Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Dolva asked that I point out the VERTICAL BRUSH STROKES. Easy. Glad to. Obvious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry I think not. I think BOTH FRAMES came from Robin. Or I can redo the study with both frames from my copy, or from Robin's. Question: Why would the Groden copy have the "defect" and the FBI copy NOT have the "defect"? Question for Robin: Does your copy have the "defect" or not? If not, something is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry I think not. I think BOTH FRAMES came from Robin. Or I can redo the study with both frames from my copy, or from Robin's. Question: Why would the Groden copy have the "defect" and the FBI copy NOT have the "defect"? Question for Robin: Does your copy have the "defect" or not? If not, something is wrong. Jack, Robin can speak for himself, but I don't think he provided the Groden frame, I think we (or I)did. Robin also has access to the Groden frames, but he has been able to provide superior images because he has taken them from a TV documentary that rescanned/reprocessed the 8mm FBI version. I know you're not going to like my answer to the next question - The UPI version has the defect because that particular piece of film has a scratch on it. Either the film used to make the copy was defective or it was scratched shortly thereafter. The FBI version doesn't have the defect because it has not been scratched or because the film it used was not defective. Groden's versions will always show the defect because they're derived from the 16mm UPI copy. Other versions won't if they're derived from the unscratched FBI copy. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, the pixelation is totally different. That's a manipulation you made to the content when resizing, The lower one has acquired a lot of resize smoothing as a consequence. When you apply a uniform change to this these are further emphasised. Basically, you are not going about it in the right way. The upper part of the frame is NOT the same at all, the top one is sharper for one thing, with a reduced blue and finer resolution, amongst other things). The more reasonable explanation is that it's from two versions, (see Jerrys post) one of which has a defect (on more than one frame) and the other not. This is the same for a number of other versions of various films. I think you should take time to reread the posts and see who is misrepresenting what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jerry,I extacted that frame from a movie. Sorry, I do not know who filmed it. The beginning frames I have from Dorman are lousy. chris Chris, You are a sphinx! Believe me, I mean that in the best possible way! Are there any more good frames from the movie or was this it for our purposes here? My very best regards to you, Jerry Jerry The frame is from Don Cook's footage I believe By the way thanks for pointing out the full plat shows Nix numbered locations from my earlier comment. I hadn't seen the full version.. Robin I am interested in getting a copy of the DVD you recommended a few posts back but Googling around for "Murder in Dealey Plaza" seems to only bring me back a book by a member of this forum ? Is it known by any other title ? Thanks David David, Thanks for that information. I've been looking around and haven't been able to get a copy of the Cook/Cooper images. Do you have any suggestions? Robin (of course) has the full plat at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...m=31&pos=11. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Do you people discussing BOTHUN have all of the early shots he took of the approaching motorcade?Bothun allowed me to borrow his negatives and I made prints of the 3 motorcade approaching and rounding the corner. He then sprinted from Houston/Main down the hill but arrived too late to get a shot of JFK, but did get the well known shot of the aftermath with the sitting umbrella man. The first two are not well known, as the motorcade is in the distance on Main. I have never scanned the first two. I will try to find them. Jack, that would be great. I don't think many people have seen those images. It would be terrific if you can find them and share them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Robin I am interested in getting a copy of the DVD you recommended a few posts back but Googling around for "Murder in Dealey Plaza" seems to only bring me back a book by a member of this forum ? Is it known by any other title ? Thanks David David The correct title: Unsolved History: JFK - Death in Dealey Plaza http://www.amazon.com/Unsolved-History-Dea...a/dp/B000JM4L3Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Croft color photo. Does anyone have a Larger version of this Croft image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry I think not. I think BOTH FRAMES came from Robin. Or I can redo the study with both frames from my copy, or from Robin's. Question: Why would the Groden copy have the "defect" and the FBI copy NOT have the "defect"? Question for Robin: Does your copy have the "defect" or not? If not, something is wrong. Jack, Robin can speak for himself, but I don't think he provided the Groden frame, I think we (or I)did. Robin also has access to the Groden frames, but he has been able to provide superior images because he has taken them from a TV documentary that rescanned/reprocessed the 8mm FBI version. I know you're not going to like my answer to the next question - The UPI version has the defect because that particular piece of film has a scratch on it. Either the film used to make the copy was defective or it was scratched shortly thereafter. The FBI version doesn't have the defect because it has not been scratched or because the film it used was not defective. Groden's versions will always show the defect because they're derived from the 16mm UPI copy. Other versions won't if they're derived from the unscratched FBI copy. Jerry I had forgotten that you supplied two frames which I analyzed. Therefore I may be wrong about both images coming from Robin, although he did supply SOME frames...I just do not remember which ones. However, that is immaterial anyway. Both the Groden copy AND ANY OTHER COPY should be the IDENTICAL film. If not, there is trouble in River City. Makes no difference anyway. I have just grabbed 44 fresh frames from the Groden copy, and am finding MORE anomalous shapes. I am going to do several new studies. Some of you have insisted that Nix is LOOKING DOWN on the TOP OF A GRAY HAT in front of him. Are you aware that less than a second later he is LOOKING UNDER THE ARMPIT of a man in a gray suit? I will show you. It will take a while to process my screenshots. I may post individual anomalies before doing the analysis. Incidentally, I could not find on the Groden copy the "pole strapped to the wall" frame which you furnished. In the Groden copy, the bottom element is there but the top element is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry I think not. I think BOTH FRAMES came from Robin. Or I can redo the study with both frames from my copy, or from Robin's. Question: Why would the Groden copy have the "defect" and the FBI copy NOT have the "defect"? Question for Robin: Does your copy have the "defect" or not? If not, something is wrong. Jack, Robin can speak for himself, but I don't think he provided the Groden frame, I think we (or I)did. Robin also has access to the Groden frames, but he has been able to provide superior images because he has taken them from a TV documentary that rescanned/reprocessed the 8mm FBI version. I know you're not going to like my answer to the next question - The UPI version has the defect because that particular piece of film has a scratch on it. Either the film used to make the copy was defective or it was scratched shortly thereafter. The FBI version doesn't have the defect because it has not been scratched or because the film it used was not defective. Groden's versions will always show the defect because they're derived from the 16mm UPI copy. Other versions won't if they're derived from the unscratched FBI copy. Jerry I DON'T like that answer. The OBJECT is not a scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry I think not. I think BOTH FRAMES came from Robin. Or I can redo the study with both frames from my copy, or from Robin's. Question: Why would the Groden copy have the "defect" and the FBI copy NOT have the "defect"? Question for Robin: Does your copy have the "defect" or not? If not, something is wrong. Jack, Robin can speak for himself, but I don't think he provided the Groden frame, I think we (or I)did. Robin also has access to the Groden frames, but he has been able to provide superior images because he has taken them from a TV documentary that rescanned/reprocessed the 8mm FBI version. I know you're not going to like my answer to the next question - The UPI version has the defect because that particular piece of film has a scratch on it. Either the film used to make the copy was defective or it was scratched shortly thereafter. The FBI version doesn't have the defect because it has not been scratched or because the film it used was not defective. Groden's versions will always show the defect because they're derived from the 16mm UPI copy. Other versions won't if they're derived from the unscratched FBI copy. Jerry I had forgotten that you supplied two frames which I analyzed. Therefore I may be wrong about both images coming from Robin, although he did supply SOME frames...I just do not remember which ones. However, that is immaterial anyway. Both the Groden copy AND ANY OTHER COPY should be the IDENTICAL film. If not, there is trouble in River City. Makes no difference anyway. I have just grabbed 44 fresh frames from the Groden copy, and am finding MORE anomalous shapes. I am going to do several new studies. Some of you have insisted that Nix is LOOKING DOWN on the TOP OF A GRAY HAT in front of him. Are you aware that less than a second later he is LOOKING UNDER THE ARMPIT of a man in a gray suit? I will show you. It will take a while to process my screenshots. I may post individual anomalies before doing the analysis. Incidentally, I could not find on the Groden copy the "pole strapped to the wall" frame which you furnished. In the Groden copy, the bottom element is there but the top element is not. Jack, I don't know what to say. The upper object is definitely in my captures of Groden. I played the DVD just to be sure and it's there too. JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy 2003 Delta Entertainment Corp Produced by Robert J. Groden Maybe you should recheck or maybe Groden is adding scratches when he does his transfers. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Here is the first of the anomalous frames from my new Groden scans. Some will say they are "scratches", but they are not. One is white, and stops at the edge of the gray oval. One is black and seems to have "something" at the tip. Neither fits the description of a film scratch. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Jack, Robin merely presented the frames, you know that, how you make that imto an implication by me that he manipulted them is really quite funny. You are the one who mnaipulated the frames in various ways. There are no brush strokes there . Point one out. This is totally absurd. You said the frames were manipulated differently. I pointed out that I did not think Robin did anything except grab the frames (all in the same manner), and that by implication you were ACCUSING ME of manipulating them differently to achieve different results. I was pointing out that NEITHER ROBIN OR I DID ANYTHING to make the two comparisons different. You were implying that one of us did! Cease misrepresenting what I say! Jack, This may just be a misunderstanding. As you may recall there appear to be at least two first generation copies of Nix - the 16mm UPI copy and the 8mm FBI copy. The UPI copy has the defect/tripod and the FBI copy does not. What we (you and I) have is a Groden copy with the defect/tripod. What Robin presented is a frame derived from the FBI copy and used in a TV documentary that does not show the defect/tripod. The two frames have been processed in entirely different ways before any of us got our hands on them. The were copied differently at the very start and then they were copied and processed differently by Groden and by the television producers. It's true that you processed each frame exactly the same way - you weren't manipulating the frames separately to get a desired result. But they look different because they were the result of different processes long before any of us laid hands on them. They're different but the it would be suspicious if they weren't different. Jerry I think not. I think BOTH FRAMES came from Robin. Or I can redo the study with both frames from my copy, or from Robin's. Question: Why would the Groden copy have the "defect" and the FBI copy NOT have the "defect"? Question for Robin: Does your copy have the "defect" or not? If not, something is wrong. Jack, Robin can speak for himself, but I don't think he provided the Groden frame, I think we (or I)did. Robin also has access to the Groden frames, but he has been able to provide superior images because he has taken them from a TV documentary that rescanned/reprocessed the 8mm FBI version. I know you're not going to like my answer to the next question - The UPI version has the defect because that particular piece of film has a scratch on it. Either the film used to make the copy was defective or it was scratched shortly thereafter. The FBI version doesn't have the defect because it has not been scratched or because the film it used was not defective. Groden's versions will always show the defect because they're derived from the 16mm UPI copy. Other versions won't if they're derived from the unscratched FBI copy. Jerry I had forgotten that you supplied two frames which I analyzed. Therefore I may be wrong about both images coming from Robin, although he did supply SOME frames...I just do not remember which ones. However, that is immaterial anyway. Both the Groden copy AND ANY OTHER COPY should be the IDENTICAL film. If not, there is trouble in River City. Makes no difference anyway. I have just grabbed 44 fresh frames from the Groden copy, and am finding MORE anomalous shapes. I am going to do several new studies. Some of you have insisted that Nix is LOOKING DOWN on the TOP OF A GRAY HAT in front of him. Are you aware that less than a second later he is LOOKING UNDER THE ARMPIT of a man in a gray suit? I will show you. It will take a while to process my screenshots. I may post individual anomalies before doing the analysis. Incidentally, I could not find on the Groden copy the "pole strapped to the wall" frame which you furnished. In the Groden copy, the bottom element is there but the top element is not. Jack, I don't know what to say. The upper object is definitely in my captures of Groden. I played the DVD just to be sure and it's there too. JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy 2003 Delta Entertainment Corp Produced by Robert J. Groden Maybe you should recheck or maybe Groden is adding scratches when he does his transfers. Jerry But neither of those is a "scratch"! 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