Chris Davidson Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Would everyone (or at least most) concur that the "ghost image" is not and can not be of either of the two motorcycles which are on the left-hand side (Jackie's side) of the Presidential Limo??? Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Would everyone (or at least most) concur that the "ghost image" is not and can not be of either of the two motorcycles which are on the left-hand side (Jackie's side) of the Presidential Limo??? Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htmThe WC gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". And in their typically political fashion, stated that it may have been either the first; the second; or the third shot which missed. Along with the simple fact that they could not determine the exact location of the first shot, for which they claimed the slightly ridiculous SBT/Magic Bullet Theory. However! Time/Life, on 11/25/63, clearly determined a first shot fired/impact in the vicinity of Z204/Z206. Next, came the SS who during the period of 12/2, 3, & 4/63 determined the first shot to have struck JFk by the Z212/215 location. Then of course, came the FBI on 2/7/64 who fully concurred with the SS in determination of the first shot impact. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf1.htm Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory. Mr. EISENBERG. What unit? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington. Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true. =============================================================================== Anyone here of the misguided opinion that Lyndal Shaneyfelt would not have had something to do with the FBI assassination re-enactment and resulting survey plat of 2/7/64? Which by the way continued to demonstrate the same first shot impact as did the previous SS Survey plat of 12/5/63, as well as the final/third shot impact which was directly in front of James Altgens location. (some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the actual Z313 impact location) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service. The original and other copy he sold to Life The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining. Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven. Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis? Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well now, since the FBI was stating, as of 2/7/64, that they could, as did the SS previously, determine the impact location of the first shot fired, and you/Lyndal Shaneyfelt are the photographic expert for the FBI, one just might question exactly how it was that you could quite obviously, as of 2/7/64 determine the point at which the first shot struck JFK, yet in May 64 during the WC assassination re-enactment, no longer locate this position. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date? Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A quick memory "jog" there Lyndall: This: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif And This: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm ARE NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63. They are in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the "Photographic Expert" for the FBI (whoever he was) agreed with the SS in that the impact point of a first shot strikeing JFK as he was slightly behind the road sign, could be factually determined. And since you/aka THE FBI had Mr. West survey in the exact same position as the previous SS work, it would appear that your/the FBI's photographic analysis skills were quite comparable with the SS's, and even with the Time/Life work which placed the first shot fired as having been only a few feet prior to your work. So! Exactly why would one not be capable of looking at the Zapruder film now and again easily determine what the SS in December 1963, as well as the FBI in February 1964, clearly could ascertain, as they both had the exact same impact location for the first shot fired? Tom, why do you keep saying those images are not the survey plat of 12/5? As demonstrated by...YOU...on this very forum, the 2/7 survey plat had a drawn-in line for the head shot at 313, and the number 267 written below the number 294. CE 585 and the plat in the Dallas Archives have no such line, and no such number, and match the trajectory of the 12/5 plat... There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot. I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your criticism of Shaneyfelt or not. I'm just trying to understand why you think those plats are of the 2/7 revision, and not the 12/5 SS plat. "There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot." Which statement is highly indicative of the futility in attempting to explain anything (be it medical evidence or the survey evidence). The "Final Shot" impact has not and does not change from the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, when compared with the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64. They both contend that the third/last/final shot impact was, directly in front of James Altgens location, at survey stationing 4+95. For the last time Pat: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963. Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that? Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here. Mr. McCLOY. It may be received. Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now! Personally, since I was not present, I can not state as fact whether Simmons was given the true SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, or whether he was given the "updated" survey plat which was done for the FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat which was generated on 2/7/64. However! I can state as fact that CE585 IS NOT the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, and is in reality the updated FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat of 2/7/64. As, CE585 contains the "2/7/64" revision date down at the bottom of the plat. Just as does my full size copy of the FBI Survey Plat, and which "updated/revision" does not appear on the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63. Now Pat. In event that you still can not grasp this concept of "revision", might I suggest that you either enroll in your local community college (or even some good high schools) and take a course in mechanical drawing, or else have someone sit down with you and walk you through it by the numbers: 1. A drawing is made. 2. Anytime that a change is made to said drawing, it is given a revision number and or 'updated" change in date. All of which information I long ago provided. The "RED" demonstrates the revision/updated date of 2/7/64, which confirms this as being the FBI Survey Plat of that date. And, as I have repeatedly explained: Well then, here is a "tad" more for those who are new to the train ride. Just so that they are aware that I seldom resort to utilization of either the crystal ball or the rectal extraction methods of evidence evaluation. "Just so that they are aware that I seldom resort to utilization of either the crystal ball or the rectal extraction methods of evidence evaluation." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z276.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z277.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Definitive proof?-------------Absolutely not. Much better than photographing a Tea Pot and then indicating as if it were some sort of prima facie proof that it could not and should not happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. Actually, utilizing anything which we are informed represents the Z-film, is shaky. However, as has been previously stated by others, until such time as the "In Camera Original" film is made available for a complete forensic examination by those who are now becoming aware of some of the anomolies for which the film should be examined, then we have to attempt to demonstrate our points to the best that we can with the evidence which we have at hand. However! In addition to the highly unusual "blotch" on the helmets of the motorcycle policemen, one just may want to take a look at the windshield visor in pre-Z277 frames and then compare that with post-Z277 frames. Nice "blue-tint" there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Definitive proof?-------------Absolutely not.Much better than photographing a Tea Pot and then indicating as if it were some sort of prima facie proof that it could not and should not happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. If you actually had a functioning brain you might actually learn to read.... We shall not hold or collective breaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy.... I've explained it before David. To start with the MPI frames (the fundament is already flawed) are stretched compressed or whatever, this introduces interpolated exterpolated stuff that wasn't there before. Costella then reverses this, compounding the alteration. He then applies a digitising algorithm to it that can always only be an approximation (a laser scan of the lens would be better, (remember the Hubble lens)) that, in being math based and uniform in application, digitises it and introduces steps, micro perhaps but still there, this distortion 'correction' repeats the stretching compressing inter ex polation of data creating new where there was none and wiping/smearing others. Then he tries to reverse the aging by producing the lollypop version as the bees knees. Something like that anyway, it's detailed more elsewhere, here and there. and no, I dont have ANY qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy.... You can't be this stupid? Massive interpolation, color shifts and saturation increases, to name a few. And worse yet, we don't know how he did it because he refuses to post his methods. Shame on dr. john. But then again he's busy hiding under a rock because of this: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Find a peer yet? Edited April 13, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) Definitive proof?-------------Absolutely not.Much better than photographing a Tea Pot and then indicating as if it were some sort of prima facie proof that it could not and should not happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Reflections from shiny objects like MIRRORS and tea kettles really screw you up don't they Tom! You are a real piece of work. I suggest you stick to maps, photos just not your cup-o-tea. Do't let that old AOI hit you on the butt on your way out the door. Edited April 13, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy.... You can't be this stupid? Massive interpolation, color shifts and saturation increases, to name a few. And worse yet, we don't know how he did it because he refuses to post his methods. Shame on dr. john. But then again he's busy hiding under a rock because of this: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Find a peer yet? my gosh your ego seems to be taking a beating lately... no one seems to care re your photo expertise, your misdirection with nonsense experiments starring C stands and fingers, hell I'm surprised you didn't sneak in a 10'x10' silk in for teakettle diffusion... And now you're carrying water for John Dolva? Must be veryyyyyyy slow in Indiana these day's.... So sit and let John answer the simple question above, unless of course your trying to divert attention elsewhere because John Dolva may not have an adequate answer for the above... And Craig, you're no match for me when it comes to making film or video mattes, so xxxxx for another subject elsewhere! Or, at the very least, find someone, ANYONE that'll publish you and your professional opinions! Then I'll spend some time discussing the subject with ya! Ya know peer review and such.... btw, you a Physicist? Ph.D. type? For that matter is John Dolva, is he qualified to render (pardon the pun) a professional critique of Dr. John Costellas' work? How can some Lone Nut folks be so stupid as to think anyone in the know will take you seriously? Without one peer to Dr. John Costella, yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Tom, a large percentage of data has been wiped from the Z frames by Costella. Using them as foundation to build anything is dodgy. John, "a large percentage"? What data, and how did Costella wipe this data from the 720x480 MPI Zapruder frames? Be specific please... Pretty serious charge, guy.... You can't be this stupid? Massive interpolation, color shifts and saturation increases, to name a few. And worse yet, we don't know how he did it because he refuses to post his methods. Shame on dr. john. But then again he's busy hiding under a rock because of this: www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Find a peer yet? my gosh your ego seems to be taking a beating lately... no one seems to care re your photo expertise, your misdirection with nonsense experiments starring C stands and fingers, hell I'm surprised you didn't sneak in a 10'x10' silk in for teakettle diffusion... Hell Davie you can't even correctly identify a c-stand and fingers. Wanna try a again, and perhaos someday you might be able to identify a Whibal set. but I doubt it. 10x10? sheesh, I'm more used to 20x30 And now you're carrying water for John Dolva? Must be veryyyyyyy slow in Indiana these day's.... So sit and let John answer the simple question above, unless of course your trying to divert attention elsewhere because John Dolva may not have an adequate answer for the above... John Dolva did just fine. I'm just aqdding my 2 cents. Care to dispute it? And please exactly what an I trying to deflect attention from? And Craig, you're no match for me when it comes to making film or video mattes, so xxxxx for another subject elsewhere! Or, at the very least, find someone, ANYONE that'll publish you and your professional opinions! Then I'll spend some time discussing the subject with ya! Ya know peer review and such.... btw, you a Physicist? Ph.D. type? For that matter is John Dolva, is he qualified to render (pardon the pun) a professional critique of Dr. John Costellas' work? Match for what of yours? Have we seen ANY of your work besides the mess you made of it in Hoax? WHO IS DAVID HEALY? Can't seem to find your film-based compositing samples anywhere. And when did the publishing of material make it valid? I can't wait for your cites on THAT one? You can't discuss any of this because IT IS BEYOND YOU! Forget you lame excuses, we all know the real reason. You are not even close to being my peer, hell you are just the equipment repair man. Well since my work on Costella's error remains untouched I guess its doing just fine. Costella cant touch it, and thats why he is hiding under a rock, and you can't because the argument is over your head. And if not, why not give it a go. As it sits now the work is untouched and Costella is busted. How can some Lone Nut folks be so stupid as to think anyone in the know will take you seriously? Without one peer to Dr. John Costella, yet? How in the world be so stupid as to think ANYONE inthe know will take Jonh Costella seriously after this massive blunder in somehing as simple and basic as the photographic principle of parallex and how simple shadows work? This guy can't even pass muster on YOUR VERY OWN specs for credentials. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamosn.apollo.htm I'm still waiting for the fetzer cabal to find a peer to try and refute my work. Whats the matter, can't find any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Would everyone (or at least most) concur that the "ghost image" is not and can not be of either of the two motorcycles which are on the left-hand side (Jackie's side) of the Presidential Limo??? Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. Tom, Point well taken. Since you mentioned the lane divider within the ghost image area, would that divider( which is a part of the adjacent frame) show a different angle between curbline and lane divider. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Would everyone (or at least most) concur that the "ghost image" is not and can not be of either of the two motorcycles which are on the left-hand side (Jackie's side) of the Presidential Limo??? Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. Tom, Point well taken. Since you mentioned the lane divider within the ghost image area, would that divider( which is a part of the adjacent frame) show a different angle between curbline and lane divider. chris What in the world would POSESS you to think they SHOULD be the same angle? 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