Jump to content
The Education Forum

Well, here's something to chew on.


Recommended Posts

A lot. I'll to count them. The Greer "bionic Man" head snap was debunked years ago by James Gordon.

Josiah Thompson

What I first thought of when I noticed this head snap, was that a frame was missing from the time he started turning his head till the time when he is looking at the President, the frame in between these to frames. Would taking said frame out skip a portion of the movement and make the head turn seem super fast?

What's the simplified/short version of Gordon's debunking of the Greer head snap?

Never trust anyone who says something has been "debunked". That is an opinion. Others

may think that the proclaimed "debunking" is bunk.

Jack

Wrong again Jack Pat showed that your claim that Jackie's hand moved impossibly/unreasonably fast was baseless. But just like 90%(or more) of the time when your claims have been refuted you refuse to admit error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A lot. I'll to count them. The Greer "bionic Man" head snap was debunked years ago by James Gordon.

Josiah Thompson

What I first thought of when I noticed this head snap, was that a frame was missing from the time he started turning his head till the time when he is looking at the President, the frame in between these to frames. Would taking said frame out skip a portion of the movement and make the head turn seem super fast?

What's the simplified/short version of Gordon's debunking of the Greer head snap?

The long version can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html It doesn't take long to read it and understand it. It's been there for several years and has never been refuted. If you don't choose the right frames from when Greer begins his head turn and when he finishes it, you will believe his head turn is unnaturally fast.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does age and infusion of chemicals have to do with Jackie's features disappearing?

With his brains blown out, how does JFK keep his arm raised to shoulder level...infusion of chemicals?

Jack

JackWhitecopyofZ317.jpg

Thanks for posting this enlargement from Zapruder frame 317. Doug Horne looks at a copy of Z 317 and says he sees “a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...”

When you look at this copy of Z 317 is that what you see?

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap,

Bill Lord interview of James Chaney for WFAA-TV, 11/22/63,

Chaney does not sound like a very reliable witness here, does he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack? I wonder how you would behave/move at that age when the phenomenal infusion of various chemicals to the body happens.

However, thats a minor point. Her hand moves little faster in all the sequence. Her wrist twists. Jack, sometimes you're really on the ball and on others you off with the pixels...

What does age and infusion of chemicals have to do with Jackie's features disappearing?

With his brains blown out, how does JFK keep his arm raised to shoulder level...infusion of chemicals?

Jack

Thanks, Jack for this blowup of Z317. Which version of the Z-films is this from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numerous witnesses said that the president slumped forward into Jackie's lap.

How do you know he didn't?

Jack

For one thing, Jackie was not IN FRONT of him, so these witnesses are claiming to have seen something that is IMPOSSIBLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numerous witnesses said that the president slumped forward into Jackie's lap.

How do you know he didn't?

Jack

For one thing, Jackie was not IN FRONT of him, so these witnesses are claiming to have seen something that is IMPOSSIBLE.

They meant forward as opposed to backward. He fell forward TO HIS LEFT. Very clear what they meant.

Nit picking.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a copy of zap 317 that bill miller posted for us some time ago fwiw..b

and also enlarged...b

Like me, I imagine all of you are looking at the TV footage from Haiti. Pretty awful. I’m sitting here in my home only about 220 yards from the San Andreas Fault thinking about what would happen with a similar quake here. Last time... the Loma Prieta quake... I was on the Golden Gate Bridge when it hit. I thought I’d gotten a flat tire. I pulled up at the toll station, opened my door and looked back at my left rear tire. It was fine. Then I paid my toll and noticed that all the traffic lights were off on Lombard Street. When I got to Union Street, all my friends were out on the street. That’s when I learned there had been an earthquake.

Back to the point at issue...

I found an 8" by 10" print of a close-up from Z 317. This would have been an enlargement from a negative of the whole print like the one I posted before. It comes from a negative taken with Plus X film of LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies. They were made from in camera original. Hence, my negative is a copy of a copy. Here it is:

Z317blowup.jpg

Jack White posted a color enlargement of Z 317. He has not stated where he got it. Here it is:

JackWhitecopyofZ317.jpg

Finally, Doug Horne published a black and white copy taken from the 6000 mp digital copy of a fourth or fifth generation copy of the original. It is published on page 187 of Volume I or his book. Here it is:

Frame317Hornep187.jpg

My problem is that I cannot scan transparencies with the equipment I have. To scan my transparency, a close-up taken with Ektachrome of LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparency of Z 317, I would have to take it to a professional photolab in San Francisco. I’ve done this before with negative of the Moorman photo that I obtained by copying her Polaroid in 1966. However, it is kind of a pain and it will cost a couple of hundred bucks. I’m wondering whether that is really necessary. Why? Because Jack’s enlargement shows just about what I see in my transparency. The color balance is a bit different because I was shooting Ektachrome and Jack’s copy is Kodachrome but they are almost identical in terms of detail. This can be seen by comparing my black and white close-up above with Jack White’s closeup. Now look at the black and white photo Horne published. It is different from both Jack’s color close-up and my black and white close-up. In Horne’s photo, there does seem to be some sort of dark blob at the back of JFK’s head. Yet nothing like this appears in either Jack’s color close-up or my black and white close-up. What do you folks think?

I did one additional thing. I cranked up my old Carousel slid projector and had a look in sequence at the frames starting with Z 310 and ending with Z 323. It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!

This makes me wonder whether the black blob described by Horne as: "The lower half of the back of JFK’s head – hair that was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray in the HD scan – was covered up by a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” may be some change introduced by the fact he’s working from a digital scan of a fourth or fifth generation copy. I’m told that the algorithms used in producing JPEGs etc. have a life of their own. People more knowledgeable than I can talk about that. All I can say is that Jack’s color copy very nearly matches my color copy as it matches the black and white copy I’ve scanned. The proof in the pudding will come when we can see scans of the MPI 4" by 5" copies made from the original film.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a copy of zap 317 that bill miller posted for us some time ago fwiw..b

and also enlarged...b

Like me, I imagine all of you are looking at the TV footage from Haiti. Pretty awful. I’m sitting here in my home only about 220 yards from the San Andreas Fault thinking about what would happen with a similar quake here. Last time... the Loma Prieta quake... I was on the Golden Gate Bridge when it hit. I thought I’d gotten a flat tire. I pulled up at the toll station, opened my door and looked back at my left rear tire. It was fine. Then I paid my toll and noticed that all the traffic lights were off on Lombard Street. When I got to Union Street, all my friends were out on the street. That’s when I learned there had been an earthquake.

Back to the point at issue...

I found an 8" by 10" print of a close-up from Z 317. This would have been an enlargement from a negative of the whole print like the one I posted before. It comes from a negative taken with Plus X film of LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparencies. They were made from in camera original. Hence, my negative is a copy of a copy. Here it is:

Z317blowup.jpg

Jack White posted a color enlargement of Z 317. He has not stated where he got it. Here it is:

JackWhitecopyofZ317.jpg

Finally, Doug Horne published a black and white copy taken from the 6000 mp digital copy of a fourth or fifth generation copy of the original. It is published on page 187 of Volume I or his book. Here it is:

Frame317Hornep187.jpg

My problem is that I cannot scan transparencies with the equipment I have. To scan my transparency, a close-up taken with Ektachrome of LIFE’s 4" by 5" transparency of Z 317, I would have to take it to a professional photolab in San Francisco. I’ve done this before with negative of the Moorman photo that I obtained by copying her Polaroid in 1966. However, it is kind of a pain and it will cost a couple of hundred bucks. I’m wondering whether that is really necessary. Why? Because Jack’s enlargement shows just about what I see in my transparency. The color balance is a bit different because I was shooting Ektachrome and Jack’s copy is Kodachrome but they are almost identical in terms of detail. This can be seen by comparing my black and white close-up above with Jack White’s closeup. Now look at the black and white photo Horne published. It is different from both Jack’s color close-up and my black and white close-up. In Horne’s photo, there does seem to be some sort of dark blob at the back of JFK’s head. Yet nothing like this appears in either Jack’s color close-up or my black and white close-up. What do you folks think?

I did one additional thing. I cranked up my old Carousel slid projector and had a look in sequence at the frames starting with Z 310 and ending with Z 323. It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!

This makes me wonder whether the black blob described by Horne as: "The lower half of the back of JFK’s head – hair that was very brown, or perhaps a cross between auburn and light gray in the HD scan – was covered up by a jet black patch with very straight artificial edges that appeared to be artwork to me, like opaque black paint placed on top of the natural image of his hair. It was as if a trapezoid (the black patch) with impossibly straight edges had been wrapped around the back of JFK’s head...” may be some change introduced by the fact he’s working from a digital scan of a fourth or fifth generation copy. I’m told that the algorithms used in producing JPEGs etc. have a life of their own. People more knowledgeable than I can talk about that. All I can say is that Jack’s color copy very nearly matches my color copy as it matches the black and white copy I’ve scanned. The proof in the pudding will come when we can see scans of the MPI 4" by 5" copies made from the original film.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah, in your photos there is little difference between the blackness on the back of Kennedy's head at the cowlick and EOP. In both the color print posted by Jack and the the black and white in Horne's book, however, the cowlick area is much lighter than the back of the head below. There appears to be a sharp shadow line. Now, is it possible your camera failed to pick up this shadow? Is it possible that the dark shape on the White and Horne copies is some sort of artifact? I don't know.

I do know however, that our eyes and brains are imperfect and that we read shades of colors differently than we read the shades of black and white. Believe it or not, the orange square on the side of the cube below is the same color and shade as the brown square on top of the cube. The surrounding squares influence our interpretation. (If one punches a peep hole in a piece of paper so that one can view the squares in isolation one will see that this is true.

illusion2.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...