Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Greg - you got it... "ignore" is about the only thing he seems to understand on this forum - not that he gets the hint, and if you've noticed, his posts describe the fun and entertainment he derives from showing off his ignorance and causing nothing but disruption with each and every post.... but enough time on the old man And yet you keep on replying, at least until you find out you don't have the first clue what you are talking about and then youu "run away". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Oh? How so? Is it worse than not making the attempt at all, Craig? How do you know what the "proper execution" might be? How do you know that such "proper execution" was not employed? Me thinks Jack is correct, perhaps I should just ignore your posts in the future. If you failed to bring back usable images it was improper execution. And since you did not bring back useful images you might as well have stayed home. Your work was worthless. This was, in your words, the last chance to shoot Kodachrome in a BH414. SO did you have a camera expert run a complete CLA on your vintage camera? Did you do multiple test shoots PRIOR to heading to Dallas for this last chance opportunity? Did you run tests of the Kodachrome film stock you had to assure it was still viable prior? Heck did you even shoot any Ektachrome stock while in Dallas as a backup so at least you had images of some sort? If you want to ignore my posts be my guest. Given you directed your original post in this matter TO ME, however, tells a completely different story. Again what a WASTED opportunity. What are you talking about now? I didn't say that none of it was usable nor that I failed to bring back useful images! I said the majority was usable. In fact, over 95% is usable. Let me define "usable" in the sense I wrote it: "ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!! I shot 6 rolls and Scott shot several more using his own B&H cameras (yes plural) during the same period of time. There is a TON (figuratively speaking) to work with. However, I have passed off a lot of the film for analysis by folks much better suited and more capable than I. There are constraints with which to deal, so I have no time frame on results yet. However, I also don't have the budget nor the personnel nor the facilities available to me that the USGOV had available to them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Greg - you got it... "ignore" is about the only thing he seems to understand on this forum - not that he gets the hint, and if you've noticed, his posts describe the fun and entertainment he derives from showing off his ignorance and causing nothing but disruption with each and every post.... but enough time on the old man Having just watched the Costella youtube video when he explains some of his thoughts on zapruder he mentions a ghost image that does not seem to fit. I've enlarged that area and it dawns on me that it looks like th front of the TSBD.... I did not hear if he spoke of light leaking in in that manner... if this is the TSBD it would make some sense since it disappears as Zapruder pans to his right.... could this be a normal function of the camera? Would be interested in other's interpretation. This is from frame 180 btw The other comment that bothers me is the insistance that the people on the sidewalk do not move or turn toward the limo and this is just not true... in the few seconds we see them and the limo actually passes them, they clap, move their heads, the scarf and coats move in the wind, etc... I took the time to stabilize/align the frames within Photoshop so the people remain in the same location... it becomes very apparent that they are live, there and watching the parade.... imo. David, Frame 183 will give you a better picture of the area in question. The ghost image area in frame 183 includes part of the signal light post on the Houston St corner, along with the top of the "backside black sign" and "somewhat above" in the background. Just put your curser on the objects within the red box to check it. That area is not part of the TSBD. chris Edited February 12, 2011 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Those who pulled the JFK murder off would be complete IDIOTS if they did NOT alter that film (being one of the BEST possible witnesses to the entire event that terrible day). There is simply NO way you would allow a film of that kind of historical worth go unmolested, I don't care who pulled it off. They murdered so many witnessed, items disappearing left and right, you name it, yet the film walks away untouched???....come on. Growing up, just off the bat, I had assumed the film received some kind of high tech alteration, it had to have. Now, things are becoming clear....I guess. Here's hoping anyway. Hey Greg, do you think Kodak is the only source capable of processing such film? Maybe others can no? I am NOT film-intelligent lol, so forgive any apparent ignorance regarding the subject. Edited February 12, 2011 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 "ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!! Very nice! Great work Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Those who pulled the JFK murder off would be complete IDIOTS if they did NOT alter that film (being one of the BEST possible witnesses to the entire event that terrible day). There is simply NO way you would allow a film of that kind of historical worth go unmolested, I don't care who pulled it off. They murdered so many witnessed, items disappearing left and right, you name it, yet the film walks away untouched???....come on. Growing up, just off the bat, I had assumed the film received some kind of high tech alteration, it had to have. Now, things are becoming clear....I guess. Here's hoping anyway. Hey Greg, do you think Kodak is the only source capable of processing such film? Maybe others can no? I am NOT film-intelligent lol, so forgive any apparent ignorance regarding the subject. Hi B.A., Kodak retains the rights to the processing procedure of that film stock. It is not "normal" film and is not developed in any standard type of manner. There is a Kodak specific "process" that must be employed in order to accomplish the task. The absolute very last remaining facility that was licensed by Kodak to use their system of processing was Dwayne's Photo. They processed my film at the end of December, as well. Kodak announced in 2006 that it would completely discontinue it worldwide by the end of December in 2010 (last year). So, that's it forever. I don't believe even the "know-how" to do it is available outside of Kodak. Now Ektachrome is still available, but I wanted to replicate as closely as possible the same conditions and use the same materials as were originally used to prevent nay-sayers from claiming the tests were not valid due to those differences. As it is, the actual so-called "original Zapruder Camera" housed in the National Archives would have been my first choice, but obtaining usage of it wasn't going to happen. It is likely that any differences between Ektachrome and Kodachrome will NOT make a bit of difference anyway, but this way we don't have to deal with that argument at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 "ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!! Very nice! Great work Greg Thanks Dean! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Those who pulled the JFK murder off would be complete IDIOTS if they did NOT alter that film (being one of the BEST possible witnesses to the entire event that terrible day). There is simply NO way you would allow a film of that kind of historical worth go unmolested, I don't care who pulled it off. They murdered so many witnessed, items disappearing left and right, you name it, yet the film walks away untouched???....come on. Growing up, just off the bat, I had assumed the film received some kind of high tech alteration, it had to have. Now, things are becoming clear....I guess. Here's hoping anyway. Hey Greg, do you think Kodak is the only source capable of processing such film? Maybe others can no? I am NOT film-intelligent lol, so forgive any apparent ignorance regarding the subject. Hi B.A., Kodak retains the rights to the processing procedure of that film stock. It is not "normal" film and is not developed in any standard type of manner. There is a Kodak specific "process" that must be employed in order to accomplish the task. The absolute very last remaining facility that was licensed by Kodak to use their system of processing was Dwayne's Photo. They processed my film at the end of December, as well. Kodak announced in 2006 that it would completely discontinue it worldwide by the end of December in 2010 (last year). So, that's it forever. I don't believe even the "know-how" to do it is available outside of Kodak. Now Ektachrome is still available, but I wanted to replicate as closely as possible the same conditions and use the same materials as were originally used to prevent nay-sayers from claiming the tests were not valid due to those differences. As it is, the actual so-called "original Zapruder Camera" housed in the National Archives would have been my first choice, but obtaining usage of it wasn't going to happen. It is likely that any differences between Ektachrome and Kodachrome will NOT make a bit of difference anyway, but this way we don't have to deal with that argument at all. Monk, Any full zoom left to right *pan* footage (from the Z-pedestal)from the corner of Main and Elm down to the overpass...? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) What are you talking about now? I didn't say that none of it was usable nor that I failed to bring back useful images! I said the majority was usable. In fact, over 95% is usable. Let me define "usable" in the sense I wrote it: "ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!! I shot 6 rolls and Scott shot several more using his own B&H cameras (yes plural) during the same period of time. There is a TON (figuratively speaking) to work with. However, I have passed off a lot of the film for analysis by folks much better suited and more capable than I. There are constraints with which to deal, so I have no time frame on results yet. However, I also don't have the budget nor the personnel nor the facilities available to me that the USGOV had available to them either. My bad. I read UNusable. My apologies. Good luck with your footage. I can't wait to see what it brings. Edited February 13, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Those who pulled the JFK murder off would be complete IDIOTS if they did NOT alter that film (being one of the BEST possible witnesses to the entire event that terrible day). There is simply NO way you would allow a film of that kind of historical worth go unmolested, I don't care who pulled it off. They murdered so many witnessed, items disappearing left and right, you name it, yet the film walks away untouched???....come on. Growing up, just off the bat, I had assumed the film received some kind of high tech alteration, it had to have. Now, things are becoming clear....I guess. Here's hoping anyway. Hey Greg, do you think Kodak is the only source capable of processing such film? Maybe others can no? I am NOT film-intelligent lol, so forgive any apparent ignorance regarding the subject. Hi B.A., Kodak retains the rights to the processing procedure of that film stock. It is not "normal" film and is not developed in any standard type of manner. There is a Kodak specific "process" that must be employed in order to accomplish the task. The absolute very last remaining facility that was licensed by Kodak to use their system of processing was Dwayne's Photo. They processed my film at the end of December, as well. Kodak announced in 2006 that it would completely discontinue it worldwide by the end of December in 2010 (last year). So, that's it forever. I don't believe even the "know-how" to do it is available outside of Kodak. Now Ektachrome is still available, but I wanted to replicate as closely as possible the same conditions and use the same materials as were originally used to prevent nay-sayers from claiming the tests were not valid due to those differences. As it is, the actual so-called "original Zapruder Camera" housed in the National Archives would have been my first choice, but obtaining usage of it wasn't going to happen. It is likely that any differences between Ektachrome and Kodachrome will NOT make a bit of difference anyway, but this way we don't have to deal with that argument at all. Monk, Any full zoom left to right *pan* footage (from the Z-pedestal)from the corner of Main and Elm down to the overpass...? David Yes David, Except I think you meant to say from Houston & Elm (not Main, since it doesn't intersect with Elm) down to the underpass. That's just about all I shot--all 6 rolls. Of course I did do tests in San Diego, too, but with Ektachrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Greg - you got it... "ignore" is about the only thing he seems to understand on this forum - not that he gets the hint, and if you've noticed, his posts describe the fun and entertainment he derives from showing off his ignorance and causing nothing but disruption with each and every post.... but enough time on the old man Having just watched the Costella youtube video when he explains some of his thoughts on zapruder he mentions a ghost image that does not seem to fit. I've enlarged that area and it dawns on me that it looks like th front of the TSBD.... I did not hear if he spoke of light leaking in in that manner... if this is the TSBD it would make some sense since it disappears as Zapruder pans to his right.... could this be a normal function of the camera? Would be interested in other's interpretation. This is from frame 180 btw The other comment that bothers me is the insistance that the people on the sidewalk do not move or turn toward the limo and this is just not true... in the few seconds we see them and the limo actually passes them, they clap, move their heads, the scarf and coats move in the wind, etc... I took the time to stabilize/align the frames within Photoshop so the people remain in the same location... it becomes very apparent that they are live, there and watching the parade.... imo. David, Frame 183 will give you a better picture of the area in question. The ghost image area in frame 183 includes part of the signal light post on the Houston St corner, along with the top of the "backside black sign" and "somewhat above" in the background. Just put your curser on the objects within the red box to check it. That area is not part of the TSBD. chris Thanks Chris... I see what you mean. I found the Costella presentation a bit wanting... in that there were many conclusions just not a lot of example or evidence supporting the conclusions... he kept refering to buildings in the sproket area that were out of place so I went looking under that impression. I don't think it was a complete fabrication but a careful alteration... yet nothing is beyond possibility. One last point here.... Homer is quoted in Unspeakable, via his AARB interview by Horne, as saying the film he was given, after he was asked to enlarge frames showing the wounding of both men, claims there were 6-8 shots that hit JFK yet he was ultimately ignored.... If Dino sees the "real" film on Saturday and Homer gets his on Sunday... and is the "fake" from which board are produced... why are there still 6-8 shots left on the film and how did they mitigate that away for the briefing to the President??? Wouldn't we have expected the Homer film to be the extant fim of today? DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Greg - you got it... "ignore" is about the only thing he seems to understand on this forum - not that he gets the hint, and if you've noticed, his posts describe the fun and entertainment he derives from showing off his ignorance and causing nothing but disruption with each and every post.... but enough time on the old man Having just watched the Costella youtube video when he explains some of his thoughts on zapruder he mentions a ghost image that does not seem to fit. I've enlarged that area and it dawns on me that it looks like th front of the TSBD.... I did not hear if he spoke of light leaking in in that manner... if this is the TSBD it would make some sense since it disappears as Zapruder pans to his right.... could this be a normal function of the camera? Would be interested in other's interpretation. This is from frame 180 btw The other comment that bothers me is the insistance that the people on the sidewalk do not move or turn toward the limo and this is just not true... in the few seconds we see them and the limo actually passes them, they clap, move their heads, the scarf and coats move in the wind, etc... I took the time to stabilize/align the frames within Photoshop so the people remain in the same location... it becomes very apparent that they are live, there and watching the parade.... imo. David, Frame 183 will give you a better picture of the area in question. The ghost image area in frame 183 includes part of the signal light post on the Houston St corner, along with the top of the "backside black sign" and "somewhat above" in the background. Just put your curser on the objects within the red box to check it. That area is not part of the TSBD. chris Nice GIF Chris. Chris I have seen you post film frames from a film you have taken while standing on the pedestal in Dealey Plaza. What style of camera and film did you use. ? was it at full zoom ? Can you re-post some samples. Cheers. Robin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 What are you talking about now? I didn't say that none of it was usable nor that I failed to bring back useful images! I said the majority was usable. In fact, over 95% is usable. Let me define "usable" in the sense I wrote it: "ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!! I shot 6 rolls and Scott shot several more using his own B&H cameras (yes plural) during the same period of time. There is a TON (figuratively speaking) to work with. However, I have passed off a lot of the film for analysis by folks much better suited and more capable than I. There are constraints with which to deal, so I have no time frame on results yet. However, I also don't have the budget nor the personnel nor the facilities available to me that the USGOV had available to them either. My bad. I read UNusable. My apologies. Goos luck with your footage. I can't wait to see what it brings. No problem, Craig. Thanks for the apology. 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