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. If you actually had a functioning brain you might actually learn to read.... We shall not hold or collective breaths. Actually: "Stupid is as Stupid Does"[/b] (Forest Gump) And, I would remind the reading public that it is not I who is attempting to post a singular photograph of a tea kettle as well as the backend of a whatever, which photographs were taken under fixed and controlled lighting conditions and reflective angles, and convince that these photographs actually have some probative value in determination of anything relative to the motion picture film made by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/63. About like my stepping out into the yard and moving about until such time as I can achieve a "reflective glare" from the outside mirrror of my truck, taking a photograph, and thereafter offering it as being some sort of proof that all images which we think we should see in the Z-film, yet can not see, are the end result of reflective glare due to the lighting angles, surface orientation of the reflective plane, even though there exists an everchanging positions of all essential items, to included a panning camera. Personally, I am neither that stupid nor do I wish to be percieved as being so. Be my guest Craig! 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. 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 Chris; The "simple" answer is of course yes! Even were it merely a single photograph. The more complicated version would also include the potential "tilt" change which Zapruder most probably incorporated into his filming as he progressively panned from left to right and attempted to follow the downhill slope of Elm St, as well as the angular difference at which Elm St. progressively extended farther from the camera. Even the lane divider line which is closest to the curb would, over a given distance (from photo centerline), would demonstrate a minor degree of seperation from true parallel. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/lrd9901.html Other manipulations of perspective which create an illusion of depth, include convergence (8, 9, 10) and foreshortening. Convergence is the term used to describe the effect created of parallel lines apparently coming together in the distance. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Perhaps if one were to utilize the "known known" it would assist in many things. That being the downhill slop/grade of Elm St. which for all applicable purposes was a (-) 3-degrees. (3 degrees and 8 minutes to be exact) In fact, one may want to apply that knowledge here. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z272.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy 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. If you actually had a functioning brain you might actually learn to read.... We shall not hold or collective breaths. I think you've finally out-mastered yourself there Craig, one of those cases where 'give you enough rope....' And I thought we were going to see an interesting thread... ya see Craig, there's huge looming questions still out there concerning a) Elm Street, the Zapruder film and c) the alleged 3 shots/shooter(s)..... Tom Purvis has provided certain insight, (with accredited documentation) concerning those matters (not to mention certain, ah, personal experiences that may tend to better discussion). What we see in the Zapruder film simply doesn't jive with those pesky SS/FBI tests and DP topo data and a specific shooters ability(s). And all I'm seeing you do here is dance with tea kettles? I expected better of you... perhaps we need Bill Miller to assist you! (who gave him the weekend off, anyway?) Hey, when you get a chance, have John Dolva respond to my query to him concerning all that "data wiped from those Zapruder frames by Dr. John Costella" -- we really need to get that cleared up, that is a serious charge from a non-peer of John Costella. Ph.D Physics (or perhaps he is a peer, care to enlighten us, from a perspective viewpoint, of course?) Edited April 13, 2009 by David G. Healy 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 What in the world would POSESS you to think they SHOULD be the same angle? Something like this. 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. 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. Actually: "Stupid is as Stupid Does"[/b] (Forest Gump) And, I would remind the reading public that it is not I who is attempting to post a singular photograph of a tea kettle as well as the backend of a whatever, which photographs were taken under fixed and controlled lighting conditions and reflective angles, and convince that these photographs actually have some probative value in determination of anything relative to the motion picture film made by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/63. About like my stepping out into the yard and moving about until such time as I can achieve a "reflective glare" from the outside mirrror of my truck, taking a photograph, and thereafter offering it as being some sort of proof that all images which we think we should see in the Z-film, yet can not see, are the end result of reflective glare due to the lighting angles, surface orientation of the reflective plane, even though there exists an everchanging positions of all essential items, to included a panning camera. Personally, I am neither that stupid nor do I wish to be percieved as being so. Be my guest Craig! Well you are are being precieved as being QUITE stupid perv. Bit I'm not in the least suprised the subject mater is shooting RIGHT over your head, given you require a goolge each time a new concept is presented too you. And even with the google you are left with egg smeared all over your face. Maybe you should be paying more attention to your mirror.....and less to the voices.... 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. I think you've finally out-mastered yourself there Craig, one of those cases where 'give you enough rope....' And I thought we were going to see an interesting thread... ya see Craig, there's huge looming questions still out there concerning a) Elm Street, the Zapruder film and c) the alleged 3 shots/shooter(s)..... Tom Purvis has provided certain insight, (with accredited documentation) concerning those matters (not to mention certain, ah, personal experiences that may tend to better discussion). What we see in the Zapruder film simply doesn't jive with those pesky SS/FBI tests and DP topo data and a specific shooters ability(s). And all I'm seeing you do here is dance with tea kettles? I expected better of you... perhaps we need Bill Miller to assist you! (who gave him the weekend off, anyway?) Hey, when you get a chance, have John Dolva respond to my query to him concerning all that "data wiped from those Zapruder frames by Dr. John Costella" -- we really need to get that cleared up, that is a serious charge from a non-peer of John Costella. Ph.D Physics (or perhaps he is a peer, care to enlighten us, from a perspective viewpoint, of course?) So the quality of light and shadow somehow have some unknown effect on the the tesst of the SS/FBI, and a shooters ability? My youi have really fallen off the cliff. And I see your reading ability is up to snuff again, that is non-existant. You missed Dolva's post. not suprising, the real world is rushing right past you. I'm sorry the principles illustrated inthe tea kettle phots are beyond you. Tom I can understand, he's just ignorant in this regard. You on the other hand claim great imaging expereience...well so must for that, it seems you are just another internet blowhard. 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) 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? Something like this. So you are suggesting the curb line and the stripe near the x are the same angle? Surely you jest! WHy in the world SHOULD they be? Might I suggest you take the title to this thread to heart and engage in a wee bit of study before continuing. Else you are heading over the same cliff to join Perv and Healy. Oh wait, you fell over a long time ago. 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 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. As has been noted once before, your ability to read is quite suspect, and since I've told you in detail the principles the photos I posted illustrate, I'll let you continue your search to find your behind with both hands. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. So tell us Tom, are the logos curved and shiney? Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. They have of relevance as the are, you on the other hand, not so much. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. How would you know Tom? You don't understand the subject matter. Ludicrous is however the perfect description of your recent attempts to discuss photography. Stick to maps Tom, that way you wont look so ignorant. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Then how come you are having such a hard time understanding how it hqppens? Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. I guess you simply can't grasp the very basic principles at play here. Its not suprising, given the general content of your postings. I don't feel sorry for you. Sometimes ignorance just like yours just can't be overcome. You are trapped in your warped worldview. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? Actually I would LOVE to see a photo of your mirror not reflecting lighy, that would be quite a feat. When can we expect it? Your actually doing real world research would be a huge step forward compared to your current method of doing a google and the not understanding what you read. I'm not holding my breath, based on your past performance, that the real world will have any effect. 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. As has been noted once before, your ability to read is quite suspect, and since I've told you in detail the principles the photos I posted illustrate, I'll let you continue your search to find your behind with both hands. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. So tell us Tom, are the logos curved and shiney? Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. They have of relevance as the are, you on the other hand, not so much. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. How would you know Tom? You don't understand the subject matter. Ludicrous is however the perfect description of your recent attempts to discuss photography. Stick to maps Tom, that way you wont look so ignorant. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Then how come you are having such a hard time understanding how it hqppens? Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. I guess you simply can't grasp the very basic principles at play here. Its not suprising, given the general content of your postings. I don't feel sorry for you. Sometimes ignorance just like yours just can't be overcome. You are trapped in your warped worldview. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? Actually I would LOVE to see a photo of your mirror not reflecting lighy, that would be quite a feat. When can we expect it? Your actually doing real world research would be a huge step forward compared to your current method of doing a google and the not understanding what you read. I'm not holding my breath, based on your past performance, that the real world will have any effect. [b]"Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base."[/b] First off there Lamsuk, it would be irrelevant to the issue whether I possess any knowledge whatsoever in how the "ghost image" is created, as my knowledge (or lack of) is not the issue. The issue, simply stated, resolves around a filming process which for the great majority of it's content, has a "ghost image" which correlates with an image which is located at the top and the bottom of the normal field of view within the specific frame of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. As has been noted once before, your ability to read is quite suspect, and since I've told you in detail the principles the photos I posted illustrate, I'll let you continue your search to find your behind with both hands. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. So tell us Tom, are the logos curved and shiney? Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. They have of relevance as the are, you on the other hand, not so much. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. How would you know Tom? You don't understand the subject matter. Ludicrous is however the perfect description of your recent attempts to discuss photography. Stick to maps Tom, that way you wont look so ignorant. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Then how come you are having such a hard time understanding how it hqppens? Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. I guess you simply can't grasp the very basic principles at play here. Its not suprising, given the general content of your postings. I don't feel sorry for you. Sometimes ignorance just like yours just can't be overcome. You are trapped in your warped worldview. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? Actually I would LOVE to see a photo of your mirror not reflecting lighy, that would be quite a feat. When can we expect it? Your actually doing real world research would be a huge step forward compared to your current method of doing a google and the not understanding what you read. I'm not holding my breath, based on your past performance, that the real world will have any effect. [b]"Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base."[/b] First off there Lamsuk, it would be irrelevant to the issue whether I possess any knowledge whatsoever in how the "ghost image" is created, as my knowledge (or lack of) is not the issue. The issue, simply stated, resolves around a filming process which for the great majority of it's content, has a "ghost image" which correlates with an image which is located at the top and the bottom of the normal field of view within the specific frame of the film. Now, completely irrelevant as to whether I even have the most miniscule grasp of exactly what/how the Ghost Image is created, we have progressed to an area of the film in which the Ghost Image contains the front fender of a motorcycle which, by demonstrated and documented other photographic evidence, can not be of either of the two motorcycles which were to the left rear (jackie's side) of the Presidential limousine. Therefore, whereever this image was generated from, it did not come from within the normal field of view for this frame of the Zapruder film. Which has lead the few who have examined this anomoly (without a great amount of thought I might add) to conclude that this motorcycle fender belonged to the motorcycle driven by Policeman Chaney who was riding to the right rear (JFK's side) of the Presidential Limo. Which would have to mean that the motorcycle fender image was created by a Ghost Image which was coming from an object which was LOWER than the normal field of view for a frame of the film. Several problems arise from this: 1. In event that this image came from an object which was LOWER than the normal field of view for the normal film frame, exactly why is this the only section of the Z-film which demonstrates such an anomoly? 2. In event that this image came from an object which was LOWER than the normal field of view for the normal film frame, exactly why is it that absolutely NONE of the lower section of the Lamp Post appears in this manner. 3. In event that this image came from an object which was LOWER then the normal field of view for the normal film frame, exactly why is it that absolutely none of the Newman Family can be observed in any such images as they most assuredly would have appeared in any film which was demonstrating photographic images of this lower elevation. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z277.jpg Through http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z305.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 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. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. As has been noted once before, your ability to read is quite suspect, and since I've told you in detail the principles the photos I posted illustrate, I'll let you continue your search to find your behind with both hands. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. So tell us Tom, are the logos curved and shiney? Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. They have of relevance as the are, you on the other hand, not so much. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. How would you know Tom? You don't understand the subject matter. Ludicrous is however the perfect description of your recent attempts to discuss photography. Stick to maps Tom, that way you wont look so ignorant. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Then how come you are having such a hard time understanding how it hqppens? Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. I guess you simply can't grasp the very basic principles at play here. Its not suprising, given the general content of your postings. I don't feel sorry for you. Sometimes ignorance just like yours just can't be overcome. You are trapped in your warped worldview. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? Actually I would LOVE to see a photo of your mirror not reflecting lighy, that would be quite a feat. When can we expect it? Your actually doing real world research would be a huge step forward compared to your current method of doing a google and the not understanding what you read. I'm not holding my breath, based on your past performance, that the real world will have any effect. [b]"Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base."[/b] First off there Lamsuk, it would be irrelevant to the issue whether I possess any knowledge whatsoever in how the "ghost image" is created, as my knowledge (or lack of) is not the issue. The issue, simply stated, resolves around a filming process which for the great majority of it's content, has a "ghost image" which correlates with an image which is located at the top and the bottom of the normal field of view within the specific frame of the film. You really DON'T have a clue do you perv. Lest you look even more silly than even I thought possible of you, let me throw you two bones. Image CIRCLE Aperture plate ROFLMAO! Keep up the good work LOL! 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