Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 While pondering the validity to any of this (and/or the sanity of the purveyor), may as well move on to the large area of the Moorman photo which is obsucred by the fingerprint. So! What was obscurred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. Edited March 18, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. http://www.motorcops.com/images/motorcycle.../50_fairfax.jpg here the badge stands out because of the black insert. Without it one would, as in the Zfilm, see the shadows and the increased illumination of its reflectiveness. In McIntyre the light to camera angle is different and the badges stand out without the sun illuminating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. Perhaps the operative word for Z255 would be "clearly". Or, in the case of the Z204 through and past the Z212, pretty much a "notta"! Hopefully, you would recognize that with the white background of the helmets, the darker DPD symbols should (as they have in ever other available photo except the Zapruder film, clearly stand out and provide a reference as to exactly what direction the motorcycle policeman has his head turned. Even James Altgens at a distance of some 85+ feet away managed to capture this contrast. The contrast between the DPD symbol on the helmet and the helmet is fully distinguishable even when the sun was shining virtually directly against the front of the helmet. I take it that you have never questioned exactly why a white helmet with a darkened emblem would continue to appear completely white, even when in the shade of a tree? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Must have been an extremely poor grain of film produced by Kodak along with a poor movie camera, or else something is severely lacking between the multi-step develoment process required for the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. Perhaps the operative word for Z255 would be "clearly". Or, in the case of the Z204 through and past the Z212, pretty much a "notta"! Hopefully, you would recognize that with the white background of the helmets, the darker DPD symbols should (as they have in ever other available photo except the Zapruder film, clearly stand out and provide a reference as to exactly what direction the motorcycle policeman has his head turned. Even James Altgens at a distance of some 85+ feet away managed to capture this contrast. The contrast between the DPD symbol on the helmet and the helmet is fully distinguishable even when the sun was shining virtually directly against the front of the helmet. I take it that you have never questioned exactly why a white helmet with a darkened emblem would continue to appear completely white, even when in the shade of a tree? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Must have been an extremely poor grain of film produced by Kodak along with a poor movie camera, or else something is severely lacking between the multi-step develoment process required for the film. I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you. Try again next time Tom. Edited March 19, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 And, since the helmet logo happens to be a key element in determination of exactly what direction the Motorcycle cops were looking (had their heads turned), one must take into consideration exactly what purpose would be served in obfuscating where they were looking with the Z210 and prior range. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg Sort of difficult to explain exactly why two motorcycle cops suddenly decided to look directly at JFK by frame Z210 of the Z-film, if JFK were not already reacting to something. Of course the most simple answer being to tell everyone that exactly when the first shot was fired could not be reliably determined, (even though Time/Life; the SS; and the FBI determined otherwise), and then just not show them those frames of the film which may bring into question why one could not determine when the first shot was fired. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0017a.htm Hope that your memory reaches back to the WC explanation as to why Z208/209/210/ & 211 were not published. Claim was that they did not receive them, if you will recall. OOPS! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0052a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. Perhaps the operative word for Z255 would be "clearly". Or, in the case of the Z204 through and past the Z212, pretty much a "notta"! Hopefully, you would recognize that with the white background of the helmets, the darker DPD symbols should (as they have in ever other available photo except the Zapruder film, clearly stand out and provide a reference as to exactly what direction the motorcycle policeman has his head turned. Even James Altgens at a distance of some 85+ feet away managed to capture this contrast. The contrast between the DPD symbol on the helmet and the helmet is fully distinguishable even when the sun was shining virtually directly against the front of the helmet. I take it that you have never questioned exactly why a white helmet with a darkened emblem would continue to appear completely white, even when in the shade of a tree? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Must have been an extremely poor grain of film produced by Kodak along with a poor movie camera, or else something is severely lacking between the multi-step develoment process required for the film. I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you. Try again next time Tom. "I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you." Craig: In event that you are speaking of another of those mysterious "Laws of Nature", which, according to this would state: "A darker object against a white field (background) can be made to not only virtually disappear as a result of blurring and/or reflectivity, but can also be made to make the field/background even whiter than much of the natural surrounding area" Then you are correct! I have never seen nor heard of that one. Perhaps I should find a good place to have a densitomiter rechecked* as well as study up on the true laws of light, motion, and reflectivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness Along with a refresher course in physics as to how a darker object (within a white field) can reflect light at a more intense scale (of brightness) than the surrounding white field (background) in which it lies. *I knew long ago that the old densitometer from the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline project should have been replaced with one of the newer designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. Perhaps the operative word for Z255 would be "clearly". Or, in the case of the Z204 through and past the Z212, pretty much a "notta"! Hopefully, you would recognize that with the white background of the helmets, the darker DPD symbols should (as they have in ever other available photo except the Zapruder film, clearly stand out and provide a reference as to exactly what direction the motorcycle policeman has his head turned. Even James Altgens at a distance of some 85+ feet away managed to capture this contrast. The contrast between the DPD symbol on the helmet and the helmet is fully distinguishable even when the sun was shining virtually directly against the front of the helmet. I take it that you have never questioned exactly why a white helmet with a darkened emblem would continue to appear completely white, even when in the shade of a tree? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Must have been an extremely poor grain of film produced by Kodak along with a poor movie camera, or else something is severely lacking between the multi-step develoment process required for the film. I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you. Try again next time Tom. "I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you." Craig: In event that you are speaking of another of those mysterious "Laws of Nature", which, according to this would state: "A darker object against a white field (background) can be made to not only virtually disappear as a result of blurring and/or reflectivity, but can also be made to make the field/background even whiter than much of the natural surrounding area" Then you are correct! I have never seen nor heard of that one. Perhaps I should find a good place to have a densitomiter rechecked* as well as study up on the true laws of light, motion, and reflectivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness Along with a refresher course in physics as to how a darker object (within a white field) can reflect light at a more intense scale (of brightness) than the surrounding white field (background) in which it lies. *I knew long ago that the old densitometer from the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline project should have been replaced with one of the newer designs. I see we have yet another one in serious need of a screwdriver. I suggest your study include surface specularity. Try again Tom, epic fail. Edited March 19, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Primary Pertinent Passage! Examples: 1. An "unknown unknown": Most have absolutely no idea or concept as to what is being discussed here. Nevertheless, perhaps the below will assist in clearing up some of these "Known's". http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what can not be clearly observed in ANY frames of the Zapruder film? Sorry to break it to you Tom, but if you think the logos cannot be observed clearly in the Zapruder frame you posted, you are just wrong. Perhaps the operative word for Z255 would be "clearly". Or, in the case of the Z204 through and past the Z212, pretty much a "notta"! Hopefully, you would recognize that with the white background of the helmets, the darker DPD symbols should (as they have in ever other available photo except the Zapruder film, clearly stand out and provide a reference as to exactly what direction the motorcycle policeman has his head turned. Even James Altgens at a distance of some 85+ feet away managed to capture this contrast. The contrast between the DPD symbol on the helmet and the helmet is fully distinguishable even when the sun was shining virtually directly against the front of the helmet. I take it that you have never questioned exactly why a white helmet with a darkened emblem would continue to appear completely white, even when in the shade of a tree? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Must have been an extremely poor grain of film produced by Kodak along with a poor movie camera, or else something is severely lacking between the multi-step develoment process required for the film. I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you. Try again next time Tom. "I guess reflectivity, motion blur, and that old saw, angle of incidence is beyond you." Craig: In event that you are speaking of another of those mysterious "Laws of Nature", which, according to this would state: "A darker object against a white field (background) can be made to not only virtually disappear as a result of blurring and/or reflectivity, but can also be made to make the field/background even whiter than much of the natural surrounding area" Then you are correct! I have never seen nor heard of that one. Perhaps I should find a good place to have a densitomiter rechecked* as well as study up on the true laws of light, motion, and reflectivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness Along with a refresher course in physics as to how a darker object (within a white field) can reflect light at a more intense scale (of brightness) than the surrounding white field (background) in which it lies. *I knew long ago that the old densitometer from the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline project should have been replaced with one of the newer designs. I see we have yet another one in serious need of a screwdriver. I suggest your study include surface specularity. Try again Tom, epic fail. http://squ1.org/wiki/Solar_Absorption Shading: Solar Absorption This what you talking about????? And partucularly this: Specularity The specularity value of a material is given in the range 0-1 and defines the concentration of reflected light/radiation in the specular direction. A mirror has a very high specularity, which means that the majority of the energy from a focused beam of light would be reflected at an angle equal to the incidence angle on its surface, So! The darkened DPD Logo reflected light at a higher radiance/less diffusion than the surrounding white helmets (background/field). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection And all of this continued to occur with an ever-changing angle of incidence for the sunlight striking the object of view, as well as when the object entered the shade, and irrelevant as to the reflective angle between the light source and the camera eye. Despite the fact that in virtually every other photograph (other than the Zapruder film) in which the DPD Logo on the helmets can be observed, It can be observed. Most curious indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_reflection Reflection of light Reflection is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated. Common examples include the reflection of light, sound and water waves. The law of reflection says that for smooth surfaces, the angle at which light is incident on the surface equals the angle at which it is reflected. Reflection of light may be specular (that is, mirror-like) or diffuse (that is, not retaining the image, only the energy) depending on the nature of the interface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection Specular reflection is the perfect, mirror-like reflection of light (or sometimes other kinds of wave) from a surface, in which light from a single incoming direction (a ray) is reflected into a single outgoing direction. A mirror provides the most common model for specular light reflection, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, it do! However, that happens to be for a FLAT mirror surface. Oval mirror surfaces (be they a true mirror or even a hypothetical motorcycle helmet mirror) do not do quite so well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nor does it remain the same as the angle of incidence changes between the light source to the interface, to the viewing optics. "The law of reflection says that for smooth surfaces, the angle at which light is incident on the surface equals the angle at which it is reflected." There is no "Law of Reflection" which takes into consideration an ever-changing angle of incidence against an oval (changing) interface which is consistently moving as well as turning into as well as away from the source of the light. That I am aware of anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur In such an image, any object moving with respect to the camera will look blurred or smeared along the direction of relative motion. motion blur may be avoided by panning the camera to track those moving objects. In this case, even with long exposure times, the objects will appear sharper, and the background more blurred. ============================================================================= http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Motion blurring on background wall pidgeonholes. Non-motion blurring on JFK. One can even see the slight darkness of his eye against the flesh-tone of his face, as well as the general outline of the flesh-tone of his ear against his hairline. Non-"motion blur" and non "Depth of Field" focus problems of motorcycle helmets which are in fact "brighter" within that area of which the DPD Logo should be, than the remainder of the field (helmet). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field Just kind of makes the "dark" even more blurred against the white background. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DOF-Shal...epthofField.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z242.jpg So! We have a camera and film which are of sufficient quality that they will give us the clarity (contrast and definition) between a narrow white radio antenna against a darker (green) background, yet will not give us sufficient clarity to define a relatively large DPD Logo which is on a pure white background? And as a matter of fact, gives the pure white background a higher level of luminance in those areas of which the darker DPD Logo should be seen. Go figure that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z242.jpgSo! We have a camera and film which are of sufficient quality that they will give us the clarity (contrast and definition) between a narrow white radio antenna against a darker (green) background, yet will not give us sufficient clarity to define a relatively large DPD Logo which is on a pure white background? And as a matter of fact, gives the pure white background a higher level of luminance in those areas of which the darker DPD Logo should be seen. Go figure that one? Yes, why don't you go figure since the subject matter is cleartly over your limitied ability. First you can't even get the tonality of the helmets correct. The average tonality of the helmets is not pure white. In RGB values, pure white is 255, 255, 255 Some parts are dang closes but not there. Thats really besides the point anyways. The point is you don't have a clue about any of this. Motion blur? Nope? Reflectivity? Nope? Reflective properties of various complex shapes? Nope. And on and on. Yur "goolgeing" is not helping. Ponder this one Tom... Walk arounf a black car in brihgt sunshine. Photograph the specular reflections. See if this BLACK object can give you PURE WHITE specular highlights. Of course the answer is yes, if the photo is properly exposed. The probem is Tom says its not possible. Tom is wrong. Now watch the specular highlihgt as you move around a complex corner. Amazing, the specular moves wiht, angle of incidence and all of that. Now lets top this off and look and photograph a white car and a black car in the sun, side by side. Amazing! The black car still has pure white speculars, as does the white car! Here's a helping hand...righty tighty..the correct way to fix a loose screw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) deleted, dupe post. Edited March 19, 2009 by Craig Lamson 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