Robin Unger Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) This is the same frame as the one you posted Jack. ( No Artifact )Also, as i understand it NIX was approx 6ft 4" tall according to Gary Mack. WHAT DO YOU MEAN that is the same frame? It quite obviously is NOT the same. Jack I think this frame has to be very close jack. My version of the frame was a little wider than yours, and not quite as tall, but it seems to be a good match. ? Thanks to Robin, I was able to do a computer analysis of these two frames which shows very clearly that the gray oval shape was painted in frame by frame. Thanks, Robin. Jack Sorry Jack While i was busy Editing my post making a correction you must have done your study. I stuffed up when i did my first composite. In the first one i posted i used the wrong frame, i have since gone back in, Edited my post, and inserted the right frame into the composite. My post has now been corrected. In my first composite i accidently used this frame below by mistake. Edited February 6, 2010 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 This is the same frame as the one you posted Jack. ( No Artifact )Also, as i understand it NIX was approx 6ft 4" tall according to Gary Mack. WHAT DO YOU MEAN that is the same frame? It quite obviously is NOT the same. Jack I think this frame has to be very close jack. My version of the frame was a little wider than yours, and not quite as tall, but it seems to be a good match. ? Thanks to Robin, I was able to do a computer analysis of these two frames which shows very clearly that the gray oval shape was painted in frame by frame. Thanks, Robin. Jack Sorry Jack While i was busy Editing my post making a correction you must have done your study. I stuffed up when i did my first composite. In the first one i posted i used the wrong frame, i have since gone back in, Edited my post, and inserted the right frame into the composite. My post has now been corrected. In my first composite i accidently used this frame below by mistake. Robin...that CANNOT BE THE SAME FRAME. The artifact is not present. IF it is the same frame but without the artifact, do you realize what that means? What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 The same frame? I think not. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 The same frame? I think not.Jack I can't wait for Lamson to explain this one. Edge lighting? Parallax? I want to know. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Great find, Jack! To the best of my knowledge, Lamson has never published anything about the assassination than his relentless cheap, petty, crappy posts. He has never made a contribution that could compete with this one. I believe that the perps continue to manufacture new evidence to conceal problems with the old--and that it is an ongoing process. You have simply caught them with their pants down, Jack. Very nice! The same frame? I think not.Jack I can't wait for Lamson to explain this one. Edge lighting? Parallax? I want to know. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 Great find, Jack! To the best of my knowledge, Lamson has never published anything about the assassination than his relentless cheap, petty, crappy posts. He has never made a contribution that could compete with this one. I believe that the perps continue to manufacture new evidence to conceal problems with the old--and that it is an ongoing process. You have simply caught them with their pants down, Jack. Very nice! The same frame? I think not.Jack I can't wait for Lamson to explain this one. Edge lighting? Parallax? I want to know. Jack Thanks, Jim. I SPECULATE that the metallic device which was retouched out and replaced by the gray oval IN ALL EXCEPT ONE FRAME was accidentally left in the "original" film, and represented a "tripod and camera device" which took the alleged ALTGENS 5 photo, which Altgens did not remember shooting. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 The same frame? I think not.Jack I can't wait for Lamson to explain this one. Edge lighting? Parallax? I want to know. Jack Geez Jack, have you accounted for interlacing? How about the brutal fact that the second image suffers from massive compression artifacts?And please how aoubt a detailed explanationof WHY your "computer enhancement" provides any inforamtion of value. We eagerly await your details reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Great find, Jack! To the best of my knowledge, Lamson has never published anything about the assassination than his relentless cheap, petty, crappy posts. He has never made a contribution that could compete with this one. I believe that the perps continue to manufacture new evidence to conceal problems with the old--and that it is an ongoing process. You have simply caught them with their pants down, Jack. Very nice!] Perhaps James Fetzer, PhD can answer the questions poised to Jack White aboutt the validity of his study? Clealy James Fetzer, PhD, must have the answers since he has just declared tthe work valid and solid proof. Given Professor Fetzers status it is inconceivable that he would champoin a work without fully exploring the details to assure it was correct and proper. Surely you have vetted this work Professor Fetzer, please share the details of that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 quote: What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 quote:What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Thanks, Robin...for the source, which is much more recent than the Groden disk, which I have had more than ten years. Gary is full of BS that the artifact represents a "scratch". See attached. Do you or anyone else agree with Mack? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 (edited) quote:What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Thanks, Robin...for the source, which is much more recent than the Groden disk, which I have had more than ten years. Gary is full of BS that the artifact represents a "scratch". See attached. Do you or anyone else agree with Mack? Jack i think gary may need to make a optometrist appt tomorrow..this was your post of the artifact within robins frame .and comment ...b Edited February 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 (edited) There is a pattern here. Mack sought to manipulate Mary Moorman from stepping into the street, as David Lifton has explained in the Appendix to "Moorman in the Street". He has participated in deceptive documentaries by offering specious arguments for not taking probable shooting locations seriously. He--and The 6th Floor Museum--are stonewalling my request to obtain a copy of the 4x5 slide of frame 317. And here is denies what everyone can see with their own eyes--that this is no artifact! I am reminded of that old Richard Pryor joke: "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?", in the new, updated version from Gary Mack! quote:What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Thanks, Robin...for the source, which is much more recent than the Groden disk, which I have had more than ten years. Gary is full of BS that the artifact represents a "scratch". See attached. Do you or anyone else agree with Mack? Jack i think gary may need to make a optomitrist appt tomorrow..this was your post of the artifact within robins frame .and comment .b Edited February 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 There is a pattern here. Mack sought to manipulate Mary Moorman from stepping into the street, as David Lifton has explained in the Appendix to "Moorman in the Street". He has participated in deceptive documentaries by offering specious arguments for not taking probable shooting locations seriously. He--and The 6th Floor Museum--are stonewalling my request to obtain a copy of the 4x5 slide of frame 317. And here is denies what everyone can see with their own eyes--that this is no artifact! I am reminded of that old Richard Pryor joke: "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?", in the new, updated version from Gary Mack! quote:What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Thanks, Robin...for the source, which is much more recent than the Groden disk, which I have had more than ten years. Gary is full of BS that the artifact represents a "scratch". See attached. Do you or anyone else agree with Mack? Jack i think gary may need to make a optomitrist appt tomorrow..this was your post of the artifact within robins frame .and comment .b I am sure Jim meant to say NO SCRATCH instead of NO ARTIFACT. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 quote:What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Thanks, Robin...for the source, which is much more recent than the Groden disk, which I have had more than ten years. Gary is full of BS that the artifact represents a "scratch". See attached. Do you or anyone else agree with Mack? Jack Yes Jack. I agree completely. Then they moved the tripod down the street and forgot to edit it out - again. In fact this time they made an even bigger mistake by leaving the microphone?, antenna?, particle beam weapon? in as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 (edited) Thanks, Jack. I meant "artifact" as feature of the celluloid rather than of the content of the frame. Predicatably, having nothing to contribute, Jerry Logan shows up to show solidarity with Tink and Lamson, arm in arm in defense of the indefensible! It is the Tink & Jerry & Lamson show again! Where would we be without the deepest and the best? You guys have to be getting overtime! quote:What is the source of your frame? My frame comes from the Groden disk from years ago. If your frame comes from a newer version, it means that someone has taken the trouble to revise the film to remove the artifact...at a later day, meaning the coverup fakery is still continuing. Does that not alarm you? Thanks. Jack The frame comes from the Discovery Channel DVD " Murder in Dealey Plaza " Robin, Most copies have that scratch and a very similar one about a second later, but other copies don’t have it. The source of the scratch is the original, first generation 16mm copy negative made by UPI of the original film in 1963, so all prints made from it show the same scratch mark. However, the first generation 8mm print made in Dallas for the FBI doesn’t have the scratch nor, presumably, does the original missing film. Both first generation copies are owned by The Sixth Floor Museum. Gary Mack Thanks, Robin...for the source, which is much more recent than the Groden disk, which I have had more than ten years. Gary is full of BS that the artifact represents a "scratch". See attached. Do you or anyone else agree with Mack? Jack Yes Jack. I agree completely. Then they moved the tripod down the street and forgot to edit it out - again. In fact this time they made an even bigger mistake by leaving the microphone?, antenna?, particle beam weapon? in as well. Edited February 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer 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