped. He thinks he sees a 1/8 inch fabric bunch (ever try to make a "bunch" that’s only 1/8 of an inch...oh well that’s another story) and a pointy black hand and arm. Poor guy, he's based his entire internet persona over the last few years on his arrogant claim that Bentzer proves that JFK's jacket fell and thus he has proven more than one shooter. Poor guy, what's he going to do now that his claim is busted, beyond a shadow of a doubt (or it a shadow erases all doubt...)? You think he's going to have any of that intellectual honesty he is always harping about and admit his error, or will he just be your standard variety CT and go on claiming he is correct regardless of the unimpeachable evidence that shows he is wrong. I'm voting for the latter, Varnell has already shown his complete lack of intellectual honesty, and he is way too invested in his fantasy to admit it is just garbage. Time will certainly tell. You, I don’t know, you seem a reasonable sort but you can’t seem the shake the CT photo analysis sickness. I’m still convinced it must be something in the air…. The (your) postings were of sufficient factual statements and analysis that they warranted a "reposting". And, anyone who has a tendency to "call um as I see um", (with an experienced and factual analysis) will (in my book) continue to stand well above the frequently silly as well as asinine claims which you so elequontly tend to tear apart. In the realm of "politically incorrect", one will, if they look to the far right, frequently find "Tom". Always a pleasure to observe and hold discussions with anyone who is repeatedly farther to the right than myself on the politically incorrect scale. Please recall the adversarial process through which I and one of the few "true shooters" to ever frequent this forum went through until a final meeting of the minds apears to have been achieved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_process And in keeping with the original discussion of Perspective (objective v. subjective) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007..._and_photo.html [b]I think it's safe to say a modified or staged photograph is "false". [/b] Dang, was that a compliment Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 IIRC, the Altgens photo was taken with a 105mm lens.Telephoto lenses produce a compression effect -- making the distance between objects appear less than it actually is. Where do you come up with this crap? It is downright misinformation. A tad harsh on Frank, I think, but not without an element of justice: Perspective compression by a telephoto lens: A myth http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf “Here’s a fact – long lenses do not compress perspective. They do not magnify background objects relative to foreground objects to give the illusion of reduced separation. You can take advantage of perspective compression and record it on film using any lens, but the compression has nothing to do with the lens itself.” As for the tutorial, I don't know which impressed me the most - the banality or the selectivity. In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific construction of a long focal length photographic lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens Angle of View (Telephoto & Wideangle Lens) The area size captured by a photographic lens can be expressed as a diagonal angular field called Angle of View. Generally speaking, a focal length range that provides a similar perspective to the human eye is considered to be somewhere between 40-60mm. With this established as a standard focal length, those with shorter focal lengths are called "wideangle" and those with longer focal lengths are called"telephoto". The shorter the focal length becomes, the wider the angle of view (wideangle), while the longer it becomes, the narrower the angle of view (telephoto). http://www.tamron.com/lenses/fundamentals.asp Long Lens A lens where the focal length is longer than 50mm. http://www.tribalcog.com/learn/glossary.shtml Long Lens - A lens with a focal length greater than 25mm in 16mm, or 50mm in 35mm, which, like binoculars, will provide a view that magnifies a small area. http://www.1comedian.com/Gloosary-of-Cinem...raphy-Terms.htm JFK assassination Altgens had been employed by the AP for nearly 26 years when he was assigned on November 22, 1963, to photograph the motorcade that would take President Kennedy from Love Field to the Dallas Trade MartDallas Market Center, where Kennedy was scheduled to deliver an address. Working that day as the photo editor, Altgens asked instead to go to the railroad overcrossing known to locals as the "triple overpass" or "triple underpass" (where Elm, Main and Commerce Streets converge) to take pictures. Since that was not originally his assignment, Altgens took his personal camera, a 35 mm Nikkorex-FNikon , single-lens-reflex camera with a 105 mm telephoto lens, rather than the motor-driven camera usually used for news events. "This meant that what I took, I had to make sure it was good—I didn't have time for second chances." http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ike_Altgens On second thoughts, I do - the selectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) IIRC, the Altgens photo was taken with a 105mm lens.Telephoto lenses produce a compression effect -- making the distance between objects appear less than it actually is. Where do you come up with this crap? It is downright misinformation. A tad harsh on Frank, I think, but not without an element of justice: Perspective compression by a telephoto lens: A myth http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf “Here’s a fact – long lenses do not compress perspective. They do not magnify background objects relative to foreground objects to give the illusion of reduced separation. You can take advantage of perspective compression and record it on film using any lens, but the compression has nothing to do with the lens itself.” As for the tutorial, I don't know which impressed me the most - the banality or the selectivity. In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific construction of a long focal length photographic lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens Angle of View (Telephoto & Wideangle Lens) The area size captured by a photographic lens can be expressed as a diagonal angular field called Angle of View. Generally speaking, a focal length range that provides a similar perspective to the human eye is considered to be somewhere between 40-60mm. With this established as a standard focal length, those with shorter focal lengths are called "wideangle" and those with longer focal lengths are called"telephoto". The shorter the focal length becomes, the wider the angle of view (wideangle), while the longer it becomes, the narrower the angle of view (telephoto). http://www.tamron.com/lenses/fundamentals.asp Long Lens A lens where the focal length is longer than 50mm. http://www.tribalcog.com/learn/glossary.shtml Long Lens - A lens with a focal length greater than 25mm in 16mm, or 50mm in 35mm, which, like binoculars, will provide a view that magnifies a small area. http://www.1comedian.com/Gloosary-of-Cinem...raphy-Terms.htm JFK assassination Altgens had been employed by the AP for nearly 26 years when he was assigned on November 22, 1963, to photograph the motorcade that would take President Kennedy from Love Field to the Dallas Trade MartDallas Market Center, where Kennedy was scheduled to deliver an address. Working that day as the photo editor, Altgens asked instead to go to the railroad overcrossing known to locals as the "triple overpass" or "triple underpass" (where Elm, Main and Commerce Streets converge) to take pictures. Since that was not originally his assignment, Altgens took his personal camera, a 35 mm Nikkorex-FNikon , single-lens-reflex camera with a 105 mm telephoto lens, rather than the motor-driven camera usually used for news events. "This meant that what I took, I had to make sure it was good—I didn't have time for second chances." http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ike_Altgens On second thoughts, I do - the selectivity. Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens. Now lets deal with your selective quotes... Perspective is a product of camera to subject distance...period. If you take a photo with a fixed camera to subject distance, regardless of the lens used, the perspective remains the same. All that changes is the angle of view and the amount of the scene included in the photograph. HOWEVER..and this is the kicker... if you try and shoot a photo with lenses of different focal lengths, and you adjust the camera to subject distance in an attempt to keep the subject size the same in all the images...PERSPECTIVE will change. The longer focal length lens (think TELEPHOTO) will "compress" the background in relation to the subject. Of course we don't have to take my word for it, its all there in black and white in the link you posted. But lets not just deal in words, maybe you can grasp the concept by viewing photos instead: (A tip of the hat to this blogger for his wonderful illustration: http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic36480.html ) Now is Frank correct that a telephoto lens "compresses" the background? Not entirely. Can you create compression WITH a telephoto lens? Of course. Now why don't you apply this ANGLE OF VIEW information to Altgen and perhaps you might discover exactly why your claims are so stupid. Oh wait...never mind, I forgot who I was talking to. Edited May 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens. And what missing shadow would that be, Craig? Care to actually analyze the photo? Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have so far failed to point out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens. And what missing shadow would that be, Craig? Care to actually analyze the photo? Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have so far failed to point out? I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes. You say the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visable. So tell us, where is the shadow that MUST fall over the jacket collar and down over the back of the jacket? Physics demands it be there, IF the jacket collar is visable. If the shadow is NOT there, the jacket collar MUST be hidden and the jacket has not fallen in Bentzer, and your stupid claim is false. Analyze away Varnell, if you have the brains. Edited May 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens. And what missing shadow would that be, Craig? Care to actually analyze the photo? Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have so far failed to point out? I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes. You say the the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visable. Noooooo, Craig, I've pointed out the visible shirt collar. What is the white artifact in the red box if not the shirt collar, Craig? Edited May 28, 2009 by Cliff Varnell 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