Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
As amazing as it may seem, there are those of us who recognize that we ARE NOT looking at the Zapruder Film.

Now! BM, for the enjoyment of the reading public, would you mind enlightening us as to exactly when it was that you saw the ORIGINAL of this film?

Tom, it looks like your time spent trolling these threads has prevented you from carefully reading my post. I have stated several times in the past that I have relied on those who are experts that have reviewed the original film. As I recall, I mentioned Groden as one of those people only recently.

Here is something that may be of interest to some people ...

http://www.slate.com/id/2191199/

Found in third paragraph ... maybe you or Jack would like to address the simplicity of it all ... LOL!!! (click on link below)

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/acm05.pdf

Reading it reminded me that the alterationists have never, ever submitted their theories to a recognized expert who is trained at analyzing photographs. Or is that a self-answering question?

Edited by Bill Miller
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
As amazing as it may seem, there are those of us who recognize that we ARE NOT looking at the Zapruder Film.

Now! BM, for the enjoyment of the reading public, would you mind enlightening us as to exactly when it was that you saw the ORIGINAL of this film?

Tom, it looks like your time spent trolling these threads has prevented you from carefully reading my post. I have stated several times in the past that I have relied on those who are experts that have reviewed the original film. As I recall, I mentioned Groden as one of those people only recently.

Here is something that may be of interest to some people ...

http://www.slate.com/id/2191199/

Found in third paragraph ... maybe you or Jack would like to address the simplicity of it all ... LOL!!! (click on link below)

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/acm05.pdf

Reading it reminded me that the alterationists have never, ever submitted their theories to a recognized expert who is trained at analyzing photographs. Or is that a self-answering question?

I have stated several times in the past that I have relied on those who are experts

Which of course has included none other than:

Al Carrier & the great "Scout Sniper" Canyon Shoot!

Sherry & the BS of the BS

And now the latest "horse" who is most assuredly "running in last place"!

that have reviewed the original film.

OIC!

So, were I to tell you that I also went to the moon with one of the Apollo missions, you would fall for, accept, and believe that as well????

No wonder you remain in the "Land of the Lost"!

Exactly what makes you believe that ANYONE has seen the (as someone else states) "In Camera Original" of the Zapruder film, since shortly after the assassination???????

And, even if a few qualified cinematography experts have actually seen and/or examined the film, unless there has been a frame by frame comparison with the absolute first generation copies, along with comparison with a similar film taken with the exact same type/model camera, from the exact/same location, with the exact/same type film, along with comparison to what we are "fed" today, then sufficient compartive evidence is not available to find those small items which would demonstrate absolute alteration to the original film.

Tom, it looks like your time spent trolling these threads

Normally, the "Agency" pays me good money to "xxxxx" and create the dissent and confusion. However, in your case,

they will pay nothing as it is recognized how confused you were prior to entering this realm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Groden

By his own admission at the OJ Simpson civil trial, Groden is a high school dropout with no formal photography training of any kind. He is not certified by any professional photography organizations and, in fact, does not even know the names of such organizations. He has never taught any photography classes nor has he ever published anything with respect to photography. He was discharged from the Army for "inadaptibility to military life."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just the kind of "highly reliable source" one needs to win an argument with!

Lord help us all, and please give special attention to BM!

Posted (edited)
Which of course has included none other than:

Al Carrier & the great "Scout Sniper" Canyon Shoot!

Sherry & the BS of the BS

And now the latest "horse" who is most assuredly "running in last place"!

Such a moronic remark doesn't deserve an intelligent reply. Instead we are to rely on the remarks of a forum xxxxx with an agenda.

By his own admission at the OJ Simpson civil trial, Groden is a high school dropout with no formal photography training of any kind. He is not certified by any professional photography organizations and, in fact, does not even know the names of such organizations. He has never taught any photography classes nor has he ever published anything with respect to photography. He was discharged from the Army for "inadaptibility to military life."

As far as Groden's ability to be considered an expert in film ... his conclusions have been posted and you have not replied with anything from one of your experts that debunks the signs of alteration that Groden says to look for. Could it be that Groden is right on some things and your desire to avoid them is because they do not support your agenda ... seems that way to me.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Posted
Ooops Tom, you've hit a raw nerve in Bill's Achilles heel, ie Groden.

Perhaps Bill should get one of the O.J fake shoes from the photograph, where Groden the self proclaimed expert announced to the world that O J's shoes were fake, and then cover his achilles heel with it LOL!!!

Duncan

Yet I bet that you have some of his books. Groden isn't right about everything, but he knows film and the assassination record as well as anyone. I would not consider any of the three of us to even be in his league. Now I have posted things that Groden has done in checking the Zapruder film ... do you have anything specific that you wish to discuss?

Bill

Posted

I thought it might be easier for others to grasp, if I give a visual comparison of what was done to the film around the splice and thereafter.

The frame distance traveled is the same from (157-160) as it is from (160-169), aligned the outside frame edges.

What does that do to a film, well take a look at the next post for a movie comparison.

Hint!! A little speed difference.

Tom, I still have the "Vehicle Speed Chart" right by my side.

chris

Posted
I thought it might be easier for others to grasp, if I give a visual comparison of what was done to the film around the splice and thereafter.

The frame distance traveled is the same from (157-160) as it is from (160-169), aligned the outside frame edges.

What does that do to a film, well take a look at the next post for a movie comparison.

Hint!! A little speed difference.

Tom, I still have the "Vehicle Speed Chart" right by my side.

chris

Just remember that it came from a highly unreliable "xxxxx" who has an "agenda".

Posted
I would not consider any of the three of us to even be in his league. Now I have posted things that Groden has done in checking the Zapruder film ... do you have anything specific that you wish to discuss?

Bill

Yes, What is your view on the Groden mind blowing proclaimed fake OJ photograph showing the Bruno Magli shoes ?

You have a choice

1./ Groden got it right

2./ Groden got it wrong

I await your choice of answer.

Duncan

Duncan, you have asked an open end question as you probably don't even know the facts of that case either. Lots of people mistake the latter set of photos printed before the crime as being those in question. The photograph Groden spoke against was a photo that according to him had shown signs of retouching. Someone else coming out and showing OJ wearing the famous shoes did not preclude the other photographer messing with his photo to make a buck.

To answer the question if talking about the photograph in question ... I don't know if Robert got it right or not. The points he raised were valid, which was his job as a defense witness. My guessing if someone was right or wrong about a photo that I have not examined is like you talking about a 'wash-out' on an original photo that you had never seen either.

Bill

Posted
My guessing if someone was right or wrong about a photo that I have not examined is like you talking about a 'wash-out' on an original photo that you had never seen either.

Bill

If you believe what you say above, then logic only dictates that the opposite is also true, ie, you can not say that a wash-out is not a wash-out in a photograph you have never seen. To argue against this point would foolish, but I suspect you will, or maybe not because i've said you will.

Duncan

Actually, I have spoken to those who had seen the original photograph and the best prints made from it. I then took it a step further and offered to learn more about the idea of selective washout. So I asked you to tell me what exactly is 'selective washout' and how could it occur just between the top of the fence and the tree foliage and you offered nothing but a suggestion that I go search another forum's archives to see if you have answered that question. Your desire to participate and contribute to this forum leaves something to be desired with such a response as the one you gave.

The fact is that there was no selective washout on Moorman's photo. The lack of color tones on the sunlit fence and the sky background have caused them to look to be blended together. The sunlight on the fence matches the patterns seen on the assassination films, thus thats not washout. You invented this selective washout nonsense to try and explain why your alleged cop had no middle to his body rather than to admit that you were wrong once again. This is why you won't seek experts advice ... the risk of you being shown wrong seems to great for you to bare.

Bill

Posted

But this is what you are getting wrong. The washout, not selective washout which is your term, can be seen all over Moorman..just look at the 3 guts on the steps. Look at Zapruder ans Sitman, I could go on, but i'll spare you the pain.

If by 'pain' ... you mean humiliating you, then don't stop on my account. You copy of the Moorman photo has faded over time and thats why Zapruder and Sitzman look so light. You have laid claim that your alleged cop and the area around him has completely washed out. I point out that the fence and the tree foliage sin't washed out and have asked you to explain how you can come up with selective washout ... I still want to know when you are able to tell me????

That's a joke Bill...You know i've answered your questions on that matter more times than I care to remember.

I am not talking about you giving irrelevant non-answers, but a direct response and to the point. If not repeating yourself is a concern of yours, then supply the link and post you are referring to.

Correct, not selective washout, just washout in different areas of the photograph.

That by definition could be considered 'selective washout'. The reason is that the entire photo eas exposed at the same time. The enviroment that Moorman's photo was placed is also uniform throughout the photo, thus no more or less light or other factors could selectively pick certain places to washout and not others. A washout truly cannot occur just between the fence and the foliage ... if the sky washed out, then so does the borders of the tree foliage. Simply using two alone tones and calling them a washout is being ignorant of the subject matter being debated. Jackies suit is the same color as the sky as well ... and it has nothing to do with washout.

If you were serious, then maybe you'd like to cite an expert to support your off-the-cuff claim.

Selective washout is your term. The barrel of the weapon is a solid object coming over the fence. That is not skyline or your sunlight garbage.

So the washout erased the shooters body, but not the gun barrel ... is that not selective washout ??? Such an answer shows why you refuse to seek experts to validate the things you say.

This is why you won't seek experts advice ... the risk of you being shown wrong seems to great for you to bare.

Bill

As you would say, Whats bare???????????? LOL!!!

Duncan

bare¹ Definition

bare (ber)

adjective bar′er, bar′·est

1.

1. without the natural or customary covering bare wooden floors

2. without clothing; naked bare legs

2. without equipment, supplies, or furnishings; empty a bare room, a bare larder

3. without embellishment; unadorned; simple; plain the bare facts

4. without tools or weapons: obsolete except in bare hands

5. threadbare

6. no more than; mere a bare subsistence wage

Etymology: ME bar < OE bær < IE *bhoso-s < ? base *bhes-, to rub off > sand

transitive verb bared, bar′·ing

to make bare; uncover; strip; expose

Posted
Chris...I guess I am a little dense. Gimme a hint what to look for.

Jack

Jack

Take a look at the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart". (Supplied)

Compare the top/bottom red squares.

Frame difference between them is 7 total.

Total distance traveled is the SAME.

Keep that in mind when looking at my previous sprocket hole comparison photo.

If I take 7 frames away between (160-169) the limo would still start and stop at the same spot. What changes is the speed of the limo.

Less frames to go the same distance.

Then take a look at (157-160) primarily the distance between the sprocket hole frames and compare that to (160-169).

157-160 is not indicative of someone panning at the same rate as 160-169.

It is however, what we see on the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart" supplied by Tom. Less frames but same distance traveled

chris

Posted

To give those interested something of a comparison tool, for the previous sprocket hole distance comparisons, here is 10 frames from my movie.

The truck went through a green light at the top of Main/Elm and is probably hitting at least 35 miles mph at this point.

Obviously, viewing the distance between the sprocket holes shows I was panning a car traveling much faster than the limo.

Now equate that to the sprocket hole difference between (157-160) and (160-169).

Hopefully, the picture is getting clearer.

chris

Posted

Comparison of frames 135-154 and 157-160.

Animation is of the same frames. I stop it at 157 with a 2 second delay between the last 4 frames so you can watch the sprocket hole movement.

Frame 157 splice

Frame 158 Blur

Frame 159 Blur

Frame 160 Transition for the next set of frames until we reach 185. Keep an eye on Tom's chart.

chris

Posted
Chris...I guess I am a little dense. Gimme a hint what to look for.

Jack

Jack

Take a look at the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart". (Supplied)

Compare the top/bottom red squares.

Frame difference between them is 7 total.

Total distance traveled is the SAME.

Keep that in mind when looking at my previous sprocket hole comparison photo.

If I take 7 frames away between (160-169) the limo would still start and stop at the same spot. What changes is the speed of the limo.

Less frames to go the same distance.

Then take a look at (157-160) primarily the distance between the sprocket hole frames and compare that to (160-169).

157-160 is not indicative of someone panning at the same rate as 160-169.

It is however, what we see on the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart" supplied by Tom. Less frames but same distance traveled

chris

One should never forget that sometimes what may at first appear as a small "key", just may be what is required to unlock a big door!

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...