What is this in Z frames?

[Todd W. Vaughan]

*** 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

Murray 2-4 does not appear in "Forgive My Grief" on page 185

Murray 2-4 does however appear in "Forgive My Grief IV" on page 185

You know how Penn Jones had the pioneering number system for his books

"Forgive My Grief" was his first book

"Forgive My Grief II" was his second

"Forgive My Grief III" was his third

"Forgive My Grief IV" was his forth

Much like Richard Sprauges number system Penn Jones system was way ahead of his time

I cant belive you didnt know that!

You must know nothing about the evidence if you dont even know what "Forgive My Grief" Murray 2-4 was in

I know, you must have thought no way in hell Dean has all of the FMG volumes, he wont be abel to check

You also must have thought that I dont own POTP

I am shocked that you didnt know what FMG Murray 2-4 was in

So I guess if im Moe are you Curly or Larry?

Dean,

My mistake – I forgot to add “IV” after “Forgive My Grief. I must have had some pyracantha branches in front of my field of view obscuring my PC screen when I was typing up that post. Damn that evil conspiracy!

Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I’ve gone back and corrected it. You sure are good at keeping track of all 4 of the Forgive My Grief volumes.

At least now you know what photo Murray 2-4 is.

As for what books you have or don’t have, I don’t have a clue and I don’t really care.

Lastly, I never called you Moe (or even Curly, or Larry), despite your implication to the contrary – go back and read my post carefully and try to actually comprehend what I said.

Todd

Edited December 3, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

Jack,

I never said Sprague’s method was “universal” – I said it was the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. And that’s true - it’s used in Cutler's 76 Seconds in Dealey Plaza and on his plats, in all of Trask’s books, and in John Wood’s book which actually catalogs the photographs and films in the case. Even the NARA II recognizes Sprague's method (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/sprague-papers.html).

And the fact is that you DO use Sprague’s method.

Where do you think the Willis 5 designator came from? It came from Sprague! It was Sprague who tracked down the photographs in this case, including ALL of the Willis slides, and cataloged them. Yes, Willis 5 is on his list, along with Willis’s 17 other photographs.

Sprague’s not being aware of the Bronson, or any other photos that were discovered after he stopped his research (Bronson, Croft, Skaggs, etc.) has no bearing on his previous work.

Todd

Edited December 3, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Todd W. Vaughan]

All,

Here’s my comparison of the branches as seen in the Zapruder film to the branches as seen in the Secret Service reconstruction film made on 27 November 1963.

Please note that the cameramen in the SS reconstruction film does not appear to have been standing exactly where Zapruder was – he’s close, but he’s not exactly in the right spot. We know this because of the relationship of the tree trunk on the knoll to the north edge of the Fort Worth Freeway sign as seen in both films (this doesn’t really show real well in this still, but does in the film). To get the correct relationship the SS cameraman actually should have been located more southerly (more towards Elm Street) on the pedestal. Had the SS cameraman been more southerly on the pedestal the branches in the foreground would have shifted rightwards in relationship to the background and better matched what we see in Zapruder.

The SS cameraman also seems to have been taller than Zapruder (who was not a tall guy )and thus filmed from a higher position. Had the SS cameraman been at the correct (lower) “Zapruder height” the branches in the foreground would have shifted upwards in relationship to the background and also better matched what we see in Zapruder.

Also please keep in mind that I’ve not scaled the two photographs to the same size.

I’ve placed a yellow dot at the most distal end of each of 15 branches that I think match up in both films. Use your minds-eye and think in 3d to make up for the slight difference, horizontally and vertically, in the two views film and keep in mind that the relationships of the braches to each other would shift slightly as well. If you start from the left side and compare each one of the dots in the Zapruder film to its counterpart in the SS film I think you can see that the branches match up almost perfectly.

I’m obviously no Photoshop Wizard, so it would be great if someone who is could improve upon my comparison. I’d gladly provide the two images I used.

Todd

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63?

The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63

Your study is useless to me

Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work

You've got to be kidding me.

No im not kidding you

I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45

Is that to hard for you to believe?

LOL, yes it is.

Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed.

How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days?

well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO!

Ah, Turtle! Do you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion or are you the same ole' Dave I've come to know?

my pearls are simply not recognized by those that haven't a clue regarding the art of film compositing and said techniques... You keep coming back, ya hear Toddster.... and don't let the Criagster intimidate ya, he's been trying to snow the entire crowd regarding his film-photo expertise here. One of these day's I'll be bowled over by a row of chairs photo (or heaven forbid a washing machine and dryer)

Kinda reminds me of flatulence-on-parade, don't add to his show.... now you have a nice Christmas, I'm back to making a buck these days.....

While I’m sure your very skilled in your craft, those who don’t believe that the Zapruder film was altered don’t really need to recognize your pearls, do they?

I’ve followed Craig’s “film-photo expertise” in both the JFK and the NASA Apollo issues since the day he entered the fray. His work has always impressed me and has looked pretty much rock solid to me.

You have a nice Christmas too, Dave.

See you around.

[Len Colby]

Todd, Jerry, others

A couple years ago Rollie Zavada (the Kodak product engineer who lead the teem that invented Kodakchrome II and examined the original Z -film) told me that challenging a alterationists beliefs was "like questioning someone's religion"

You might as well try and reason with a Moonie

All that Zavada confirmed was that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME". He did not very any of the content.

Jack

David and Jack have made this false claim and been corrected enough times that continuing to make it is assign of their willful ignorance or worse. Zavada issued TWO reports. While the first issued (I think) in 1998 basically only confirmed that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME" the second one went much beyond that.

From the 2003 report:

The goal to create a "Kodachrome original provides further

insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are

designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way

that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author

wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced

technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome

original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination

and evaluation by multiple researchers. The "evidence" offered are scene

content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.

[…]

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.

http://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.

[Dean Hagerman]

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

[Craig Lamson]

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

Well Jack is also off base. Many years ago as a young lad, I worked the lab for a very big and busy commercial studio. SOP for numbering negs was, job#, roll#, frame#. We went so far as to rapidograph out all the extra frame numbers on each roll. Every project....every time.

I can't help it Jack is such a novice when it comes to such matters, nor you either deano...

Edited December 3, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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,

I never said Sprague’s method was “universal” – I said it was the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. And that’s true - it’s used in Cutler's 76 Seconds in Dealey Plaza and on his plats, in all of Trask’s books, and in John Wood’s book which actually catalogs the photographs and films in the case. Even the NARA II recognizes Sprague's method (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/sprague-papers.html).

And the fact is that Jack DOES use Sprague’s method.

Where do you think the Willis 5 designator came from? It came from Sprague! It was Sprague who tracked down the photographs in this case, including ALL of the Willis slides, and cataloged them. Yes, Willis 5 is on his list, along with Willis’s 17 other photographs.

Sprague’s not being aware of the Bronson, or any other photos that were discovered after he stopped his research (Bronson, Croft, Skaggs, etc.) has no bearing on his previous work.

Todd

Edited December 3, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

[David G. Healy]

I'm back to making a buck these days.....

LOL! Greeter at 201 North Nellis Blvd?

Or you shooting cowboys again?

we certainly understand what its like to have your studio closed, son.... tough times mean tough measures.... keep yourself together...

perhaps your new found friend and help mate Todd can drum up some biz for ya.... say McAdams doing another MC exhibition in the wilds of Wisconsin in that old trenchcoat of his, we certainly could use some better nutter-xxxxx event pics (the last series was HORRID -- do you need the link?).... LMFAO!

What is at 201 N.Nellis Blvd.? You have something on you mind, son? Out of the shadows with ya....

[Gary Murr]

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

Actually Todd,

If Dean would do some research, he could find it himself; the link below will lead him to it; save yourself the postage.

Gary Murr

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

[Craig Lamson]

I'm back to making a buck these days.....

LOL! Greeter at 201 North Nellis Blvd?

Or you shooting cowboys again?

we certainly understand what its like to have your studio closed, son.... tough times mean tough measures.... keep yourself together...

perhaps your new found friend and help mate Todd can drum up some biz for ya.... say McAdams doing another MC exhibition in the wilds of Wisconsin in that old trenchcoat of his, we certainly could use some better nutter-xxxxx event pics (the last series was HORRID -- do you need the link?).... LMFAO!

What is at 201 N.Nellis Blvd.? You have something on you mind, son? Out of the shadows with ya....

Actually getting rid of the overhead was the best thing to ever happen. It's all profit now. Business up up again, which is a very good sign. Clearly I hope everyone's business improves...even yours.

Whats on Nellis? Walmart of course...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

Actually Todd,

If Dean would do some research, he could find it himself; the link below will lead him to it; save yourself the postage.

Gary Murr

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

Thanks Gary. Nice to have a online source for that classic work.

I'll still send Dean a hard copy if he would like.

BTW, I love reading your occassional posts on the different forums. Always meticulously researched and infomative.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Todd W. Vaughan

[David G. Healy]

Todd, Jerry, others

A couple years ago Rollie Zavada (the Kodak product engineer who lead the teem that invented Kodakchrome II and examined the original Z -film) told me that challenging a alterationists beliefs was "like questioning someone's religion"

You might as well try and reason with a Moonie

All that Zavada confirmed was that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME". He did not very any of the content.

Jack

David and Jack have made this false claim and been corrected enough times that continuing to make it is assign of their willful ignorance or worse. Zavada issued TWO reports. While the first issued (I think) in 1998 basically only confirmed that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME" the second one went much beyond that.

From the 2003 report:

The goal to create a "Kodachrome original provides further

insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are

designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way

that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author

wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced

technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome

original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination

and evaluation by multiple researchers. The "evidence" offered are scene

content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.

[…]

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.

http://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.

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)

btw, when was the last time I cited Ray Fielding on this forum (or any other for that matter)? 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)

for the uninformed the below link points to the article of Len's and other naysayers Z-film obession...

http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html (third article from the top -- requires Adobe PDF reader)

Edited December 3, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Chris Davidson]

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

[Craig Lamson]

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....