David G. Healy Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 As far as referring to me or other male forum members as 'hon', please save that for the appropriate websites. I am 100% male and straight, thus I don't cotton to male forum members calling me 'hon' - 'baby' - 'sweetie' or any other pet name you may be trying to work up to. Below is an excerpt from a post from a recently (today) revived older thread ("Ed Hoffman is incorrect"). The blue dotted line indicates an excision in the the text. What is of interest is the word fabrication. Question: When BM blasted these other film people, did BM mean that there is only one valid Z film? And that the notion of alteration arises only because of composite fabrication? And that, therefore, the Z film is not a fabrication? Can anyone shed any light on this? Thx Bill Miller is Larry Peters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Frank,Is there a difference between these two versions? I tend to think they are both cr---py. How does interlacing change the size comparison? thanks chris Chris, It isn't so much that the interlacing throws off the size comparison, it is the background that is hard to see. A purist would comment that one scan line, which is the error that can be introduced by interlaced frames, could conceivably be significant, but in this case I doubt it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 Another interesting photo study for your consideration. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies. Jack, it's Sunday. Forum activity has been slow the last twelve hours. Maybe people are doing something else rather than sitting in front of their computer, ready to reply to Forum posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies. Jack, it's Sunday. Forum activity has been slow the last twelve hours. Maybe people are doing something else rather than sitting in front of their computer, ready to reply to Forum posts. when I signed in a few minutes ago there were 120 lurkers. Members: you and I, Michael. They're sitting out there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies.Jack Jack, This is how I would line it up. It appears that the Betzner photo is troubling. Can't find those ? labeled in Dorman, appearing in Betzner, although they appear in other's including Hughes. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies.Jack Jack, This is how I would line it up. It appears that the Betzner photo is troubling. Can't find those ? labeled in Dorman, appearing in Betzner, although they appear in other's including Hughes. chris Chris...WHAT VERSION OF DORMAN are you using...with SPROCKET HOLES and a SECOND CAR BESIDE THE PICKUP? I have never seen a photo showing TWO CARS ON THE SIDEWALK! Also, I'd like to see your superior images of THE LITTLE GIRL, seen in ONLY Nix and Muchmore! Thanks! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 I find it interesting that real research like this study draws no replies.Jack Jack, This is how I would line it up. It appears that the Betzner photo is troubling. Can't find those ? labeled in Dorman, appearing in Betzner, although they appear in other's including Hughes. chris Chris...WHAT VERSION OF DORMAN are you using...with SPROCKET HOLES and a SECOND CAR BESIDE THE PICKUP? I have never seen a photo showing TWO CARS ON THE SIDEWALK! Also, I'd like to see your superior images of THE LITTLE GIRL, seen in ONLY Nix and Muchmore! Thanks! Jack Let's add "Altgens 5" to the mix. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) Chris...you have stumbled onto something IMPORTANT. Your Dorman clip, UNLIKE MINE, shows two cars parked on the sidewalk! Betzner shows only ONE. This is impossible since Dorman taking the photo of the limo passing the garage entrance! Please give this some more study using your superior Dorman image. Jack I tried twice removing the extra image, but could not. Edited March 2, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) Here is the Dorman frame showing Betzner photographing the limo passing the garage driveway. If Dorman shows a second car that Betzner did not get in his photo, SOMETHING IS WRONG. Jack Edited March 2, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Below is an excerpt from a post from a recently (today) revived older thread ("Ed Hoffman is incorrect").The blue dotted line indicates an excision in the the text. What is of interest is the word fabrication. Question: When BM blasted these other film people, did BM mean that there is only one valid Z film? And that the notion of alteration arises only because of composite fabrication? And that, therefore, the Z film is not a fabrication? Can anyone shed any light on this? Thx I'd be interested in knowing just what is being asked by the previous post ... Is there a specific question being asked of me or is the post supposed to be a code-post to someone else??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 The top arrow with ? appears to show a tall man in Dorman, who does not appear in Muchmore. Look closely and the other arrows point to common people in both photos. chris P.S. Jack, if the roofline on the car at left is as tall or taller than the truckbed at right, then we have problems. Hard to tell because the autos are at an angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) There are several suspicious odd frame splices in Dorman. This one is especially odd. Who is the photographer at far right? Jack Edited March 2, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 There are several suspicious odd frame splices in Dorman. Speaking of alteration & odd splices, I'm still trying to fathom Peters' praise of BM's commentary from a recent thread revival. I don't understand it. Does anyone? 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