Thomas H. Purvis Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 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. ["b]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.[/b]" Undoubtedly, there are some here who would actually think that you would do some true research and even utilize the existing Z-film in this research and presentations. Such as perhaps marking exactly where (what) you see as being Newman's head as well as the lower portion of the lamp post, and then offering it up for all to review and comment upon. NOT ME! After the tea kettle and whatever backend, I would expect to see your wife's potted plant as proof! Everyone! Craig sees Newman's head as well as the lower portion of the lamp post. We can all go home now as this terrible dilemma is now resolved. OH! I forgot! There are also those who see badgeman and other mytholigical creatures as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 As was brought up by Craig himself in post 46: The ghost images of the bottom of the lamppost are there as is Newmans head. (Sounds like a reference to lamp-post base to me). 303, 304 305, 306 and 307 for the head.... 278, 279, 280,281, 282 and 283 for the bottom of the lamppost...... [/b] And then ironically, he directs others to look at Dr. Costella's corrected frames. One person we know he has the utmost respect for. Here are a few more sizes to choose from Craig, with sprocket holes and main frame appox. the same size. Which one fits Newman in 306. I personally prefer the wide angle shot from the previous animation. Less film compositing involved. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 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. ["b]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.[/b]" Undoubtedly, there are some here who would actually think that you would do some true research and even utilize the existing Z-film in this research and presentations. Such as perhaps marking exactly where (what) you see as being Newman's head as well as the lower portion of the lamp post, and then offering it up for all to review and comment upon. NOT ME! After the tea kettle and whatever backend, I would expect to see your wife's potted plant as proof! Everyone! Craig sees Newman's head as well as the lower portion of the lamp post. We can all go home now as this terrible dilemma is now resolved. OH! I forgot! There are also those who see badgeman and other mytholigical creatures as well. Oh I forgot, Tom does not have the skillset to even investigate the image links I posted, you know the Z frames that show Newmans head and the lower part of the lamppost. Even more telling is that Davidsons image from the pedestall shows, in quite conclusive fashion, that the location and size of Newmans head is correct in the z film. Of course all of this is just beyond Purv's limited skillset. If he can't even understand the mechanics of the ghost images, how could we ever expoect him to understand what he sees. Sometimes you just have to accept that the ignorant will never "get it". If a photo of a potted plant would have shown the basic principle of photography that Purv simply did not understand as it related to the ghost images, I would not hessitaeed for a second to post it. Not that Purv could ever understand, but for those you actually can "get it" As for badgeman, my position on that piece of JFK disinformation is quite well documented, here on this forum. If Purv was half the researcher he claims to be he would have known that already. Look at the film Purv, I gave you the links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) As was brought up by Craig himself in post 46:The ghost images of the bottom of the lamppost are there as is Newmans head. (Sounds like a reference to lamp-post base to me). 303, 304 305, 306 and 307 for the head.... 278, 279, 280,281, 282 and 283 for the bottom of the lamppost...... [/b] And then ironically, he directs others to look at Dr. Costella's corrected frames. One person we know he has the utmost respect for. Here are a few more sizes to choose from Craig, with sprocket holes and main frame appox. the same size. Which one fits Newman in 306. I personally prefer the wide angle shot from the previous animation. Less film compositing involved. chris I have NO respect for Costella, a hack to be sure, but since Tom is using the Costella frames as his reference and since the MPI as posted by Chris is the wrong aspect I just went with, sorry if that offends you, oh wait, no I'm not. Chris spewed: I personally prefer the wide angle shot from the previous animation. Less film compositing involved. Quite a telling statement really as it gets to the heart of why Chris is so utterly useless at photo interpretation of JFK images. He sees alteration where there is none and since he has a conclusion, he tries, always in vain, to force fit the facts into his conclusion. As a result, he can't find his butt from a hole in the ground. To further complicate matters, Chris has a very limited skill set as it applies to the basic or advanced aspects of photography. This sorry episode with Newman’s head is a perfect example. Lets review. Frame 306 shows Newmans head in the area between the sprocket holes. This is a ghost image exposed in the lower section of the aperture mask when frame 305 was exposed. It happens because the lens at full zoom projects an image circle much larger than the actual live are of an 8mm frame. Since the aperture mask for the 414 camera extends above and below the live frame area, in the sprocket hole section of the film, this large image circle exposes the intersprocket area of the next frame in line for exposure, in this case frame 307. Now, if Newmans head is just out of the live frame area in 306 it might fall in the intersprocket area of frame 307, provided it is with the image circle as projected by the lens. As luck would have it, it does fall within the image circle. If we view frame 306 from the Costella edit, which includes the upper intersprocket image from frame 307, there it is, Newmans head, and neck. Imagine that. Right where we would expect it to be and the correct size as well. Ok so now I see Chris, hackles up because his fantasy that the Zapruder film is altered starting to crumble. Prove it he says, and I'm more than happy to do just that. Thankfully Chris has posted one of his own images that bust his own case. In fact some time ago Jack White, not knowing how right he was and oh so wrong at the same time, called this image on of the most important ever in that it, in his mind., proves the Z film false because it shows that Newman was left out of the z film. Little could Jack know that it proves just the opposite, that Newman IS in the Z film and exactly where he should belongs. Lets review those images. Here is frame 306. I have copied and pasted Newman's head beside the ghost images and roughly outlined in yellow the size and shape of the head: Next lets look at Chris's image. Now the first thing you will notice is that Chris's image is a MUCH wider view than the Z frame. We need to resize it to make it match the Z frame. There are only a few instances where you can resize two different images with success, and this is one. If two images are taken from the same camera position, the perspective of the images will stay the same regardless of the focal length of the lens. In other words you can enlarge a wide angle view to match a telephoto view properly, providing the camera to subject distance stays the same between the two photos. So thats what I will do, I'll resize the wide frame and layer it over the telephoto frame. Now, if the ghost image in the z frame is correct for Newman's head, we should get a very close match for the position of the head in Chris's frame. In addition the distance from the head to the curb should match as well. There might be a very small degree of error since we don't know if Chris was in the exact position as Zapruder or if the person on the sidewalk matches Newman for build and position. But, if the match is even close it will show that the size and position of Newman's head in 306 is correct. To test this I created a gif file. As you can see Z frame 306 and the Davidson frame enlarged are a very close match. There is no anomaly. Just a warped worldview run amuck. Edited April 15, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 A striking resemblance. Perhaps you can enhance Newman a little more. Was he wearing white, or is that the sun bearing down on him. I like my anatomical comparison much more. Remember, You can't compare different photos from different cameras and angles either. But we can always try. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 ...I have NO respect for Costella, a hack to be sure, but since Tom is using the Costella frames as his reference and since the MPI as posted by Chris is the wrong aspect I just went with, sorry if that offends you, oh wait, no I'm not. Chris spewed: ... "Chris spewed" Why the invective, man? No sense becoming a xxxxx. Josiah and his club gets batted around a bit and one of the troops goes off the deep end... Perhaps no business is effecting you more than you realize, why get all knotted up, man! Chill! The Z-film is going no where, this film analysis is going to go on, and on, and ON. BTW, you ever find a Physicist to debunk John Costella Ph.D-Physics findings (and please, forget hackneyed photog's from Indiana please, carries absolutely no weight in scientific circles.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 ...I have NO respect for Costella, a hack to be sure, but since Tom is using the Costella frames as his reference and since the MPI as posted by Chris is the wrong aspect I just went with, sorry if that offends you, oh wait, no I'm not. Chris spewed: ... "Chris spewed" Why the invective, man? No sense becoming a xxxxx. Josiah and his club gets batted around a bit and one of the troops goes off the deep end... Perhaps no business is effecting you more than you realize, why get all knotted up, man! Chill! The Z-film is going no where, this film analysis is going to go on, and on, and ON. BTW, you ever find a Physicist to debunk John Costella Ph.D-Physics findings (and please, forget hackneyed photog's from Indiana please, carries absolutely no weight in scientific circles.) More empty smacktalk for David Healy. WHO IS DAVID HEALY? anyone seen his demo reel filled with film based composites? Costella? Thrashed here, which is why he is hiding under a rock.... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm The mighty Phd, beaten to a pulp by an Indiana photographer....imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 A striking resemblance. Perhaps you can enhance Newman a little more. Was he wearing white, or is that the sun bearing down on him. I like my anatomical comparison much more. Remember, You can't compare different photos from different cameras and angles either. But we can always try. chris Sure you can try, but it only adds to the mountain of evidence supporting your ignorance of the subject matter. Just another silly CT with no photo skills run amuck. What is it with you guys? Gluttons for punishment? Or just plain stupid? You choose. But please keep up the poor work Chris, you are a target rich environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Perhaps you're familiar with this technique. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Perhaps you're familiar with this technique.chris So thats what you think your silly resizing and rotations are doing? Fricking amazing. You make Jack White look like a genius! Just admit your errors Chris and move along. Your 15 minutes is up. We have your number, and it's zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Perhaps you're familiar with this technique.chris So thats what you think your silly resizing and rotations are doing? Fricking amazing. You make Jack White look like a genius! Just admit your errors Chris and move along. Your 15 minutes is up. We have your number, and it's zero. wow... you're THAT sensitive when it comes to a cable/tv presentation? Here all along I thought you supported the EMMY wining, Dale Myers cartoon type of approach. Silly me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Perhaps you're familiar with this technique.chris So thats what you think your silly resizing and rotations are doing? Fricking amazing. You make Jack White look like a genius! Just admit your errors Chris and move along. Your 15 minutes is up. We have your number, and it's zero. wow... you're THAT sensitive when it comes to a cable/tv presentation? Here all along I thought you supported the EMMY wining, Dale Myers cartoon type of approach. Silly me! What the heck are you smacktalking about Healy? OH thats right, NOBODY knows, its just more ct gibberish. Crawl back into you dog house, guard dog, you are no longer relavent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I believe Bill Newman had a distinct hairline. Perhaps a better fit for him. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I believe Bill Newman had a distinct hairline. Perhaps a better fit for him. chris Na, the fit is about as perfect as anyone could ever want. It is amusing however to see someone trying to look at a multiple exposure of the back of a head in full shadow and trying to find a "hairline". Is it any wonder why some are considered "crackpots"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I understand. As difficult as it is, to decipher the top of a building. How far away is that building? How far away is Newman? Post 49. chris 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