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 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. Craig, Once again, how much farther to the left on the pedestal was Zapruder than the SS cameraman? Where does the initial branches of the bush show up in each. The sewer may help you. Where is the bush at it's highest points? How wide was the pedestal again, here's a little refresher for you. chris 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. Craig, Once again, how much farther to the left on the pedestal was Zapruder than the SS cameraman? Where does the initial branches of the bush show up in each. The sewer may help you. Where is the bush at it's highest points? How wide was the pedestal again, here's a little refresher for you. chris Sheesh Davidson, is this all over your little head? Have you even looked at a plat and done a simple los. Where was the ss camera? LOS says at the back of ped, using the farthest lampost and the corner of the wall. Do you understand the principle of the lever...right? Nothing to see here , moving right along. As for the bush, your camparison is screwed by PERSPECTIVE, PARALLAX AND CAMERA HEIGHT. YOU need a nww hobby, you suck at this one. 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 "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 Hell will freeze ove first Dean. Sure or reasonably sure = an element of doubt = not sure in anyone's language. Duncan Not sure what language your talking about (I assume english) Have you ever heard the term Reasonable Doubt used in court cases? I think its getting cold in hell, or at least getting close to 32 degrees Let me know when it gets to that temp so I know when to expect your apology Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan 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 Hello Chris, Height, up/down looks all right to me - check the No Standing sign vs. the curb. Left/right would be easier if you used the zoomed reconstruction film for your comparison. Is there any reason you're using the version that wasn't set at or near Zapruder's zoom selection? Best to you, Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I knew Jim Altgens. The Sixth Floor Museum has his camera. Jim turned all of his negatives over to his employer, the Associated Press, on the day of the assassination. They AP still has them and contact sheets have been supplied to investigators. Notice that the original strip of negatives had been cut into several sections. Altgens 8 came from the same roll as all the other images, but since Altgens hadn't seen the originals, and since only three had been published at the time, he wasn't at all clear about which photos he did and did not take. After all, he was not the only press photographer taking pictures in the Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. That explains why he wouldn't say definitively which ones, other than the ones that were published, were his. Gary Mack Duncan What does Gary Macks opinion have to do with you admitting that your wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I knew Jim Altgens. The Sixth Floor Museum has his camera. Jim turned all of his negatives over to his employer, the Associated Press, on the day of the assassination. They AP still has them and contact sheets have been supplied to investigators. Notice that the original strip of negatives had been cut into several sections. Altgens 8 came from the same roll as all the other images, but since Altgens hadn't seen the originals, and since only three had been published at the time, he wasn't at all clear about which photos he did and did not take. After all, he was not the only press photographer taking pictures in the Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. That explains why he wouldn't say definitively which ones, other than the ones that were published, were his. Gary Mack Duncan What does Gary Macks opinion have to do with you admitting that your wrong? Dean, It has nothing to do with me admitting that I was wrong, because i'm not wrong. Duncan and I have agreed to disagree I do not believe Duncan is wrong However due to my alteration stance I look at these statements very closely as they hold alot of weight in reference to my theories I look at what Altgens said about his pictures the same way I look at what Muchmore said about filming on Elm St or what Nix said about frames missing from his film after he got it back from the Government. I do not believe I am wrong either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 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 Hello Chris, Height, up/down looks all right to me - check the No Standing sign vs. the curb. Left/right would be easier if you used the zoomed reconstruction film for your comparison. Is there any reason you're using the version that wasn't set at or near Zapruder's zoom selection? Best to you, Jerry Jerry, I'm just using what was supplied. If you have a frame which is closer in size, please post it and I'll create another comparison. thanks, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 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 Hello Chris, Height, up/down looks all right to me - check the No Standing sign vs. the curb. Left/right would be easier if you used the zoomed reconstruction film for your comparison. Is there any reason you're using the version that wasn't set at or near Zapruder's zoom selection? Best to you, Jerry Jerry, I'm just using what was supplied. If you have a frame which is closer in size, please post it and I'll create another comparison. thanks, chris A comparison of what? Your last was a failure, you think doing the wrong thing twice wil somehow change the result? Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 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 Hello Chris, Height, up/down looks all right to me - check the No Standing sign vs. the curb. Left/right would be easier if you used the zoomed reconstruction film for your comparison. Is there any reason you're using the version that wasn't set at or near Zapruder's zoom selection? Best to you, Jerry The height is different between the two images, 6" to a foot max. A 6 inch move of the camera will result in a very small move between the sign and the curb, too small to see in that image. Lever principle, use the sign as the fulcrum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 THERE MAY BE SOME INFORMATION WITHIN THIS THAT MAY AID RE THE SIGNS HUDSON AND RECREATION..??.B The Dealey Plaza Signs : Emmett E Hudson "Whitewash ....The Report on the Warren Commission".1965.......page 44.. Harold Weisberg. ""Six months and a day following the assassination.( May.23/64 ) the Warren Commission had the FBI photographic agent, Lyndal L.Shaneyfelt ( 5 H 138 ) do a photographic re-enactment. The report indicates no reason for such a prolonged delay. The Secret Service had completed it's re-enactment by Dec. 5. 1963. It is difficult to imagine that the Commission could have loaded Mr.Shaneyfelt with more invalidating conditions.. His re-enactment could only serve one purpose...to try and make credible a reconstruction under which the Commission's thesis, that all the shots came from the sixth floor window, might be possible..In fact, he attempted nothing else…..In order to accomplish this, he had to show that no shot was fired before the frame numbered 210 on the Zapruder film.. To begin with, Shaneyfelt had to work with a black-and-white copy of the original Zapruder colour film. Necessarily, the copies were less clear. Then the reenactments began at 6 am as a concession to traffic. Between the time of the year and the time of the day differences between the mock-up and the real thing, al the values of shadows in photographic intelligence were forfeited, For the precise placing of the camera, mounted on the rifle, and other measuring devices Shaneyfelt had the information supplied by the Commission. He was working in fractions of degrees, yet he had to bade everything on "information furnished us by the Commission, photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the assassination....." 5H145....... ..see Tom Alyea..Information.) Snip: None of the photos of such are or were in agreement with each other nor the facts, as the testimony also shows...."which none of them at the moment of the assassination showed, this was an immediate and total disqualification of anything he might try... No matter how fine and expert Shaneyfelt, no matter how excellent his equipment or how careful his associates, his testimony and reconstruction could have no validity".. “For example, Example Exhibit 887 ( R99) is a camera mounted atop the rifle pointing westward from the sixth-floor window. The window is raised several inches higher than it was shown in the Dillard photograph. Of necessity the rife is mounted on a photographic tripod. But there can be only one necessity for fudging on the window--- to make the whole reconstruction possible where otherwise it would not have been. The tripod is adjustable. The rifle is inside the window. With such an obvious flaw, the exhibit is invalid as is any testimony based on it..Another photograph of the re-enactment printed on page 41 of Life Magazine for Oct. 2,1964, shows that part of the reconstruction was made with the window entirely open...This picture shows the ballistic expert resting his arm on a box incorrectly positioned . It is much too far to the west.... Worse, the rifle is without it's telescopic sight. Can any testimony based upon this reconstruction have any value ?" Snip...page 45... "" In addition, the experts “duplicated certain frames of the Zapruder film" and of two others available to the Commission. These appear in the Report on pages 100-8 and are readily available for inspection. Not a single on can be called a duplication, as the most superficial inspection, even without instruments, will show. The angles are grossly different. The elevations are radically wrong. Even the backgrounds are not the same. One of the best examples is the critically important frame 210 (R102) . These are printed side by side and it will be no problem for any doubting reader to satisfy himself. This particular illustration is also proof of another inexcusable fault: The landscaping in the background has been altered..... Valuable intelligence was thus lost........ In other cases trees which served the same purpose were removed and even the vital signs that figure in all of this identification and testimony were both moved and removed..It is no longer possible to make the most precise photographic reconstruction of the assassination because of this destruction and mutilation of evidence.........."' Continued.. "Whitewash 11..The Report on the Warren Commission"........Harold Weisberg 1966.. Page 4...... "The Commission staff was not unaware of this, for although there is no indication it ever heeded it's own unavoidable proof or wondered why anyone would dream of destroying evidence in the assassination of an American President, the whole story was blurted out by Emmett E.Hudson, ( witness to the killing )groundskeeper of Dealey Plaza, in his belated testimony of July 22,1964, almost two months after the Commission had originally scheduled the end of it's work..( first mentioned page 45..WhiteWash.) . Not only were the hedges and shrubbery trimmed, thus destroying all the projection points essential to photographic analysis, but all the road signs absolutely vital in any reconstruction had been moved-------All Three Of Them--------Zapruder had filmed over the top of the center sign ( Stemmons) ..Two of the signs were entirely removed. The one over which Zapruder filmed was replaced, and there is no reason to believe it's replacement is in exactly the same location in the ground or at exactly the same height above it. Unless both of these conditions, plus the angle of the sign toward Zapruder's lens , were exactly identical with conditions when he took his pictures, no precise reconstruction is possible.. All this funny business with the signs got on the record by accident, not through the dilligence of the Commission or it's counsel. Wesley J.Liebeler was questioning Hudson. Not until eight months to the day after the assassination, but finally Hudson was being questioned. He volunteered this testimony: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign ".....It was this "Stemmons" sign over which Zapruder photographed. "They have? They have moved it?" Liebeler asked, his cool nonchalance preserved in cood type. "Yes, sir." replied Hudson. "That might explain it", Liebeler then said. at the same time, without even seeming so to intend, preserving for both the Commission and history the certain knowledge that the two photographs about which he was interrogating Hudson, one taken at the time of the assassination and the other after it, were not in agreement. ....And here the accidental interest of the Commission in the destruction and mutilation of the most essential evidence ended".................. Page 130: "When Hudson reaffirmed his testimony ( and the landscaping also was altered, with the destruction of essential photo-intelligence and analysis reference points in the backgrounds of the pictures)..., the complacent assistant counsel replied, ""That might explain it, because this picture here, No 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time----No. 1.."" The "after" refers to the official reconstruction of the crime!.....Hudson's unanticipated blurting out of what is obvious from the most cursory examination of the photographs evidence marks the beginning and the end of the Commission's interest." *--------*-------*--------*-------* Here is some info from Jack ..... ""in the sixties all such highway signs were 3/4 inch marine plywood, not aluminum like today. In fact, some of the very old plywood signs are still in use in a few places where they have not needed updating. One thing very odd about the Stemmons sign is that it has NO ANGLE IRON BRACING on the back. Back in the 80s I checked a lot of the plywood signs, and virtually all I could find had angle iron braces, especially if larger than four feet by eight feet, because any splices had to be braced. I have never been able to get exact dimensions anywhere on the size of the Stemmons sign. Does anyone know?"" Jack ""the sign was 4-feet X 8-feet"", ........I have read on the web.....? Current Section: Exhibit CE 875 shown to Emmett Hudson.. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=139712 Mr. LIEBELER - There are two signs in picture No. 18, one says, "R.L. Thornton Freeway, keep right." and the other one says, "Fort worth Turnpike, keep right." Mr. HUDSON - There were two of them that wasn't too far apart right through here - them signs was - one was right along in here and the other one was either further up, I guess. It's not in that picture - I don't believe. Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign. Mr. LIEBELER - They have? They have moved it? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - That might explain it, because this picture here, No. 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time - No. 1. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hudson.htm Below, Emmett Hudson, in Muchmore…frame….White Hat on the middle left on steps and then sitting on the ground after the assassination… WC recreation photos…shown to Hudson….Signs.. Hudson.an..in.Muchmoore.. The Dillard photo….re the Alyea…information. Hits to Dealey.... How many shots could there have been ? The SS called them a “flurry “ of shots..that came into the limo.. Roy H. Kellerman- Possible hits and misses… A hit to Elm street behind the motorcade, sounded like a backfire..fireworks.... A hit to the south side sewer cover..DSD Eddie (Buddy).Walthers…..DMD Ed Brewer.. Two furrows in the grass south side, across from fence.. Edna & Wayne Hartman A hit to the north sidewalk..Aldredge, .reported to FBI….DMNews Carl Freund ..photo.. Not mentioned in WR.. A hit to the curb south side, Tague hit. A hit to the Stemmons Freeway sign ..no reports rumours.. A last missed shot , after President hit…… Royce G.Skelton, puff of concrete off right fender also DSD Eddie (Buddy) Walthers.. Possibly Tague hit…hit pavement in the left or middle lane..concrete knocked to the south away from the car… Mrs. Caroline Walther..and possibly more shots,,..not called by W/C..name not within.. but statement made available….WC Vol 24 Hit to the President entrance front neck.. Hit to the President’s back. Hit to the President front temple Hit to the President left temple Hit to John Connally in his right side back. Hit to John Connally to the wrist. Hit frontal…to the X100 windshield.,,could be neck entrance shot. Hit to limo dash board.. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From the Warren Commission section 9...Paragraph H.. Summary and Conclusions.. “”(h) After careful investigation the Commission has found no credible evidence either that Ruby and Officer Tippit, who was killed by Oswald, knew each other or that Oswald and Tippit knew each other. Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission. “” Had they not possibly known there was, or been so positive that there had not been a conspiracy……They would not have had any reason to have made the above statement, and in some way left it open ended.. in the first place….. This was admitting to such, some would say…. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page22.php “Pictures don’t lie, unless they are made to “.. Harold Weisberg….. Page 1,,”Whitewash 2 “ ***************************************** B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 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 Hello Chris, Height, up/down looks all right to me - check the No Standing sign vs. the curb. Left/right would be easier if you used the zoomed reconstruction film for your comparison. Is there any reason you're using the version that wasn't set at or near Zapruder's zoom selection? Best to you, Jerry Jerry, I'm just using what was supplied. If you have a frame which is closer in size, please post it and I'll create another comparison. thanks, chris Chris, I didn't realize you don't have the full reconstruction film. You can get it on DVD from Amazon for $10. I'd love to see what you could do with it. I've attached a single frame from the more zoomed version, compare the visible branch structure to Z400 - it looks like the same branches to me, but the camera is obviously in a different location. Best regards, Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Great stuff as always Bernice Thank you Oh and this may be my favorite quote “Pictures don’t lie, unless they are made to “.. Harold Weisberg….. Page 1,,”Whitewash 2 “ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Great stuff as always BerniceThank you Oh and this may be my favorite quote “Pictures don’t lie, unless they are made to “.. Harold Weisberg….. Page 1,,”Whitewash 2 “ DEAN HERE IS SOME INFORMATION RE THE W/C FINDNGS TC FROM GERALD MCKNIGHT'S VERY GOOD BOOK I BElIEVE MAY INTEREST YOU AND OR FIT IN SOMEWHERE...TAKE CARE...B Edited December 5, 2009 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 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 Hello Chris, Height, up/down looks all right to me - check the No Standing sign vs. the curb. Left/right would be easier if you used the zoomed reconstruction film for your comparison. Is there any reason you're using the version that wasn't set at or near Zapruder's zoom selection? Best to you, Jerry Jerry, I'm just using what was supplied. If you have a frame which is closer in size, please post it and I'll create another comparison. thanks, chris Chris, I didn't realize you don't have the full reconstruction film. You can get it on DVD from Amazon for $10. I'd love to see what you could do with it. I've attached a single frame from the more zoomed version, compare the visible branch structure to Z400 - it looks like the same branches to me, but the camera is obviously in a different location. Best regards, Jerry Thanks Jerry, I do have the reconstruction film, but it's a Utube copy and the quality was lacking. The new frame you provided was very helpful. Here is the branch match on the left, with a little photo alignment on the right. This clears it up. I was wrong again. Much appreciated, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Dean,I suggest you look at some of the photos with better resolution, such as Altgens 8, the Color Rickerby slide, Stoughton, and Murray. You'll find plenty of "out of control" branches sticking up from the top of the bush that could have most certainly appeared in Zapruder's film. Todd No kidding, Todd ... I guess some things never change with some of these people. They sit back and take the poorest images possible and make nutty claims without so much as cross-referencing other images that are of better resolution and viewed from different angles before jumping onto the alteration band wagon. I mean my God ... Bronson's photo is of such poor resolution that you cannot make out who's who inside the limo and these guys are talking branch formations on shrubs and foot placements when one cannot tell where something starts and another begins. And to think I was wondering if the level of discussion may have improved after all this time away from here. Is there by chance a thread somewhere on the conspiracy to use the poorest images possible so to make stupid unfounded claims ... if not there should be! Bill Miller 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