Craig Lamson Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack Has it crossed your mind that the bush might have been trimmed between photos? Oh wait. I forgot who I was talking to...never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 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 The focal lenght of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the branch in comparison to the background. It's the camera to subject distance that matters. Take the same photo from the same distance with a wide and tele photo lens and the size of the branch in relation to the background will remain the same. only the angle of view changes. Agreed (I don't think i said or implied otherwise) But zoom does make the camera to subject (in this case the branches) distance appear less, and thus closer (and larger) in the foreground, correct? No, not really. They will retain the exact same perspective regardless of the lens used as long as the camera to subject distance stays the same. Its simple to test if you have a camera with a zoom lens. The same exact thing can be seen by just cropping a wide anle lens shot. Yes, I know they will retain the same perspective no matter lens, zoom, etc. But all I am saying is that using the zoom will make the images, all of them, appear closer in the viewfinder and on the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Edited December 1, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) I knew Bush was there! Edited December 1, 2009 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack 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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Do you have any idea what 1 foot looks like sticking up from a bush from 10 feet, the approx. distance from Zapruder to the bush or are you just making things up as you go? Why not illustrate your statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan 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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, Yes, poorly worded, because your line above "I determined the branches were about a foot long or more the same way that you did" reads as if I also determined the branches were about a foot long, when in fact I did not. What I said was that the branches were "sticking up in Stoughton, Rickerby, Murray” What you said was that you "determined the branches were about a foot long" What I'm asking you 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)? Get it? Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan 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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack 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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Trolling? Coming from Tinks head xxxxx that is pretty funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan 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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No Are you sure you're looking at Murray 2-4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack 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 Are you nuts or are you just trolling? They altered the branches????? Man, you are a trip deano. Have you considered that they might have wanted a clearer view for the investigation and might have trimmed the bush back even further? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to...lordy lordy, deano believes! Your logic or lack thereof is amazing. Trolling? Coming from Tinks head xxxxx that is pretty funny Ok then we now know you are just plain nuts. I finally figured you out. You reminded me of someone but I just could not put my finger on it. This thread finally did it for me. You can "see" a head in the lights and shadows of tree branches, but you can't see shoots sticking up all over from a bush. Simply amazing! It can only mean one thing, you are straydog02, or his long lost brother! Or maybe just a looney toon like he is. Either works. One thing is for certain. You simply don't have the skill set to deal with the photographic issues with any intellectual honesty. Loon away deano, just don't forget to believe.... Edited December 2, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) I don't know why someone did not make this comparison before.I noticed the TWIGS hanging down in Zapruder frames. Today, comparing the twigs with the Shaneyfelt photo taken a few weeks later, the same twigs are seen in both Shaneyfelt and Zapruder. BUT NOTE THAT THE TALL UNRULY BRANCHES OF THE PYRACANTHA BUSH BY THE PEDESTAL ARE NOT SEEN! Everything else matches except the pryacantha limbs added in Zapruder. Jack Jack, That Shaneyfelt photo (Shaneyfelt Exhibt No. 33, 21H481) was not taken "a few weeks later". It was taken when the FBI was investigating the Main Street curb bullet mark which was in July and August of 1964, some 8-9 months afdter the assassination (21H472-483). Any idea how many times had the bush been trimmed in those 8-9 months? Todd Edited December 2, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman 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? Poorly worded? What did you not understand? You said you detrmined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton because YOU HAVE EYES I said I detrmined the branches were a foot or more in lenght the same way you determined the branches were sticking up in Stoughton, becase I also HAVE EYES In other words both of us are using our eyes to tell what we see So why is your method of using your eyes to check photos ok, but I cant use my eyes, then you keep asking me how I determined the branches were a foot or longer? I looked at the frame using my EYES and made a determination Just like you did with Stoughton Is that still poorly worded, I know im real stupid and have nothing between my shoulders according to Craigie "I dont care about the assassination" Lamson but come on Todd, Im sure you can read my horrible english with tons of mispellings and typos Maybe you can teach me some typing skills because you are failing at teaching me anything about the phtographic evidence that you claim you know so much more about then I do. Im ready for your challange Dean, You're ready for my challenge? OK, real simple. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. Todd Q. Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not. A. No Are you sure you're looking at Murray 2-4? Again I love how you think im stupid and have no clue about the photos taken on 11/22/63 I see in Murray what I see in all the other pictures I have been checking for the last two days Edited December 2, 2009 by Dean Hagerman 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