Dean Hagerman Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 You really think you can make out anything in that area of the image? Or are you just taking Jack's word for it? There isn’t nearly enough detail to make such a determination. The man seems to be holding up something to his face but it could Just as well could be something he is eating or drinking or him scratching his nose or it could be an artifact. In any case the perspective from his vantage point doesn’t match that of the Z-film.What exactly would be the point of taking two films and claiming one was the other? Why does the second cameraman (TSCM) appear in any other images? How could the plotters count on TSCM not being noticed or clearly filmed/photographed by someone? Len good questions I am not taking Jacks word for it, but I give Jack credit for the find, I first saw it in TGZFH, then I got out my copy of Life (I think it was in a 1966 edition) with the Betzner photo in it, I looked very closly at TSCM and also the Tri-Pod film location inside the Pergola (I will post a blow up of that, I just need to find it on my computer) I also talked to Jack about it on another JFK forum, and you even say it seems like a man, I would say it is because when you look at Zappy and Sitz they have the same clarity as TSCM. You avoided my point about the degree of detail, do really think there is enough to reach the conclusion Jack did. That the blob probably was a person proves nothing. IMO the point of two films is that it makes it easier to fake the film that Life bought, if Zappy takes a film of the background and bystanders and TSCM takes the real film of the assassination then all that has to be done is add the two together and take out whatever is needed (the wide limo turn/the car stop/the head shot/the blood spray/Cheany riding ahead/Moorman in the street/DCM walking into the street) put the two films together as one Shall I take it your photo/video/film etc experience is very limited? Films taken from such different positions would not have lined upcorrectly. It would have been easier to alter what happened in the target car and copied it back into the same film. "and take out whatever is needed (the wide limo turn.../the blood spray/Cheany riding ahead/Moorman in the street/DCM walking into the street" And why would they want to remove any of this? There is a thread about the blood splatter "error" .It was yet another mistake by the TGZFH crowd.Costella couldn't figure out the splatterwould be accelerated by the bullet Len From what I see TSCM is just as clear as Zappy and Sitz IMO If you think that my photo/film/video experience is limited thats fine, its not, but I will have to prove that to you over time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 You really think you can make out anything in that area of the image? Or are you just taking Jack's word for it? There isn’t nearly enough detail to make such a determination. The man seems to be holding up something to his face but it could Just as well could be something he is eating or drinking or him scratching his nose or it could be an artifact. In any case the perspective from his vantage point doesn’t match that of the Z-film.What exactly would be the point of taking two films and claiming one was the other? Why does the second cameraman (TSCM) appear in any other images? How could the plotters count on TSCM not being noticed or clearly filmed/photographed by someone? Len good questions I am not taking Jacks word for it, but I give Jack credit for the find, I first saw it in TGZFH, then I got out my copy of Life (I think it was in a 1966 edition) with the Betzner photo in it, I looked very closly at TSCM and also the Tri-Pod film location inside the Pergola (I will post a blow up of that, I just need to find it on my computer) I also talked to Jack about it on another JFK forum, and you even say it seems like a man, I would say it is because when you look at Zappy and Sitz they have the same clarity as TSCM. You avoided my point about the degree of detail, do really think there is enough to reach the conclusion Jack did. That the blob probably was a person proves nothing. IMO the point of two films is that it makes it easier to fake the film that Life bought, if Zappy takes a film of the background and bystanders and TSCM takes the real film of the assassination then all that has to be done is add the two together and take out whatever is needed (the wide limo turn/the car stop/the head shot/the blood spray/Cheany riding ahead/Moorman in the street/DCM walking into the street) put the two films together as one Shall I take it your photo/video/film etc experience is very limited? Films taken from such different positions would not have lined upcorrectly. It would have been easier to alter what happened in the target car and copied it back into the same film. "and take out whatever is needed (the wide limo turn.../the blood spray/Cheany riding ahead/Moorman in the street/DCM walking into the street" And why would they want to remove any of this? There is a thread about the blood splatter "error" .It was yet another mistake by the TGZFH crowd.Costella couldn't figure out the splatterwould be accelerated by the bullet Len From what I see TSCM is just as clear as Zappy and Sitz IMO If you think that my photo/film/video experience is limited thats fine, its not, but I will have to prove that to you over time Exactly and none of them are clear enough to make out what they are doing. Due to poor image quality lots of times DP image "analysis" is more like a Rorschach test than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 One last question, when you found these images you believed in what you discovered back then, what made you change your mind? Being logical, and listening to constructive criticism and advice on various issues of photo analysis over many years changed my mind Dean, just like i'm being logical now when i'm telling you that Jack's floating cameraman is at least 20ft above any solid ground, and is outwith the realms of possibility in the real world. The retaining wall keeps going back towards TSCMs position, he is standing on the retaining wall just like Zappy was Let me find a good picture of the wall that extends towards the steps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) I think this Bond image will show what im talking about (im sure you looked into this yet you still say its impossible) You can see the retaining wall extending out towards the steps You also see the Pyracantha tree that TSCM was standing over on the retaining wall A quick look at Bond and you can see that it would not be hard to film above the Pyracantha tree when standing on the retaining wall This is the first thing I checked out when seeing this image for the first time, I checked my Cutler plats to make sure the retaining wall went far enough towards the steps, then checked other pictures and found that Bond showed the best view to prove it was possible. Duncan im sure you checked this out, but it puzzles me that after looking at this Bond picture you still think that TSCM needs a Rocketpack to hover 20 feet above the ground. I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this And thank you for being very civil and nice, its so much easier to discuss theories with no name calling and smack talking Dean Edited November 7, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I forgot to add, in the Bond picture take the person standing inside the pergola who is standing farther back then the retaining wall, messure her height and then move that height messure over to the retaining wall, you can see that the person stands well over the Pyracantha tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?Moorman5 I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) You really think you can make out anything in that area of the image? Or are you just taking Jack's word for it? There isn’t nearly enough detail to make such a determination. The man seems to be holding up something to his face but it could Just as well could be something he is eating or drinking or him scratching his nose or it could be an artifact. In any case the perspective from his vantage point doesn’t match that of the Z-film.What exactly would be the point of taking two films and claiming one was the other? Why does the second cameraman (TSCM) appear in any other images? How could the plotters count on TSCM not being noticed or clearly filmed/photographed by someone? Len good questions I am not taking Jacks word for it, but I give Jack credit for the find, I first saw it in TGZFH, then I got out my copy of Life (I think it was in a 1966 edition) with the Betzner photo in it, I looked very closly at TSCM and also the Tri-Pod film location inside the Pergola (I will post a blow up of that, I just need to find it on my computer) I also talked to Jack about it on another JFK forum, and you even say it seems like a man, I would say it is because when you look at Zappy and Sitz they have the same clarity as TSCM. You avoided my point about the degree of detail, do really think there is enough to reach the conclusion Jack did. That the blob probably was a person proves nothing. IMO the point of two films is that it makes it easier to fake the film that Life bought, if Zappy takes a film of the background and bystanders and TSCM takes the real film of the assassination then all that has to be done is add the two together and take out whatever is needed (the wide limo turn/the car stop/the head shot/the blood spray/Cheany riding ahead/Moorman in the street/DCM walking into the street) put the two films together as one Shall I take it your photo/video/film etc experience is very limited? Films taken from such different positions would not have lined upcorrectly. It would have been easier to alter what happened in the target car and copied it back into the same film. "and take out whatever is needed (the wide limo turn.../the blood spray/Cheany riding ahead/Moorman in the street/DCM walking into the street" And why would they want to remove any of this? There is a thread about the blood splatter "error" .It was yet another mistake by the TGZFH crowd.Costella couldn't figure out the splatterwould be accelerated by the bullet Len From what I see TSCM is just as clear as Zappy and Sitz IMO If you think that my photo/film/video experience is limited thats fine, its not, but I will have to prove that to you over time Great, why not just tell us what your photo/film video experience is, and cut to the chase? Edited November 7, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?Moorman5 I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? I'm sorry Dean, I can't have a serious conversation with anyone who believe in alteration, no offence intended, but that stuff is only supported by people who have absolutely zero evidence to back up their alteration claims. All the best Duncan Thats to bad, I was looking forward to talking to you about different films and pictures as I can tell you have a vast knowledge of the photographic evidence in the case One of the reasons I branched out and joined this forum was to hear other researchers thoughts on my theories Thanks for your replies, I hope you can look past your past dealings with alterationists and give me a chance to explain my theories Take care Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?Moorman5 I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? Dean, No time to alter-- Moorman 5 was shown at 3:19PM 11/22/63 on NBC's WBAP. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers...php/t14092.html You can check this-- (go to @2:19--shows up around 2:20 on the video) http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/kennedys/...31122a.ram.html Kathy The extant Moorman photo is provably altered. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?Moorman5 I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? Dean, No time to alter-- Moorman 5 was shown at 3:19PM 11/22/63 on NBC's WBAP. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers...php/t14092.html You can check this-- (go to @2:19--shows up around 2:20 on the video) http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/kennedys/...31122a.ram.html Kathy The extant Moorman photo is provably altered. Jack By whom? You can't prove your way out of a paper bag... Heck, you don't even understand parallax nor the properties of light and shadow. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo A person would need to be very foolish to believe you have the first clue about photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) I agree that it's good to be civil Dean. Can you show me where this cameraman is in Moorman 5 ?Moorman5 I dont believe Moorman 5 is genuine, of course the one thing that would be altered would be the image of a second camera man I know you dont believe in any photos being altered (I think sorry if im wrong) so it will be very hard for me to argue my point and change your mind Can we agree that it would be possible for a camera man to be standing on the retaining wall over the Pyracantha tree? Dean, No time to alter-- Moorman 5 was shown at 3:19PM 11/22/63 on NBC's WBAP. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers...php/t14092.html You can check this-- (go to @2:19--shows up around 2:20 on the video) http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/kennedys/...31122a.ram.html Kathy Kathy Thank you, but I knew about the time and saw that news reel years ago That does nothing to prove there was not enough time to alter Thanks anyways Dean Edited November 7, 2009 by Dean Hagerman 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