History Lost: Test of Zapruder fakery doomed

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

I think you're being a little unfair. There was absolutely nothing "idiotic" about Robert's "challenge." At all.

If 1963 technology has already been proven adequate to the task of creating the highly sophisticated fruad you claim the Zapruder film is, then you should have no problems posting the proof here, right?

I was perhaps too harsh toward Robert. I hope he accepts my sincere apology for that. I shouldn't have made it personal. Thanks for calling me on that Martin.

Now, instead of me posting proof of what was possible in 1963, why don't you pick up Volume IV of IARRB by Doug Horne? How about this, instead of me posting proof of what was possible in alteration technology from 1963, why not just explain some of the issues within the Zappy film itself? Such as the impossible BLUR / non-Blur anomalies? In fact, I'll reverse you on this point. In 1963, there was no ability to de-blur frames--none. So, if the blur / non-blur anomalies are not explicable by physics, without de-blurring alteration capabilities in 1963, then what?

Conclusion: According to the laws of physics, some frames are impossibly clear because the moving objects (Limo, motorcycles, etc.) are SHARP at the same time that the stationary objects (both in the foreground AND the background) are SHARP.

The blur discussion starts at approximately the 4 1/2 minute mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVz545Ghts&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ukCWW2QaA&feature=related

(Moreover, David Healy has already addressed the question of "what was possible" in 1963 from his own expert knowledge of the subject.)

Edited August 1, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmQDhWOQSg&feature=related

Edited August 1, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

In 1963, there was no ability to de-blur frames--none. So, if the blur / non-blur anomalies are not explicable by physics, without de-blurring alteration capabilities in 1963, then what?

Ignorance really becomes you.

You really don't have a clue do you...

UnSharp Mask.....

[Greg Burnham]

In 1963, there was no ability to de-blur frames--none. So, if the blur / non-blur anomalies are not explicable by physics, without de-blurring alteration capabilities in 1963, then what?

Ignorance really becomes you.

You really don't have a clue do you...

UnSharp Mask.....

Without computer technology that came MUCH later, such a task would have been nearly, if not completely, impossible on such a scale. However, even if these de-blurring techniques were available and practical in 1963 as you posit, then that supports the possibility of alteration being available with 1963 technology.

[Dean Hagerman]

However, even if these de-blurring techniques were available and practical in 1963 as you posit, then that supports the possibility of alteration being available with 1963 technology.

Very true

[Craig Lamson]

Without computer technology that came MUCH later, such a task would have been nearly, if not completely, impossible on such a scale. However, even if these de-blurring techniques were available and practical in 1963 as you posit, then that supports the possibility of alteration being available with 1963 technology.

Oh please, why don't you stick to subjects you have the first clue about. Not sdure what that might be...but... you simply suck eggs at this. You are a parrot Greg, mouthing words that have no menaing to you. You "believe" without knowing if your "belief" holds water.

Unsharp mask was, in the film days a fairly simple darkroom process, and was quite common in the photo-mechanical process ( think PRINTING via a printing press).

The process has been around since at least the 30's. Thats a FACT. You seeem to be in very short supply of these.

The question is NOT the possibility of "movie magic" but rather was it DONE to the Zap film.

As we have seen ( and we can trash even more of the work if you wish) the claims FOR alteration are simply junk. Your "best" failed parallax 101 and screwed the pooch on sharpening. And lets not even talk about his horid alteration of the Z film. Or the equally silly "hole" crap. The guy is a loon. The fact that he worked with crappy frames when he COULD have had better is also quite telling. Gotta wonder why?

But I digress.

You are totally underwater burnham. You are totally clueless and you parrot that which you don't even understand. That makes your posts beyond meaningless. It makes them pure comedy.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

However, even if these de-blurring techniques were available and practical in 1963 as you posit, then that supports the possibility of alteration being available with 1963 technology.

Very true

Polly wanna cracker?

[Craig Lamson]

What's the proof unsharp mask was used on the Z film?

Sheesh, are you really this dense or is it just a silly act?

jimmy need a cracker too?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

...The question is NOT the possibility of "movie magic" but rather was it DONE to the Zap film.

No. The challenge raised by both Robert Harris and Martin Hay was to post proof that 1963 technology was capable of film alteration to the degree claimed to be present in the Zapruder film. Since you are a "nay-sayer" on Zappy alteration, and a self proclaimed "expert" on the subject, your statement that the technology was available, speaks volumes and answers their question for me.

Checkmate.

[Craig Lamson]

...The question is NOT the possibility of "movie magic" but rather was it DONE to the Zap film.

No. The challenge raised by both Robert Harris and Martin Hay was to post proof that 1963 technology was capable of film alteration to the degree claimed to be present in the Zapruder film. Since you are a "nay-sayer" on Zappy alteration, and a self proclaimed "expert" on the subject, your statement that the technology was available, speaks volumes and answers their question for me.

Checkmate.

I have no problem stating Hollywood could alter film. Thats not even a question.

The question THEY asked was if you could do the things YOU ( and your band of merry whatevers) say were done. You can't or won't.

Lets review Roberts post and see that you don't understand what you read very well.

He said: "Well then, time is running out for the alterationists to do what they've never done before. Using the same model camera that Zapruder used, film a car driving down Elm street and then proceed to modify it they way they claim it was modified in 1963.

It would be a bitch of job using 2010 technology. I would like to see somebody do it using purely 1963 technology."

You see to what you wrote about is simply not true. He DID NOT ask you to prove the the tech was capable of doinging something. He wanted you TO ACTUALLY DO IT!

And then Martin writes:

"If 1963 technology has already been proven adequate to the task of creating the highly sophisticated fruad you claim the Zapruder film is, then you should have no problems posting the proof here, right?"

Later he says:

"I think Robert Harris made a pretty sensible suggestion. Why not make a fake film with 1963 equipment and then see if it compares to the Zapruder film? If it works surely this will only strengthen your position?"

Contrary to your words above he simply asks you to post your movie here.

Of course its not the first time the horde has been asked to do this. And its alwsys the same. You fade into the woodwork.

You appear to have your head in a space not fit for hunam habitation.

And that greg..is the REAL checkmate.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

Do you mind answering the question: What is the proof that unsharp mask was used on the Z film?

Can you please cite a witness or a document in your reply?

Who ever said that unsharp mask was used on the Z film? Your brain in reverse again jimmy?

[Craig Lamson]

Moree blah, blah,blah by Lamson.

Even in 1963, the techniques used to alter frames and or insert something like traveling mattes is beyond the reach of average individuals. Horne describes what he thinks was done to the film, and he also includes a process known as aerial imaging.

For a really good example of precisely what was needed, see Roland Zavada's reply to Doug Horne's assertions that this was done at Hawkeye works. This is available on the web.

Whatever one thinks of Zavada, there is no doubt that he knew his stuff. So I consider his description of what happened to be on the mark.

To say that Greg Burnham could go ahead and do what Zavada describes is one of the more absurd claims that Lammy has made--which is saying a lot considering what this guy has been spouting for months. In fact, it flies in the face of logic and common sense.

You don't HAVE average individuals jimmy, the HORDE has David Healy, hollywood insider not to mention other contacts in the film industry. People would be hired to perform the proper functions. This is NOT rocket science, and no one is asking for a total recreation, which is impossible, just some proof of concept footage. Not an unreasonable request considering the magnitude of the claims. Just for them to show us what they say is possible. How unreasonable is that?

YOU have a problem with this kind of empirical proof?

What flies in the face of logic and common sense is your statement above jimmy....

Blah blah Blah...that all you are really good for jimmy...this is beyond your depth.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

As you can see from below unsharp mask was a process used to sharpen images from the thirties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Do you think this was used on Zapruder? Simple question.

If not, then how to explain the question by Greg: the sharp resolution of both moving and non moving objects in the film.

Costella compared a photo printed in Life magazine to two frames from the MPI video. His comparison fails due to mixing sources. The BASIS of his claim is that the LIFE image is TOO sharp. The problem for Costella is he has no clue about the processing that was present in the LIFE image. In fact until recently when he was dforced to deal directly wiht this error he claimed it was impossible. He says the same on the video Burnham posted.

He did not even have a CLUE it was possible to sharpen images in a darkroom nor that if was a common practice in the printing business since it also lowered the dynamic range of a color transparency to bring it closer to the dynamic range of the printed page.

We don't know if LIFE used the process on the frames that were printed, but it really does not matter. Costella's comparison is fatally flawed by his choice of subject material.

Costella does not offer us the same comparison using frames taken from a higher quality source like the archival copy availabe from the archives or even the frames from the MPI video. Using a photo with unknown processing destroys his entire test. It falis.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Harris said to make a fake film. Not just a few frames. To make just a few frames would not prove the case anyway. SInce what Horne is saying is that a battery of devices was used to prepare the film.

Lammy, you did read Horne's book didn't you?

I don't know what it would cost to do this. But it would not be cheap.

dimbo,

How many frames is a "film" comprised of?

I've read all the pertinent parts of Horne's mess. He is a hack who does not have the first clue what he is talking about when it comes to the photographic process. He must be you hero.

Hell you could do this stuff at any film school, whats the problem? All the alterationists say this is a slam dunk...so whats the probkem?

[Craig Lamson]

Well, it should be easy enough to compare the photo to the film, right?

If the images are that sharp with both moving and unmoving objects, the possibility is that unsharp mask was used.

What good is the comparison if you don't know what you are looking at?

We simply don't know.

Thats the problem.

You can't make the claim Costella did ( and burnham parroted ) with these samples and expect it to prove the claim. The argument fails.