Dean Hagerman Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 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, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Thank you Jack Dean, Would you like a copy of Sprague’s May 1970 list – I think you’d find it most helpful and interesting. I've got a copy made all ready to go - all I need is your mailing address. Todd Todd That would be very kind of you, Thank you PM sent Edited December 3, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 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, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Thank you Jack Dean, Would you like a copy of Sprague’s May 1970 list – I think you’d find it most helpful and interesting. I've got a copy made all ready to go - all I need is your mailing address. Todd Todd That would be very kind of you, Thank you PM sent And received. I'll have it out in the mail today or tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) oh Len.. one would think you're trying to tear a page out of the Redd Foxx comedic amateur hour playbook.... perhaps you can explain when Roland Z. approached Professor Fielding for *a public comment* regarding film special effects why Ray Fielding turned Roland Zavada down in his newly (2006) reconstituted Zavada report (which never saw the light of day) I have no idea what you are talking about David (doubt that you do either) AFAIK Feilding never “turned Roland Zavada down” to the contrary he told me via e-mail that he fully backed Zavada’s position and gave me permission to quote him*. "btw, when was the last time I cited Ray Fielding on this forum (or any other for that matter)?" I can’t say about other forums but just on this one you cited him at least 8 times July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 going so far as to call him “the published expert”, you of course stopped citing him after he went on record (Jan.19,2006) saying what you and your buddies propose was not possible*. Here’s what you wrote Might want to check out Raymond Fielding's Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1965, plenty of footnotes and references to SMPE/SMPTE articles reviewing, defining, discussining the art of optical film effects. The book was updated again in 1985 (?) - I understand Fielding may still teaches at the University level in Florida. Roland Zavada spoke to him sometime in 2003, I believe the summer of 2003. Guess we generated enough interest in the subject to get HIS interest. - Jul 8 2004 as of this time, your a little in the wanting in my eye's - ceretainly not up to discussing the matters with those that have an interest in Z-film alteration.... there's hope yet, though -- Raymond Fielding is still teaching the artform of optical film printing somewhere in Florida - hey, you can always read the Zavada Report, great place to start.... - Jul 30 2004 How'm I doing, champ? Need a quote from; The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography -by Raymond Fielding, 1965, Lib. of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116 reprinted in 1968. Re-issued and updated, late 80's, on how you merge this film sources, optically? Some have said the guy, Fielding, still teaches in Florida, give him a call... I noticed you avoided the SMPE comments like the plague? Why is that? Why would anyone fear, the FACTS, facts about film matting techniques? - Feb 16 2005 tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing that 'someones' background? How about, get and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, he's still out there. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... - Apr 20 2005 Regarding film alteration, there was more than enough technology around to do the job? How about, pickup and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, reachout. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... - Apr 20 2005 Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title. Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's. btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too! -Dec 12 2005 irrelevant -and- irrelevant - Raymond Fielding is the published expert - evidently you CAN'T read magazines SMPE/SMPTE magazine in particular, nor the book called HOAX -OR- The art of Special Effects Cinematography -Dec 20 2005 Mr. Colby er, whomever you are.... I have no, I repeat NO intention of dangling on the end of your string If NONE of you "experts in film compositing" don't have the balls to read a few SMPE manual especially those indexed in Fielding's book. […] re your comment stating Stone was not aware of Fielding? rofl........ Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len - Dec 21 2005 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...lding&st=75 You cited him twice in your TGZFH chapter and according to you Mantik cited him at least twice as well. “You may want to read Raymond Fielding’s: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography (1965). It's not at your typical bookstore, you will probably find it at University Library’s. note: David W Mantik made reference in both his chapters in Assassination Science (1998).” [pg7] “Here’s what I would do as director, as did the actual director (this scenario came from Ray Fielding’s excellent 1965/68 book).” [pg29] http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf "Of course you can give us the cite re Oliver Stone stating it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film.... so, get the xxxxx-drones busy, I'm waiting..... (even wild bill millah can't help ya on this one)" Off course I can David - “As for observation number three, are you not aware that reporters asked Oliver Stone directly about the possibility someone had altered the Zapruder film? It happened at the National Press Club in Washington in January 1992. His speech and follow up Q&A were shown on CSPAN. Stone seemed very surprised by the question, as if it had never occurred to him before, so he conferred briefly with his research coordinator, Jane Rusconi, who was sitting off camera. Stone came back to the podium and said he would look into it. Jane later told me he thought the idea was ridiculous. If there were some alteration, either he or his excellent special effects people would have noticed it.” Gary Mack March 5, 1998 http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack2.html "...for the uninformed the below link points to the article of Len's and other naysayers Z-film obession..." Oh yes your chapter where you demonstrated that even using technology 40 years more advanced than available in 1963-4 you couldn’t make video composites that didn’t look obviously faked. * Fielding said “it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable". Edited December 3, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 oh Len.. one would think you're trying to tear a page out of the Redd Foxx comedic amateur hour playbook.... perhaps you can explain when Roland Z. approached Professor Fielding for *a public comment* regarding film special effects why Ray Fielding turned Roland Zavada down in his newly (2006) reconstituted Zavada report (which never saw the light of day) I have no idea what you are talking about David (doubt that you do either) AFAIK Feilding never “turned Roland Zavada down” to the contrary he told me via e-mail that he fully backed Zavada’s position and gave me permission to quote him*. "btw, when was the last time I cited Ray Fielding on this forum (or any other for that matter)?" I can’t say about other forums but just on this one you cited him at least 8 times July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 going so far as to call him “the published expert”, you of course stopped citing him after he went on record (Jan.19,2006) saying what you and your buddies propose was not possible*. Here’s what you wrote Might want to check out Raymond Fielding's Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1965, plenty of footnotes and references to SMPE/SMPTE articles reviewing, defining, discussining the art of optical film effects. The book was updated again in 1985 (?) - I understand Fielding may still teaches at the University level in Florida. Roland Zavada spoke to him sometime in 2003, I believe the summer of 2003. Guess we generated enough interest in the subject to get HIS interest. - Jul 8 2004 as of this time, your a little in the wanting in my eye's - ceretainly not up to discussing the matters with those that have an interest in Z-film alteration.... there's hope yet, though -- Raymond Fielding is still teaching the artform of optical film printing somewhere in Florida - hey, you can always read the Zavada Report, great place to start.... - Jul 30 2004 How'm I doing, champ? Need a quote from; The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography -by Raymond Fielding, 1965, Lib. of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116 reprinted in 1968. Re-issued and updated, late 80's, on how you merge this film sources, optically? Some have said the guy, Fielding, still teaches in Florida, give him a call... I noticed you avoided the SMPE comments like the plague? Why is that? Why would anyone fear, the FACTS, facts about film matting techniques? - Feb 16 2005 tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing that 'someones' background? How about, get and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, he's still out there. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... - Apr 20 2005 Regarding film alteration, there was more than enough technology around to do the job? How about, pickup and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, reachout. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... - Apr 20 2005 Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title. Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's. btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too! -Dec 12 2005 irrelevant -and- irrelevant - Raymond Fielding is the published expert - evidently you CAN'T read magazines SMPE/SMPTE magazine in particular, nor the book called HOAX -OR- The art of Special Effects Cinematography -Dec 20 2005 Mr. Colby er, whomever you are.... I have no, I repeat NO intention of dangling on the end of your string If NONE of you "experts in film compositing" don't have the balls to read a few SMPE manual especially those indexed in Fielding's book. […] re your comment stating Stone was not aware of Fielding? rofl........ Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len - Dec 21 2005 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...lding&st=75 You cited him twice in your TGZFH chapter and according to you Mantik cited him at least twice as well. “You may want to read Raymond Fielding’s: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography (1965). It's not at your typical bookstore, you will probably find it at University Library’s. note: David W Mantik made reference in both his chapters in Assassination Science (1998).” [pg7] “Here’s what I would do as director, as did the actual director (this scenario came from Ray Fielding’s excellent 1965/68 book).” [pg29] http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf "Of course you can give us the cite re Oliver Stone stating it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film.... so, get the xxxxx-drones busy, I'm waiting..... (even wild bill millah can't help ya on this one)" Off course I can David - “As for observation number three, are you not aware that reporters asked Oliver Stone directly about the possibility someone had altered the Zapruder film? It happened at the National Press Club in Washington in January 1992. His speech and follow up Q&A were shown on CSPAN. Stone seemed very surprised by the question, as if it had never occurred to him before, so he conferred briefly with his research coordinator, Jane Rusconi, who was sitting off camera. Stone came back to the podium and said he would look into it. Jane later told me he thought the idea was ridiculous. If there were some alteration, either he or his excellent special effects people would have noticed it.” Gary Mack March 5, 1998 http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack2.html "...for the uninformed the below link points to the article of Len's and other naysayers Z-film obession..." Oh yes your chapter where you demonstrated that even using technology 40 years more advanced than available in 1963-4 you couldn’t make video composites that didn’t look obviously faked. * Fielding said “it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable". "July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 " hmmm, was that around the time you injected yourself as the self-ordained spokesperson for Roland Zavada here on this forum? I believe Zavada told you in uncertain words to f**k off, right? You have read Harry Livingstone interview(s) with Roland Zavada, haven't you? All you really need to do is find a film special effects guru that will go "on-the-record" stating the 8mm film bumped to 35mm film (during 1964) can NOT be recut in 35mm format the dumped to 8mm utilizing 1964 techniques, manpower and equipment. .... all your past and current lone nut posturing is foolishness of course. Thanks Len. p.s. what am I talking to you for when you've displayed not one iota of competence and experience concerning the current topic? Hell, even Craigster knows what end of a camera to look through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) "July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 " hmmm, was that around the time you injected yourself as the self-ordained spokesperson for Roland Zavada here on this forum? I believe Zavada told you in uncertain words to f**k off, right? No Zavada never said anything like that to me he was always quite friendly. No wait he did tell me "in uncertain words to f**k off" but that was in your Twilight Zone version of reality, you know the same one where he never released his 2003 report, not the real world. You have read Harry Livingstone interview(s) with Roland Zavada, haven't you? Nope, but I'm sure you'd be more than willing to quote the appropriate passages. Your paraphrases from memory won't cut it. All you really need to do is find a film special effects guru that will go "on-the-record" stating the 8mm film bumped to 35mm film (during 1964) can NOT be recut in 35mm format the dumped to 8mm utilizing 1964 techniques, manpower and equipment. .... all your past and current lone nut posturing is foolishness of course. Zavada said this back in 2003 and reiterated it through 2006 when he seems to have lost interest. Not that it couldn't be done but it couldn't be done undetectably, Ray Fielding who you described as "the published expert" on compositing said the same thing in 2006 EDIT - Formatting error fixed Edited December 3, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Yes Dean, there IS a huge difference, Altgens DID take the photograph. What you posted was disinformation based on a misquote. I'm sure it's not disinformation, at least on Dean's part. It's MISinformation (if it is that -- misinformation). Nothing deliberate on Dean's part one way or the other. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Yes Dean, there IS a huge difference, Altgens DID take the photograph. What you posted was disinformation based on a misquote. I'm sure it's not disinformation, at least on Dean's part. It's MISinformation (if it is that -- misinformation). Nothing deliberate on Dean's part one way or the other. Kathy C HEAR HEAR KATHY WELL SAID..I AGREE...THOUGHT CAN ANYONE PROVE ALTGENS DID TAKE #8//WHERE HE STATED SUCH AND OR ANY INFO ON WHEN HE DENIED DOING SO..?? B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Might want to check the branch height in relation to the sign/post in each photo and figure out where the tallest part of the bush actually is.chris Do the words perspective, parallax and camera height mean anything to you? Inquiring minds really want to knpw.... Craig, Sure they do. Here's a little of all 3. I thought these were both taken from the same pedestal. Now, how much farther to the left does Zapruder have to move? Remember they're on that huge pedestal. How much taller is the SS cameraman? Remember, we're talking about human's. Is that Hudson we are still seeing over the wall. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Yes Dean, there IS a huge difference, Altgens DID take the photograph. What you posted was disinformation based on a misquote. I'm sure it's not disinformation, at least on Dean's part. It's MISinformation (if it is that -- misinformation). Nothing deliberate on Dean's part one way or the other. Kathy C HEAR HEAR KATHY WELL SAID..I AGREE...THOUGHT CAN ANYONE PROVE ALTGENS DID TAKE #8//WHERE HE STATED SUCH AND OR ANY INFO ON WHEN HE DENIED DOING SO..?? B Credit: John Woods. Altgens Contact Sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I'm sure it's not disinformation, at least on Dean's part. It's MISinformation (if it is that -- misinformation). Nothing deliberate on Dean's part one way or the other.Kathy C HEAR HEAR KATHY WELL SAID..I AGREE...THOUGHT CAN ANYONE PROVE ALTGENS DID TAKE #8//WHERE HE STATED SUCH AND OR ANY INFO ON WHEN HE DENIED DOING SO..?? B Thank you ladies And Bernice I agree 100% How can anyone prove Altgens took Altgens8? And in reading POTP today I came across the part I was looking for for Jack and Duncan On page 318 and 319 "In later years Altgens became unsure about the number of photos he took that day of the assassination, and has been reluctant to ackowledge authorship of all seven since he is very adamant about not wanting to take credit for someone elses work. In discussions with him, it is evident that he is sure or reasonably sure that he took FIVE of the photos" Duncan I think you owe Jack and I an apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 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 Here is what Duncan said to Jack and I I posted this quote so everyone would know what im talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 How can anyone prove Altgens took Altgens8? And in reading POTP today I came across the part I was looking for for Jack and Duncan On page 318 and 319 "In later years Altgens became unsure about the number of photos he took that day of the assassination, and has been reluctant to ackowledge authorship of all seven since he is very adamant about not wanting to take credit for someone elses work. In discussions with him, it is evident that he is sure or reasonably sure that he took FIVE of the photos" Duncan I think you owe Jack and I an apology Dean your wrote: "So who do you think took "Altgens"8 ? James Altgens himself said he didnt take that picture" To which Duncan replied: "Dean, you are wrong. Altgens did NOT say that he didn't take the photograph, he said that he couldn't remember taking the photograph." And you just proved him right, so why does he owe you an apology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Might want to check the branch height in relation to the sign/post in each photo and figure out where the tallest part of the bush actually is.chris Do the words perspective, parallax and camera height mean anything to you? Inquiring minds really want to knpw.... Craig, Sure they do. Here's a little of all 3. I thought these were both taken from the same pedestal. Now, how much farther to the left does Zapruder have to move? Remember they're on that huge pedestal. How much taller is the SS cameraman? Remember, we're talking about human's. Is that Hudson we are still seeing over the wall. chris And all of this has exactly what to do with this statement? "Might want to check the branch height in relation to the sign/post in each photo and figure out where the tallest part of the bush actually is." Oh yea NOTHING, aside from the obvious fact that you can't do what you first suggested because of parallax, perspective and camera height. Gotta remember this is super photo sleuth Davidson we are talking about. Why don't you check with the midget shadow boy, maybe he can help you. Edited December 4, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) "sure or not sure" Duncan Its not "sure or not sure" Its "sure or reasonably sure" Reasonably and Not are not the same word I await your apology Thank you ahead of time for correcting your mistake (notice I say mistake and not disinformation, you see I dont throw that term around lightly because I would not want to discredit someone because they made a mistake in what they wrote, or they wrote what they remember or whet they believe) Dean Edited December 4, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 How can anyone prove Altgens took Altgens8? And in reading POTP today I came across the part I was looking for for Jack and Duncan On page 318 and 319 "In later years Altgens became unsure about the number of photos he took that day of the assassination, and has been reluctant to ackowledge authorship of all seven since he is very adamant about not wanting to take credit for someone elses work. In discussions with him, it is evident that he is sure or reasonably sure that he took FIVE of the photos" Duncan I think you owe Jack and I an apology Dean your wrote: "So who do you think took "Altgens"8 ? James Altgens himself said he didnt take that picture" To which Duncan replied: "Dean, you are wrong. Altgens did NOT say that he didn't take the photograph, he said that he couldn't remember taking the photograph." And you just proved him right, so why does he owe you an apology? Did you forget to read the passage I quoted in POTP? Go read it yourself, page 318 and 319 He never said he didnt remember taking the photograph Read this "In discussions with him, it is evident that he is sure or reasonably sure that he took FIVE of the photos" How does he is sure or reasonably sure turn into the he didnt remember that Duncan somehow came up with? Also Duncan said that it was a misquote, how is it a misquote when it is Altgens good friend Trask (A LNer) who wrote this passage? 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