What is this in Z frames?

[Bernice Moore]

DEAN TODD I do not know if these will help but they were taken that weekend re perhaps they may HELP show what needs to be seen...B..I'LL BE BACK WITH TOTHER CANNOT FIND IT RIGHT NOW..SORRY BOUT THAT..

Edited December 1, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Craig Lamson]

I think Robin brings up a good point about Zappys camera being on zoom

But even so look at these two images

Even with Zappy being closer to the bush then Stoughton the branches are just way to long and out of control

Hey Craig do you have any trophies or yard sticks sitting around to do another amazing study?

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion...

"the branches are just way to long and out of control"

Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds.

[Dean Hagerman]

I think Robin brings up a good point about Zappys camera being on zoom

But even so look at these two images

Even with Zappy being closer to the bush then Stoughton the branches are just way to long and out of control

Hey Craig do you have any trophies or yard sticks sitting around to do another amazing study?

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion...

"the branches are just way to long and out of control"

Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds.

Oh Craig

I know your still upset over the fact that it only took me one thread instead of three to shut your challange down

Dont worry the new challange with Todd should be of interest to you as it has to do with the photographic evidence in the case

You can watch from the sidelines and cheer on the flip floping LNer while he takes a beating the likes of only Benny "Kid" Parett know about

[Craig Lamson]

I think Robin brings up a good point about Zappys camera being on zoom

But even so look at these two images

Even with Zappy being closer to the bush then Stoughton the branches are just way to long and out of control

Hey Craig do you have any trophies or yard sticks sitting around to do another amazing study?

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion...

"the branches are just way to long and out of control"

Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds.

Oh Craig

I know your still upset over the fact that it only took me one thread instead of three to shut your challange down

Dont worry the new challange with Todd should be of interest to you as it has to do with the photographic evidence in the case

You can watch from the sidelines and cheer on the flip floping LNer while he takes a beating the likes of only Benny "Kid" Parett know about

You have not posted a challenge thread yet deano just buniies in the clouds. I'm still waiting for you to do one that meets the critera set down in the orignal challenge post. You ever gonna do that?

I'm not expecting much from yet another jacko white groupie.

[Bernice Moore]

I do not know if these can help but..thought... look to the books showing the flower tributes that week-end perhaps it will show that area more clearly b..

[Todd W. Vaughan]

It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall

The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos.

Todd

It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos.

Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy

Dean

Dean,

I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom.

This isn't rocket science.

Todd

[Dean Hagerman]

I think Robin brings up a good point about Zappys camera being on zoom

But even so look at these two images

Even with Zappy being closer to the bush then Stoughton the branches are just way to long and out of control

Hey Craig do you have any trophies or yard sticks sitting around to do another amazing study?

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion...

"the branches are just way to long and out of control"

Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds.

Oh Craig

I know your still upset over the fact that it only took me one thread instead of three to shut your challange down

Dont worry the new challange with Todd should be of interest to you as it has to do with the photographic evidence in the case

You can watch from the sidelines and cheer on the flip floping LNer while he takes a beating the likes of only Benny "Kid" Parett know about

You have not posted a challenge thread yet deano just buniies in the clouds. I'm still waiting for you to do one that meets the critera set down in the orignal challenge post. You ever gonna do that?

I'm not expecting much from yet another jacko white groupie.

Its funny that you label me a Jack White groupie

I will back Jack up on the things I agree with

I like Jack and I like his work

However I have many other researchers that I agree with just as much and even more so then Jack

You could label me with Lifton, Twyman, Weisberg, Galanor, Marrs, Groden, Cutler, Trask even your good friend Tink Thompson

I agree with lots of the mentioned researchers

I also disagree with lots of the research and theories of the mentioned researchers

[Dean Hagerman]

It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall

The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos.

Todd

It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos.

Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy

Dean

Dean,

I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom.

This isn't rocket science.

Todd

I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did

I have eyes also, believe it or not

[Craig Lamson]

self delete

Edited December 1, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I think Robin brings up a good point about Zappys camera being on zoom

But even so look at these two images

Even with Zappy being closer to the bush then Stoughton the branches are just way to long and out of control

Hey Craig do you have any trophies or yard sticks sitting around to do another amazing study?

I'm sure the significance of the empirical works I present flies completely over the emptyness atop your shoulders. Again deano offers ignorance as opinion...

"the branches are just way to long and out of control"

Just what one might expect from someone who sees bunnies in the clouds.

Oh Craig

I know your still upset over the fact that it only took me one thread instead of three to shut your challange down

Dont worry the new challange with Todd should be of interest to you as it has to do with the photographic evidence in the case

You can watch from the sidelines and cheer on the flip floping LNer while he takes a beating the likes of only Benny "Kid" Parett know about

You have not posted a challenge thread yet deano just buniies in the clouds. I'm still waiting for you to do one that meets the critera set down in the orignal challenge post. You ever gonna do that?

I'm not expecting much from yet another jacko white groupie.

Its funny that you label me a Jack White groupie

I will back Jack up on the things I agree with

I like Jack and I like his work

However I have many other researchers that I agree with just as much and even more so then Jack

You could label me with Lifton, Twyman, Weisberg, Galanor, Marrs, Groden, Cutler, Trask even your good friend Tink Thompson

I agree with lots of the mentioned researchers

I also disagree with lots of the research and theories of the mentioned researchers

Spining again I see deano. You are just another jacko white photo hack groupie....dime a dozen

[Craig Lamson]

It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall

The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos.

Todd

It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos.

Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy

Dean

Dean,

I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom.

This isn't rocket science.

Todd

The focal lenght of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the branch in comparison to the background. It's the camera to subject distance that matters.

Take the same photo from the same distance with a wide and tele photo lens and the size of the branch in relation to the background will remain the same. only the angle of view changes.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall

The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos.

Todd

It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos.

Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy

Dean

Dean,

I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom.

This isn't rocket science.

Todd

The focal lenght of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the branch in comparison to the background. It's the camera to subject distance that matters.

Take the same photo from the same distance with a wide and tele photo lens and the size of the branch in relation to the background will remain the same. only the angle of view changes.

Agreed (I don't think i said or implied otherwise)

But zoom does make the camera to subject (in this case the branches) distance appear less, and thus closer (and larger) in the foreground, correct?

[Jack White]

I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.

I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs

with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both

Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF

THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches

except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall

The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos.

Todd

It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos.

Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy

Dean

Dean,

I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom.

This isn't rocket science.

Todd

I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did

I have eyes also, believe it or not

Despite your poorly worded sentence I made no claims about the length of the branches.

So, how exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length?

[Craig Lamson]

It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tall

The branches we see in Zapruder seem completely compatable with those that we see in the photos.

Todd

It would be even more interesting to know how you determined that the branches in Zappy seem COMPLETLY COMPATABLE with those that we see in the photos.

Please dont post your Stoughton red dot picture as proof because that shows nothing close to the out of control branches shown in Zappy

Dean

Dean,

I determine this because I have eyes and I can see that the branches that are sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray, etc. would be in Zapruder's field of view as he panned over the top of the bush and would match what we see in Zaprduer, especially since Zapruder was using zoom.

This isn't rocket science.

Todd

The focal lenght of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the branch in comparison to the background. It's the camera to subject distance that matters.

Take the same photo from the same distance with a wide and tele photo lens and the size of the branch in relation to the background will remain the same. only the angle of view changes.

Agreed (I don't think i said or implied otherwise)

But zoom does make the camera to subject (in this case the branches) distance appear less, and thus closer (and larger) in the foreground, correct?

No, not really. They will retain the exact same perspective regardless of the lens used as long as the camera to subject distance stays the same. Its simple to test if you have a camera with a zoom lens. The same exact thing can be seen by just cropping a wide anle lens shot.