Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Wrong! Proof.... TGZFH pages 113-144 Read very slowly Craig and let what David Healy says sink into your brain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Wrong! Proof.... TGZFH pages 113-144 Read very slowly Craig and let what David Healy says sink into your brain Thats PROOF? Next you are going to show us Mary Poppins? LOL! Do you even understand the how the process works? Oh wait...nevermind. I forgot who I was talking to. You can't even add let alone understand multiple exposure photographic techniques. My bad. Edited August 10, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 You can't even add My math skills far exceed that of what you could ever imagine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 You can't even add My math skills far exceed that of what you could ever imagine Sorry, you can't even add 1.25 plus 1.25 plus .5. No need to imagine at all. We can see it firsthand. Now about your understanding those processes.... Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)... Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip... Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY: That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations. Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Robert, If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Robert, If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration. chris Boom! Well said Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 You can't even add My math skills far exceed that of what you could ever imagine Sorry, you can't even add 1.25 plus 1.25 plus .5. No need to imagine at all. We can see it firsthand. Now about your understanding those processes.... Do you? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Now about your understanding those processes.... Do you? Yes Great...explain them. Got any hands on experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 ... But, as a matter of fact, all experts and specialists who have tried to analyze the Zapruder film, WITH TOP-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, have found NOTHING, absolutely no trace of alteration. ... /François Carlier/ oh Francois, you silly goose you, you haven't an iota of (circa. 1963) technical film lab knowledge. Posting the above utter nonsense is an embarrassment to decent lone nut discussion concerning the subject. So sit down and watch Lamson get his due.... p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder film is SUSPECT suck-it-up, son. Yeah, sure ! And Elvis Presley is alive, too. Keep dreaming. /François Carlier/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 ... But, as a matter of fact, all experts and specialists who have tried to analyze the Zapruder film, WITH TOP-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, have found NOTHING, absolutely no trace of alteration. ... /François Carlier/ oh Francois, you silly goose you, you haven't an iota of (circa. 1963) technical film lab knowledge. Posting the above utter nonsense is an embarrassment to decent lone nut discussion concerning the subject. So sit down and watch Lamson get his due.... p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder film is SUSPECT suck-it-up, son. Yeah, sure ! And Elvis Presley is alive, too. Keep dreaming. /François Carlier/ Weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Great...explain them. Got any hands on experience? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)... Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip... Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY: That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations. Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Good post, Mister Harris. So there's one more "big name" conspiracy theorist who DOES NOT BELIEVE that the Zapruder film is altered. One more name to the list I had started on another thread. /François Carlier/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Great...explain them. Got any hands on experience? No So you really DON'T understand. I'm not suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Great...explain them. Got any hands on experience? No So you really DON'T understand. I'm not suprised. So you have to have "hands on" experience to understand anything? That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard If you have NEVER done anything even similar how can you know if what is being described...AND WHAT YOU CLAIM TO "BELIEVE", is really correct? It's not ludicrous at all. It's a technical problem. If you don't have the proper techincal background, how can YOU properly judge what it is you are reading? Unless of course your just "BELIEVE" Edited August 10, 2010 by Craig Lamson 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