Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tallThe 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? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Perhaps you missed my answer, go back and read through the posts You did however miss my question to you Why would you try sending me out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures? Dean, No, you absolutely did not answer my question. What I want to know is HOW did you QUANTIFY your 1 foot measurement? In other words, how did you measure the branches in Zapruder to determine that they were sticking up 1 foot (12 inches)? Craig Lamson has asked you the same thing and you haven’t responded to him either. As for your question regarding my supposed “sending (you) out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures”, no, I did not miss that, and I’ll be dealing with that later on today. Be patient, Dean, "photographic beat downs" as you like to call them sometimes take time. Todd How many times do I have to answer the same question? If you cant find my answer then I have serious doubts about your eyesight And I think you know that 3 of the first 4 Murrary pictures were overexposed, so having me look at Murray 2-4 (3 of his first 4 pictures) sounds pretty odd I await your photographic beatdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 And I never said the branches were sticking out one foot I said a foot or more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 Altgens disavowed taking TWO of the photos attributed to him. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4? Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Jerry Nice blow up That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small I still think the bush in Zapruder is way more unruly Dean Dean, It seems likely to me that the trimmed appearance of the firethorn in some photos is the result of resolution and contrast differences from camera to camera. Consider the Secret Service reconstruction photos of 11/27/63. The first shows what appears to be a neatly trimmed bush. Closer photos show the Firethorn is untrimmed and "unruly". Also note that the reconstruction photos are taken less than a week after the assassination and they show the Pyracantha in the same condition as Zapruder. The bush had to do a lot of growing in 5 days to get to the state shown in the reconstruction photos if it was neatly trimmed on the 22nd. Best regards, Jerry Edited December 2, 2009 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Altgens disavowed taking TWO of the photos attributed to him.Jack Watch out, Duncan now claims what I posted "was disinformation" Come on Duncan, why dont you prove me right and tell us all what Muchmore said also...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) It would be interesting to know exactly how you determined that the branches in Zapruder are more than 12 inches tallThe 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? Dean, Perhaps you missed my question. How exactly did YOU determine that the branches were 12 inches or more in length? Todd Perhaps you missed my answer, go back and read through the posts You did however miss my question to you Why would you try sending me out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures? Dean, No, you absolutely did not answer my question. What I want to know is HOW did you QUANTIFY your 1 foot measurement? In other words, how did you measure the branches in Zapruder to determine that they were sticking up 1 foot (12 inches)? Craig Lamson has asked you the same thing and you haven’t responded to him either. As for your question regarding my supposed “sending (you) out to look at worthless overexposed Murray pictures”, no, I did not miss that, and I’ll be dealing with that later on today. Be patient, Dean, "photographic beat downs" as you like to call them sometimes take time. Todd How many times do I have to answer the same question? If you cant find my answer then I have serious doubts about your eyesight And I think you know that 3 of the first 4 Murrary pictures were overexposed, so having me look at Murray 2-4 (3 of his first 4 pictures) sounds pretty odd I await your photographic beatdown Dean, The only thing you have said is that you made your determiniation "because you have eyes". Given my question, that reply is utterly ridiculous - it in no way explains how you QUANTIFIED your claim that the branches were sticking up "more than 1 foot". Is this the best you can do? Todd P.S. As I've already said, I will address the Murray 2-4 issue later today. Edited December 2, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 And I never said the branches were sticking out one foot I said a foot or more Dean, I know. I was being kind. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 More. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 All, Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963. Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder. The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder. Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size. I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly. I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Hmm, what's your source for Murray 2-4? Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, What is it about this POP photo that makes you think the bush was trimmed? Best regards, Jerry Jerry Nice blow up That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small I still think the bush in Zapruder is way more unruly Dean Dean, It seems likely to me that the trimmed appearance of the firethorn in some photos is the result of resolution and contrast differences from camera to camera. Consider the Secret Service reconstruction photos of 11/27/63. The first shows what appears to be a neatly trimmed bush. Closer photos show the Firethorn is untrimmed and "unruly". Also note that the reconstruction photos are taken less than a week after the assassination and they show the Pyracantha in the same condition as Zapruder. The bush had to do a lot of growing in 5 days to get to the state shown in the reconstruction photos if it was neatly trimmed on the 22nd. Best regards, Jerry Very nice, jerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 All, Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963. Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder. The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder. Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size. I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly. I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used. Todd Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 All, Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963. Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder. The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder. Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size. I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly. I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used. Todd Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Altgens disavowed taking TWO of the photos attributed to him.Jack Watch out, Duncan now claims what I posted "was disinformation" Come on Duncan, why dont you prove me right and tell us all what Muchmore said also...... What you are posting IS disinformation. Altgens did NOT say that he didn't take the photograph, or as Jack now claims 2 photographs. If either of you can provide proof of this i'll eat my words and apologise, but I won't hold my breath waiting. As for the rest of this thread, i'm not really interested as it's completely bonkers based on poor photo analysis of the branches, and an assumption that the Zapruder film was altered, with no proof of such after 46 years. I'm surprised it's getting so much attention. I only butted in to point out your error. In the meantime i'll exit this thread until proof of Altgens saying that he did not take the photographs is provided. You and Jack obviously have this proof or you wouldn't be announcing such a claim...Right? Duncan Duncan im sure you own "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask? I hope you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 All, Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963. Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder. The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder. Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size. I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly. I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used. Todd Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) All, Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963. Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder. The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder. Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size. I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly. I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used. Todd Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? Dean, Everybody gets to decide what's reasonable for themselves so you're entitled to your position. However, most people don't think shrubs grow all that much in 5 days in late December. So if your objective is to convince other people as well as yourself, them you need to offer some explanation for the transformation of the pyracantha from trimmed and neat on the 22nd to what matches Zapruder on the 27th. Right now we can believe one of two things. 1) The bush underwent a spurt of growth in 5 days that just happens to match Zapruder on the 22nd, or 2) the firethorn appears trimmed from a distance but a closer look like Altgens, Murray, or the reconstruction shows that it's ragged just like in Zapruder. We see exactly this in the reconstruction, where the bush looks trimmed at a distance but not up close. As I wrote, you're entitled to believe 1, but I think must people would lean toward 2 unless you can explain the reconstruction photos. Best regards, Jerry Edited December 2, 2009 by Jerry Logan 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