What is this in Z frames?

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Bill

Nice to meet you

I have enjoyed your posts and research for years

I hope you read this whole thread, because I have cross referenced every picture (that I own or have acsess to) taken on 11/22/63 and many pictures after 11/22/63

Murrary 2-4 ( for Todd) is the best picture to discredit my theory, but it shows the bush as having some minor untrimmed branches, not at all close to the Empire State Building type branches sticking up in Zapruder.

I look forward to some nice civil calm debates with you Bill, and just to plant a seed I am an alterationist, but from what posts I have read of yours we agree on most theories.

Hope to hear from you soon

Dean

Edited December 5, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

jumping onto the alteration band wagon

Bill

Just for your info I have been on the "alteration band wagon" since 1997 when I read Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason for the first time

Dean

[Bill Miller]

I hope you read this whole thread, because I have cross referenced every picture (that I own or have acsess to) taken on 11/22/63 and many pictures after 11/22/63

Dean

Dean ... I stopped reading this thread soon after I read your response in post #3 where you were agreeing 100% with Jack who if I recall correctly ... he was looking at a Zframe so dark that he didn't notice that the branch he was referring to was coming from the tree above and not the pyracantha bush. I have seen these arguments before and if a forum search was conducted here or at Lancer you would probably find the views that I used so many years ago that show the bush to be the same as the other pics taken on 11/22/63.

My findings were that poor resolution photos from different angles would clump the foliage together which masked the single protruding branches when seen from another angle. This would cause the bush to look smooth around the edges. This sort of thing can be tested with any bush of similarity by merely walking around it and taking test shots from different angles. Why do you think people are so picky when looking for a X-mas tree for the holidays. Everyone wants a nice uniform tree, but usually must settle for one that has gaps and flaws in it. We turn it a certain way and it looks to have a nice shape, but when seen from another angle that nice uniform shape is gone and the tree branches don't look so even.

I hope you can find the study I posted so long ago and you'll see that what I say is true. Until then, enjoy the feeling of thinking you have seen proof of alteration. It simply isn't worth the time to explain it all over again ... thats the job of the archived post.

Happy you have enjoyed my past postings. I always tried to be exact and descriptive in what I was talking about concerning the assassination images and the first step to my doing this was to not use darkened images. If you are truly familiar with my work, then you'll know to take a closer look at what I have said in your search for the truth.

Bill Miller

Edited December 5, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Kathleen Collins]

From Zavada:

When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to

express my personal views. Simply stated "There is no detectable

evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-camera original"

and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto."

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all

the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium,

manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image

characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type,

perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting

characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO

evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge

effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.

=Len Colbyhttp://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf

Anyone interested should read the whole report, it's 6yearsandthere'sbeen no meaningful reply from the alterationist cult

His conclusion that what the alterationists propose was technically impossible was backed by Oliver Stone, Robert Groden and Raymond Fielding. The latter literally ‘wrote the book’ on Special Effects Cinema-photography and previously had been repeatedly cited by David Healy.

I was reading through this thread. I wonder if anyone mentioned the "pin-cushion" effect of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was inserted in the Zap film to hide a frontal shot at Kennedy. A short time later that sign disappeared forever.

The film was developed by a big time photo outfit. Probably the most important homemade film ever in history. Why was the lab so incompetent with this Zapruder film? No turn onto Elm St. There's an obvious splice as the limo suddenly does appear on Elm St. This makes for an alteration in the Zapruder film in my opinion.

Also the Altgen's photos. He must have been pretty fast on his feet if he could photograph the limo on Houston St., then be on time to photograph Kennedy on Elm St. from in front of the limo. His photo showed President Kennedy in obvious distress as he clutched his tie knot and an Oswald lookalike stood in the TSBD doorway. (We can exclude Billy Lovelady in t-shirt and dark jacket, as Lovelady wore a plaid shirt.)

Kathy C

[Dean Hagerman]

I hope you read this whole thread, because I have cross referenced every picture (that I own or have acsess to) taken on 11/22/63 and many pictures after 11/22/63

Dean

Dean ... I stopped reading this thread soon after I read your response in post #3 where you were agreeing 100% with Jack who if I recall correctly ... he was looking at a Zframe so dark that he didn't notice that the branch he was referring to was coming from the tree above and not the pyracantha bush. I have seen these arguments before and if a forum search was conducted here or at Lancer you would probably find the views that I used so many years ago that show the bush to be the same as the other pics taken on 11/22/63.

My findings were that poor resolution photos from different angles would clump the foliage together which masked the single protruding branches when seen from another angle. This would cause the bush to look smooth around the edges. This sort of thing can be tested with any bush of similarity by merely walking around it and taking test shots from different angles. Why do you think people are so picky when looking for a X-mas tree for the holidays. Everyone wants a nice uniform tree, but usually must settle for one that has gaps and flaws in it. We turn it a certain way and it looks to have a nice shape, but when seen from another angle that nice uniform shape is gone and the tree branches don't look so even.

I hope you can find the study I posted so long ago and you'll see that what I say is true. Until then, enjoy the feeling of thinking you have seen proof of alteration. It simply isn't worth the time to explain it all over again ... thats the job of the archived post.

Happy you have enjoyed my past postings. I always tried to be exact and descriptive in what I was talking about concerning the assassination images and the first step to my doing this was to not use darkened images. If you are truly familiar with my work, then you'll know to take a closer look at what I have said in your search for the truth.

Bill Miller

Bill

I have no problem admitting that I am wrong

However the only picture I have seen that has put doubt in my mind is Murray 2-4 (Thanks Todd and Jerry)

I do see your point about the resolution of pictures such as Bronson and Bond

But my main point is that even in Murray 2-4 it does not show the drastic lenght of the untrimed branches as shown in Zapruder, and I am taking into consideration that Zappy was closer and had the zoom on, but even then the branches seem way to long

And when I agreed with Jack I was not talking about the object that was above the branches (from the overhanging tree) I was talking about the actual Pyracantha branches

Im going to search this forum for posts made by you on this subject

Do you have to be a member of Lancer to view posts on the forum?

And again im glad your back, im positive that we will have some debates, but I also look forward to your views and research

Thanks Bill

Dean

[Len Colby]

I was reading through this thread. I wonder if anyone mentioned the "pin-cushion" effect of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was inserted in the Zap film to hide a frontal shot at Kennedy. A short time later that sign disappeared forever.

This is one of the silliest theories put forth by the alterationists (not that it doesn't have a lot of competition)since even Costella seems to think it was "pasted in" to its original position I have no idea what it was supposed to hide.Interesting that members of the cult unquestioningly take the word of someone with no demonstrable expertise in photography, optics or any other related subject.

Test show that once again he was wrong

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/costella.html

The film was developed by a big time photo outfit. Probably the most important homemade film ever in history. Why was the lab so incompetent with this Zapruder film? No turn onto Elm St.

Perhaps because it was never filmed in the firstplace

There's an obvious splice as the limo suddenly does appear on Elm St. This makes for an alteration in the Zapruder film in my opinion.

An in camera splice, i.e.Zappy stopped filming

Also the Altgen's photos. He must have been pretty fast on his feet if he could photograph the limo on Houston St., then be on time to photograph Kennedy on Elm St. from in front of the limo. His photo showed President Kennedy in obvious distress as he clutched his tie knot and an Oswald lookalike stood in the TSBD doorway. (We can exclude Billy Lovelady in t-shirt and dark jacket, as Lovelady wore a plaid shirt.)

Can you show that the distance between the points is to far to have been traveled in the allotted time. IIRC he said something about running between photos.

[Bill Miller]

Todd

Like I said those branches are hardly untrimmed

Look at how they stick up just a tad bit above the main part of the bush

In Zapruder the branches are sticking up more then a foot

I know Zappy was closer to the bush then Stoughton, but not that much closer to cause a huge difference like we see in Zappy

Thanks for trying again, I have no problem saying im wrong if I see another picture that shows the amount and large length of untrimmed branches as Zappy shows

Dean

Dean, before you waste a lot of time arguing something that experts have checked with far superior images than that we get to see much of the time - think 'angle of perception'. In post 21, Todd was kind enough to point out many branches standing up on that pyracantha bush. So next if I understand you correctly ... your concern is that they are not standing up as far from the main cluster of foliage as seen in Zapruder's film and if that is the case, then lets go back to what I previously told you about the angle at which they are seen.

Todd's illustration shows the bush being seen from slightly below - Zapruder's view is from slightly above. Maybe thinking in a way that explains why a boat seems to sink over the horizon when sailing on the water may help. How hard can it be to test this on any untrimmed bush that one may see several times over in everyday life as they travel to and from home?

One more thing you seem to have implied in earlier post of yours pertaining to the branches and that was that they seemed to be standing straight up in Zapruder's images while not so straight in others. The best way to understand this is to lean a pole against a wall and walk around it in a 180 degree arch. At some point the leaning pole will appear to be standing straight and its just the angle at which it is being seen that causes this.

Good luck!

Bill Miller

Edited December 6, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Great work Jack

Again my theory that Emmit Hudson would have had the Plaza in tip top shape for JFKs visit is confirmed

Why in the world would Hudson trim the pyracantha bush AFTER the assassination instead of before?

The bush WAS trimmed before JFKs visit as shown in all the pictures except Zapruder

The branches of the pyracantha bush have been altered in Zapruder

Dean, I fail to see how praising Jack for the silly mistakes he makes will help get you nearer to the truth. I would be most curious as to know just how much thought yo have put into this ... what possible difference would it matter for someone to add a couple of branches into Zapruder's film?

Now after you have answered that question, have you bothered to look for photos taken of the flowers laid on the knoll over the weekend of the assassination to see what the pyracantha bush looked like at that time? Consider just what branches you are seeing as Zapruder was zoomed out and looking over the top of the bush at an angle down towards the fleeing limo. On page 33 of 'That Day in Dallas' is a good print of Stoughton's. Find the angle at which Zapruder was looking at the street and determine if but what some of the branches on the upper south/soutwest side of the bush are not what we see in Abe's film.

Bill Miller

Edited December 6, 2009 by Bill Miller

[Dean Hagerman]

Todd

Like I said those branches are hardly untrimmed

Look at how they stick up just a tad bit above the main part of the bush

In Zapruder the branches are sticking up more then a foot

I know Zappy was closer to the bush then Stoughton, but not that much closer to cause a huge difference like we see in Zappy

Thanks for trying again, I have no problem saying im wrong if I see another picture that shows the amount and large length of untrimmed branches as Zappy shows

Dean

Dean, before you waste a lot of time arguing something that experts have checked with far superior images than that we get to see much of the time - think 'angle of perception'. In post 21, Todd was kind enough to point out many branches standing up on that pyracantha bush. So next if I understand you correctly ... your concern is that they are not standing up as far from the main cluster of foliage as seen in Zapruder's film and if that is the case, then lets go back to what I previously told you about the angle at which they are seen.

Todd's illustration shows the bush being seen from slightly below - Zapruder's view is from slightly above. Maybe thinking in a way that explains why a boat seems to sink over the horizon when sailing on the water may help. How hard can it be to test this on any untrimmed bush that one may see several times over in everyday life as they travel to and from home?

One more thing you seem to have implied in earlier post of yours pertaining to the branches and that was that they seemed to be standing straight up in Zapruder's images while not so straight in others. The best way to understand this is to lean a pole against a wall and walk around it in a 180 degree arch. At some point the leaning pole will appear to be standing straight and its just the angle at which it is being seen that causes this.

Good luck!

Bill Miller

Bill

I have an untrimmed bush in my front yard that will work for this

I dont have time to snap a bunch of pictures right now as I have to go to work but I will take one picture to show what and how untrimmed the bush is

When I get home I will take pics from above, below, the side, every which way I can

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

A quick preview

So far my theory looks good

[Dean Hagerman]

Bill

I have an untrimmed bush in my front yard that will work for this

I dont have time to snap a bunch of pictures right now as I have to go to work but I will take one picture to show what and how untrimmed the bush is

When I get home I will take pics from above, below, the side, every which way I can

Dean

Remember that you will also need to recreate the wind conditions that were in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22nd 1963 at 12.30.

Sorry Duncan

Unless Gary Mack and the "Inside the Target Car" staff want to come out to my house and help me, then you either have to wait until Redding has those exact winds, or you can set aside the wind because IMO it makes no difference

[Dean Hagerman]

you can set aside the wind because IMO it makes no difference

Of course the wind makes a difference.

Try simulating the wind by taping some taller branch to pull them forward to the level of lower branches, then stand back at a good distance and take photographs from different angles and you'll the understand why the wind is an important factor.

Edited : Better still Dean

Watch this video and observe how taller branches fall below branches at a lower level, giving the false camera impression ( if you pause the video at specific points to show an individual frame ) that the tall branches are not as tall as the lower branches.

Duncan

I will try anything on my untrimmed bush (now that my wife sees me paying attention to it she wants it trimmed, I told her that I was not Emmit Hudson and laughed, she looked at me like I was crazy and walked off)

I will do anything anyone wants me to do

Any suggestions? Craig, Bill, Duncan, Todd?

[Craig Lamson]

you can set aside the wind because IMO it makes no difference

Of course the wind makes a difference.

Try simulating the wind by taping some taller branch to pull them forward to the level of lower branches, then stand back at a good distance and take photographs from different angles and you'll the understand why the wind is an important factor.

Edited : Better still Dean

Watch this video and observe how taller branches fall below branches at a lower level, giving the false camera impression ( if you pause the video at specific points to show an individual frame ) that the tall branches are not as tall as the lower branches.

Duncan

I will try anything on my untrimmed bush (now that my wife sees me paying attention to it she wants it trimmed, I told her that I was not Emmit Hudson and laughed, she looked at me like I was crazy and walked off)

I will do anything anyone wants me to do

Any suggestions? Craig, Bill, Duncan, Todd?

Just do the homework and show the results...

[Bill Miller]

So far my theory looks good

Dean, your theory will continue to look good if you don't pay attention to what you were told. You need to take a photo of the bush looking slightly upward at it like Murray was doing and then again looking slightly downward at the bush like Zapruder was doing ... does that not make sense to recreate each cameras angle ... it should!

Taking photos on the same plane will only get what you have so far and that is a worthless test designed to fail. Duncan has a point about the branches blowing, but its not important in this instance.

Bill Miller

[Dean Hagerman]

So far my theory looks good

Dean, your theory will continue to look good if you don't pay attention to what you were told. You need to take a photo of the bush looking slightly upward at it like Murray was doing and then again looking slightly downward at the bush like Zapruder was doing ... does that not make sense to recreate each cameras angle ... it should!

Taking photos on the same plane will only get what you have so far and that is a worthless test designed to fail. Duncan has a point about the branches blowing, but its not important in this instance.

Bill Miller

Bill

Did you miss my post right before the pictures?

I said I would snap a picture real quick to show how untrimmed the bushes are to give you guys an idea of what I was working with and to get the ok from you guys that the bush in my front yard will work

I will take the pictures tomorrow from the Zapruder and Murray angle

It is dark outside right now, so I will get all the pictures I need tomorrow

Dean