Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 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. "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 Oh Tom, how is the weather down there in the abyss? If you don't know how the process works, how in the world can you analyze what you see? The correct answer is you can't. The ghost images of the bottom of the lamppost are there as is Newmans head. 303, 304 305, 306 and 307 for the head.... 278, 279, 280,281, 282 and 283 for the bottom of the lamppost...... Edited April 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 A moving lamp-post base it appears. Maybe Craig can show us a shape distinction between the lamp-post base and the corner of the car in the previous mentioned frames. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 A moving lamp-post base it appears.Maybe Craig can show us a shape distinction between the lamp-post base and the corner of the car in the previous mentioned frames. chris Maybe Chris can explain WHY he expects to see the details he questions. "I Think" won't cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) Tom, I find it rather amazing that Z's camera couldn't capture the ghost images with more clarity. I don't believe it's too difficult to figure out this ghost image is the top of the building. This, coming from my same camera with the sprocket hole alterations. You know, 45 years later. Should give others an idea of how much more image capture capability(outside the main frame) this camera really had. chris Edited April 14, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) Tom,I find it rather amazing that Z's camera couldn't capture the ghost images with more clarity. I don't believe it's too difficult to figure out this ghost image is the top of the building. This, coming from my same camera with the sprocket hole alterations. You know, 45 years later. Should give others an idea of how much more image capture capability(outside the main frame) this camera really had. chris Should it give others an IDEA of how much more can be captured? Really? And is that based on the priciples of mulitple exposures on a single piece of reversal film? Do you even UNDERSTAND the process? Light to dark, dark to light...hows that work again????? Inquiring minds want to know. Why not EXPLAIN it to us Chris, after all you have the IDEA of how much more can be captured...right? Dazzel us with your photographic brilliance. Edited April 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Craig, Still looking for the lamp-post base in 278-283. Here's a little help. Maybe you can match this up with one of those frames. What's to explain. The pictures are self explainable. Try posting a few. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Tom,I find it rather amazing that Z's camera couldn't capture the ghost images with more clarity. I don't believe it's too difficult to figure out this ghost image is the top of the building. This, coming from my same camera with the sprocket hole alterations. You know, 45 years later. Should give others an idea of how much more image capture capability(outside the main frame) this camera really had. chris Should it give others an IDEA of how much more can be captured? Really? And is that based on the priciples of mulitple exposures on a single piece of reversal film? Do you even UNDERSTAND the process? Light to dark, dark to light...hows that work again????? Inquiring minds want to know. Why not EXPLAIN it to us Chris, after all you have the IDEA of how much more can be captured...right? Dazzel us with your photographic brilliance. now you're pulling a Zavada..... is this the required KODAK moment? Next we'll be hearing Zapruder's camera was the only B&H film camera in Dallas that day. B&H made such inferior equipment nearly every news organization in Dallas that day and the succeeding days used B&H equipment. Horrible lenses, claw assemblies, gates and wind mechanisms. LMAO! Listen, you want to make headway, get a few 4x5 trannies of authenticated Z-film frames form the alleged in-camera original, put those frames side-by-side of the 3 1st generation 4x5 trannie dupe frames.... then we'll have something to talk about -- perhaps you'll dazzle us with your film gamma brilliance (I can see Wild Bill running for the Zavada report now ) Ya gotta focus, what this is all about (regarding inquiring minds) is an altered Zapruder Film. Do you want to duck and run from the real issue? Gary has access to the Z-frames.... hey, why didn't the 6th Floor Museum allow Zavada to use the Zapruder's B&H 414 double 8mm camera for his testing? We could of eliminated all this nonsense, and you know it! But noooooo -- here we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 David, I think if they look at Zavada's report, it might explain to them how Bill Newman is the second coming of "mini-me". Now, how close was Newman to Zapruder? How far away are Moorman and Hill? Those ghost images sure don't hold their size over time. Yet, they appear to in mine. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) Craig,Still looking for the lamp-post base in 278-283. Here's a little help. Maybe you can match this up with one of those frames. What's to explain. The pictures are self explainable. Try posting a few. chris Sure Chris, here you go. You have a set of eyes, and a brain that works, right? One REALLY has to wonder considering you are looking for the BASE of the lamppost. Now exactly WHY is a real mystery. Perhaps you can share with the rest of us how you thing think view seen by the image ciricle extends all the way to the BASE of the lamppost. Inquiring minds want to know. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z278.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z280.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z281.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z282.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z283.jpg Are pictures self evident when you don't understand what it is you are seeing? Inquiring minds want to know? Now you are at least a few questions behind, when can we expect YOUR answers? You know like telling us all how multiple exposure works on reversal film for a start.... Edited April 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) David,I think if they look at Zavada's report, it might explain to them how Bill Newman is the second coming of "mini-me". Now, how close was Newman to Zapruder? How far away are Moorman and Hill? Those ghost images sure don't hold their size over time. Yet, they appear to in mine. chris Here is a bone for Chris....HEAD..... SO exactly what size should Newman's HEAD be? Inquiring minds want to know? Edited April 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Tom,I find it rather amazing that Z's camera couldn't capture the ghost images with more clarity. I don't believe it's too difficult to figure out this ghost image is the top of the building. This, coming from my same camera with the sprocket hole alterations. You know, 45 years later. Should give others an idea of how much more image capture capability(outside the main frame) this camera really had. chris Should it give others an IDEA of how much more can be captured? Really? And is that based on the priciples of mulitple exposures on a single piece of reversal film? Do you even UNDERSTAND the process? Light to dark, dark to light...hows that work again????? Inquiring minds want to know. Why not EXPLAIN it to us Chris, after all you have the IDEA of how much more can be captured...right? Dazzel us with your photographic brilliance. now you're pulling a Zavada..... is this the required KODAK moment? Next we'll be hearing Zapruder's camera was the only B&H film camera in Dallas that day. B&H made such inferior equipment nearly every news organization in Dallas that day and the succeeding days used B&H equipment. Horrible lenses, claw assemblies, gates and wind mechanisms. LMAO! Listen, you want to make headway, get a few 4x5 trannies of authenticated Z-film frames form the alleged in-camera original, put those frames side-by-side of the 3 1st generation 4x5 trannie dupe frames.... then we'll have something to talk about -- perhaps you'll dazzle us with your film gamma brilliance (I can see Wild Bill running for the Zavada report now ) Ya gotta focus, what this is all about (regarding inquiring minds) is an altered Zapruder Film. Do you want to duck and run from the real issue? Gary has access to the Z-frames.... hey, why didn't the 6th Floor Museum allow Zavada to use the Zapruder's B&H 414 double 8mm camera for his testing? We could of eliminated all this nonsense, and you know it! But noooooo -- here we are. Well Davie, we are still waiting for someone to offer unimpeachable proof the Zapruder film IS altered. Seems the smucks trying to prove just that are really ignorant of the process and principles of photography. You too it seems, since you just can't take any actual STANCE on any issue, but instead just throw around smacktalk. So why don't YOU, given your self-proclained expertise in film production and 'film-based" composites, give us all a nice lesson in the process of mulitple exposures on a single piece of reversal film, as it applies to the ghost images produced by a 414. Inquiring minds want to know if David Healy has it.....or if he is just an internet blowhard. Whats it going to be Daivd? BTW, you guys found the nads to admit your gross error as documented here: www.craigloamson.com/costella.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 David,I think if they look at Zavada's report, it might explain to them how Bill Newman is the second coming of "mini-me". Now, how close was Newman to Zapruder? How far away are Moorman and Hill? Those ghost images sure don't hold their size over time. Yet, they appear to in mine. chris Here is a bone for Chris....HEAD..... SO exactly what size should Newman's HEAD be? Inquiring minds want to know? Well, Let's see. If I filmed with a B/H normal lens setting, I would get this. But, since I would have to reduce my frame even more scaling wise, more likely a wide angle setting would fit the bill. Now what's the actual size need to be, well here's someone down in front on telephoto. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 David,I think if they look at Zavada's report, it might explain to them how Bill Newman is the second coming of "mini-me". Now, how close was Newman to Zapruder? How far away are Moorman and Hill? Those ghost images sure don't hold their size over time. Yet, they appear to in mine. chris Here is a bone for Chris....HEAD..... SO exactly what size should Newman's HEAD be? Inquiring minds want to know? Well, Let's see. If I filmed with a B/H normal lens setting, I would get this. But, since I would have to reduce my frame even more scaling wise, more likely a wide angle setting would fit the bill. Now what's the actual size need to be, well here's someone down in front on telephoto. chris So WHAT does the ACTUAL size of Newman HEAD need to be Chris? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 Oh Tom, how is the weather down there in the abyss? If you don't know how the process works, how in the world can you analyze what you see? The correct answer is you can't. The ghost images of the bottom of the lamppost are there as is Newmans head. 303, 304 305, 306 and 307 for the head.... 278, 279, 280,281, 282 and 283 for the bottom of the lamppost...... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What, no proof? I would have, at minimum, expected to see a photo of your wife's favorite potted plant as some form of corroboration. How about at least a "reverse image" of your tea kettle or "whatever"? The ole "reverse image" trick is always good to fool a few. Do you also see butterflies and sailing ships in the clouds as well. Perhaps you are ready to graduate up to "Badgeman"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Oh Tom, how is the weather down there in the abyss?If you don't know how the process works, how in the world can you analyze what you see? The correct answer is you can't. The ghost images of the bottom of the lamppost are there as is Newmans head. 303, 304 305, 306 and 307 for the head.... 278, 279, 280,281, 282 and 283 for the bottom of the lamppost...... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What, no proof?I would have, at minimum, expected to see a photo of your wife's favorite potted plant as some form of corroboration. How about at least a "reverse image" of your tea kettle or "whatever"? The ole "reverse image" trick is always good to fool a few. Do you also see butterflies and sailing ships in the clouds as well. Perhaps you are ready to graduate up to "Badgeman"! At a loss again I see Tom. Don't you hate it when you get your hat handed to you? But of course, when it comes to the photographic record, thats just commonplace for you. Ever get to taking that photo of your truck mirror with no light reflecting ROFLAO! You are at least good for a good laugh, thanks for that. 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