Jump to content
The Education Forum

Apples To Apples


Recommended Posts

A film shot from the Z-pedestal back in 1963, which would appear to have the appropriate landmarks in place.

This is what I used for the brief movie clip I am providing.

The movie consists of 3 comparison animations among the different films.

Segment 1 is a Stemmons sign comparison.

Segment 2 is a Lightpole comparison.

Segment 3 is a Z wall comparison.

The same car is in all 3 segments, but behind the Stemmons sign in the first segment.

I believe this is pretty conclusive evidence in regards to the altered positioning of the Stemmons sign, either on film, by physical removement and replacement or both.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, as Tom has eluded to in regards to Shaneyfelt, it might help to compare where the photographer was when this re-creation photo was taken.

Compared to the previous "wall orientation" segment animation, I know he wasn't where Z was..

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, as Tom has eluded to in regards to Shaneyfelt, it might help to compare where the photographer was when this re-creation photo was taken.

Compared to the previous "wall orientation" segment animation, I know he wasn't where Z was..

chris

However! And heretofore:

Just possibly, the Shaneyfelt photo was taken from the approximate Zaparuder position (+/- a few inches), and there

is something severely wrong/incorrect with the other photo????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I was too vague about the original 3 segment animation.

The point is to show that the new movie was filmed from the pedestal.

The lightpost segment is a match with the Z film.

The wall segment is a match with the film I shot from the pedestal.

Which means the Stemmons sign segment was shot from the pedestal.

The LOS does not match between Z film and new film in regards to the Stemmons sign. RED LINE

So, new film, compared three different locations, 2 are fine(lightpost/wall) and the third is fine except for the Stemmons Sign.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing with the stemmons sign is the dubious recreation of the broken bit. Previously looking at it particularly comparing vehicle elongation rate as the film runs seems to indicate at least two significantly altered or composited frames and one (poss two) frame missing through a composite of two creating one. Also at this time if one produces a layered aligned composite the camera goes through a rapid move which makes the sign appear to behave strangely as it traverses the curved distortion lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing with the stemmons sign is the dubious recreation of the broken bit. Previously looking at it particularly comparing vehicle elongation rate as the film runs seems to indicate at least two significantly altered or composited frames and one (poss two) frame missing through a composite of two creating one. Also at this time if one produces a layered aligned composite the camera goes through a rapid move which makes the sign appear to behave strangely as it traverses the curved distortion lens.

Exactly what is strange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Hopefully the email version was successful.

For others,

Here's a timestamp of the Stemmons sign.

Looks like the SS investigation of December, 1963.

chris

What exactly is your point here?

Craig,

Part of email from G.Mack:

You are still comparing apples to oranges. The photo showing an agent standing in Elm Street is not part of the Zapruder re-creation. The photo is actually Shaneyfelt Exhibit 33 at 8H699 and it merely shows the view from Zapruder's general location to the mark on the curb from the Tague injury. Here is Shaneyfelt's description:

As for the failure of the Stemmons sign to match the Z film, it shouldn't match. The Dealey Plaza groundskeeper testified in late July 1964 that the sign had been moved in recent months.

The Stemmons signs doesn't match as of early December 1963, per the SS investigation.

Shaneyfelt's description does not refer to a general location

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

what I see : The poles shift across the pan. One may expect this to follow a smooth transition as the centre of the lens, which focus the photons most correctly onto the film and then the peripheral lens distortion re. distance/position between poles for example. The length of the limo should smoothly increase yet there is an anomaly in these things that indicates (to me) that the last frame (apart from the raher obvious (to me) multiple frame splicing) of the restored broken bit is a composite, (to take it further, 313 may be correctly numbered 314 (or even more)). Anyway that's what it looks like to me. (If anyone sees something different, fine. Tear my observation apart. Explain it. Educate me. Affirm it. It's all good.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Hopefully the email version was successful.

For others,

Here's a timestamp of the Stemmons sign.

Looks like the SS investigation of December, 1963.

chris

What exactly is your point here?

Craig,

Part of email from G.Mack:

You are still comparing apples to oranges. The photo showing an agent standing in Elm Street is not part of the Zapruder re-creation. The photo is actually Shaneyfelt Exhibit 33 at 8H699 and it merely shows the view from Zapruder's general location to the mark on the curb from the Tague injury. Here is Shaneyfelt's description:

As for the failure of the Stemmons sign to match the Z film, it shouldn't match. The Dealey Plaza groundskeeper testified in late July 1964 that the sign had been moved in recent months.

The Stemmons signs doesn't match as of early December 1963, per the SS investigation.

Shaneyfelt's description does not refer to a general location

chris

Ok, thanks. Another question is oyur work a continuation of Costella's work here?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/sign.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

what I see : The poles shift across the pan. One may expect this to follow a smooth transition as the centre of the lens, which focus the photons most correctly onto the film and then the peripheral lens distortion re. distance/position between poles for example. The length of the limo should smoothly increase yet there is an anomaly in these things that indicates (to me) that the last frame (apart from the raher obvious (to me) multiple frame splicing) of the restored broken bit is a composite, (to take it further, 313 may be correctly numbered 314 (or even more)). Anyway that's what it looks like to me. (If anyone sees something different, fine. Tear my observation apart. Explain it. Educate me. Affirm it. It's all good.)

Hi John,

I've been working on something like this a bit and I want to make sure I'm discussing the same thing you are.

John Costella says this about the sign poles:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/sign.html

Is that what you are seeing, and find strange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off a possibly minor point. Is there a reason to expect the sign poles to have been plumb in the first place.

It's important to consider the lens as a circle with particular gradation of distorion so an object further away from the lenses actual center will experience more distortion So the location of the object in relation to the lenses centre is an important consideration.

I see the 'wiggling' of the lens without any distortion correction using the technique outlined in Nix frames and 'Tips'

A uniform distortion correction throughout the entire pan is flawed for two reasons. The 'attack' of the lens axis collects photons in a way that closer objects distort differently than farther away ones. There's a shift as the 'attack' passes a point in front of Zap and the shifts on these static man made objects obey the same laws again, but 'in the other direction'.

A proper correction algorithm, apart from that, should be derived from a laser scan of the actual lens.

I see an indication of frame falsification by some removal and splicing that results in a film that in part, as a result , does not show something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off a possibly minor point. Is there a reason to expect the sign poles to have been plumb in the first place.

It's important to consider the lens as a circle with particular gradation of distorion so an object further away from the lenses actual center will experience more distortion So the location of the object in relation to the lenses centre is an important consideration.

I see the 'wiggling' of the lens without any distortion correction using the technique outlined in Nix frames and 'Tips'

A uniform distortion correction throughout the entire pan is flawed for two reasons. The 'attack' of the lens axis collects photons in a way that closer objects distort differently than farther away ones. There's a shift as the 'attack' passes a point in front of Zap and the shifts on these static man made objects obey the same laws again, but 'in the other direction'.

A proper correction algorithm, apart from that, should be derived from a laser scan of the actual lens.

I see an indication of frame falsification by some removal and splicing that results in a film that in part, as a result , does not show something

I certainly don't expect it and other images seem to confirm the fact that they were not. Costella's words are not ambiguous. He says it is IMPOSSIBLE for a vertical to change angles...no if's ands or butts. And he says it in more than once. His assumption is simply not true. I'll have a detailed example available soon.

If you could illustrate how you think this shift works in the opposite direction it woudl be a great help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig "...Costella's words are not ambiguous. He says it is IMPOSSIBLE for a vertical to change angles...no if's ands or butts. And he says it in more than once. His assumption is simply not true. I'll have a detailed example available soon.

If you could illustrate how you think this shift works in the opposite direction it woudl be a great help."

addendum : Another consideration is a bit more philosophical and derived from the use of the Z film as an analogy in a study on feminism.

Where is the action taking place and where is the viewer of the action? Is the action happening on a static 2d screen. Is it happening on the lens? Is it on the film is it in the viewfinder, is it in zapruders eye, is it standing behind zapruder lookingthrough his head, is it from the point of view of a viewer oscilating suspended in the centre of the film lens?

I think a proper view would be achieved in the middle of a large bubble screen where the projector duplicates the lens, the frame rate and the exact motions of Zap and viewing this panning swinging projector from as close to the projector lens as possible.

I think:

Craig, (at the moment I can't do an illustration) I don't know the proper terminology to use. I think it's got something to do with oblique foreshortening. The other thing is that the light that comes from an object 'hits' the lens, goes through it, slowing and direction changing as it passes through a medium, that's likely not completely uniform in index, (the Hubble and how they solved that is a large scale example) and then again changes direction as it passes into air again. Far off objects' photons have a straighter approach to this lens' z axis. Near object not so.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...