Paul Rigby Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I don't think The Birds is a good comparison since the techniques used there are pretty detectable. Unlike,say, the enormous pink head-blob in the Z-fake, which is utterly undetectable; and was particularly so for the Parkland doctors, who saw nothing remotely resembling it. Unless you are going to say that the whole thing was redone. Or prepared in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) Or prepared in advance. Only paul (i don't know how a shadow works) rigby.... Edited August 11, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Whatever the state of technology in 1928, or 1963, or any other year, for that matter, "alterationists" have been totally unable : -1. to show convincingly that there had been any alteration on the Zapruder film. -2. to duplicate any of those so-called alterations. Well, I am not holding my breath. We all know they never will. /F.C./ I am not holding my breath More's the pity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Only paul (i don't know how a shadow works) rigby.... Still festering about that one, eh, Craigster? No wonder. What a complete crock that rendition of the sun's position over Dealey was. But I did like the shadow squiggles. Taxi for the Craigster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Only paul (i don't know how a shadow works) rigby.... Still festering about that one, eh, Craigster? No wonder. What a complete crock that rendition of the sun's position over Dealey was. But I did like the shadow squiggles. Taxi for the Craigster! Festering? Hell pauly. YOU got it wrong and you don't even know WHY you failed. You are just another in a very long line of loony ct photo ignorants. This forum is filled to the brim with them.... To see the crock in all of this consult your bathroom mirror.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) Burnham is a "cartooner" Lamson is a joker. The point of this thread is to demonstrate (one thing), that: the technology to create EXTREME effects by altering original film footage was in use as early as 1928, and therefore, such technology was available in 1963. The type of technologies that were employed to create the extant Zapruder Film remain a focus of research. However, the claim that has been advanced by alteration deniers, namely: that the necessary technology to accomplish Z-film alteration did not exist in 1963--is inaccurate. Granted, my example is not perfect. However, it would be encouraging if those on the other side of this debate would at least concede that "it was possible from a technical stand point" ONLY--without conceding that it was, in fact, done to that film. The latter debate can wait for another day. But, such an admission would go a long way toward promoting a positive perception of their intellectual honesty. Edited August 12, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 Greg: DO you think the whole film was redone? THat is, what is there is mostly special effects? Jim, Please take this reply in the spirit it is meant... How do you answer similar questions when they're posed to you? As an example, when people learn that I'm a JFK researcher many will often ask me: "Who do you think did it?" or "How many shots do you think were fired?" -- etc. -- My answer to the first question (who done it?) is honest: I DON'T KNOW. My answer to the second question is more obvious: "AS MANY AS IT TOOK" -- So, I don't know. However, I suspect that the VAST MAJORITY of it was redone. Hawkeye and NPIC, both EXTREMELY state of the art facilities, with different functions, were quite capable of "anything" on film or still photos. Anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) Burnham is a "cartooner" Lamson is a joker. snip burnham bs... Are you a "cartooner" or not? Added on edit. The Joke here is Greg Burnham. He sez: "There are endless anomalies (to put it mildly) associated with the "so-called" Zapruder film. I call it the "Happy Zappy (should be rated X (for violence)-- Cartoon" (because it's a FAKE). There is no question remaining as to its utter lack of authenticity. IT IS A CARTOON--at best...a violent depiction of an American coup animated to protect the guilty, obfuscate the facts, and forever undermine the Executive Branch of the US government." Intellectual honesty? Yea, right.... Edited August 12, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Paul: This is what I mean about you. In The Birds, the matte shots are detectable. Now, in the Zapruder film, I don't see anything like that. Of course not - it's your job not to. Your job is to defend that which Mack can no longer credibly do. But few are fooled. Matte photography did not really advance until the making of 2001. In that film, the combination of matte shots with front projection techniques really constituted a leap forward in film special effects. But they had a lot of problems perfecting the techniques for that, plus it cost millions to do and it took five years. Remind me - when did the second-version of the Z-fake surface publicly? It wasn't the same year as The Birds appeared, was it? You see, that's what I mean about you, and it's most agreeable: No ability to think through the consequences of successive evasions or obfuscations. November 22, 1963: 21:15hrs Dulles to Angleton: "What are we going to do about this Z-film, Jim?" Angleton: "Nothing, boss, it's private property." Dulles: "But it exposes our deception, Jim..." Angleton: "Bad break, boss, but that's just the way it goes." Anti-alterationism: About as plausible as the single-bullet theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Paul: You live in your own jihad world. Anyone who has any experience looking at films or understands who Doug Trumbull was (a guy you apparently never heard of) can see the difference between the Hitchcock film and the Kubrick film. Oh dear. Your research is as brilliant as ever: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11808&highlight=Trumbull#post11808 Date: September 2009. Later in the same thread: What really attracted me to Weidner's very fine analysis of Kubrick and the curious qualities of the moon landing photos was what seem to me to be resonances in one particular section of the Z fake, specifically, the sequence following the famous crude splice at 207-211. Was it Jack White or John Costella who commented on the transparency of one of Clint Hill's legs as he boarded the presidential limousine? Can't remember for the moment, but I offer as a hypothesis that this section of the film incorporates the use of Front Screen Projection (background) and studio-recreated (re-enacted) foreground. Just to see where it takes us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Only paul (i don't know how a shadow works) rigby.... Still festering about that one, eh, Craigster? No wonder. What a complete crock that rendition of the sun's position over Dealey was. But I did like the shadow squiggles. Taxi for the Craigster! Festering? Hell pauly. YOU got it wrong and you don't even know WHY you failed. You are just another in a very long line of loony ct photo ignorants. This forum is filled to the brim with them.... To see the crock in all of this consult your bathroom mirror.... there you go again Studley.... I'm not impressed--lmao! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) Greg: DO you think the whole film was redone? THat is, what is there is mostly special effects? If a source altered even one Z-film frame (simple frame removal or matte work), WHY? Until some entity/persons can give a full accounting of the whereabouts [day to day basis] of the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original from 11/22/1963 thru 03-01-1964 (and PROVE it, via documentation) it would appear some folks here are blowing smoke (as usual)... So, for those non-alteration Z-film supporters, simply begin there. There will be those who will step the plate when the discussion merits film composite techniques... till then... ta-ta Edited August 12, 2010 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Paul: You live in your own jihad world. Anyone who has any experience looking at films or understands who Doug Trumbull was (a guy you apparently never heard of) can see the difference between the Hitchcock film and the Kubrick film. Oh dear. Your research is as brilliant as ever: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11808&highlight=Trumbull#post11808 Date: September 2009. Later in the same thread: What really attracted me to Weidner's very fine analysis of Kubrick and the curious qualities of the moon landing photos was what seem to me to be resonances in one particular section of the Z fake, specifically, the sequence following the famous crude splice at 207-211. Was it Jack White or John Costella who commented on the transparency of one of Clint Hill's legs as he boarded the presidential limousine? Can't remember for the moment, but I offer as a hypothesis that this section of the film incorporates the use of Front Screen Projection (background) and studio-recreated (re-enacted) foreground. Just to see where it takes us. Ignorance breeds ignorance..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 there you go again Studley.... I'm not impressed--lmao! Who in the world, in their right mind, would care in the least if you are impressed. Heck, you can't prove your way out of a paper bag let alone have ever completed a VPA.... Do you even understand how powerful a tool they are and why they blow silly rigby away? Of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 There will be those who will step the plate when the discussion merits film composite techniques... till then... ta-ta Translated from healyspeak..I'm SOOOO screwed, get me out of here...FAST! Come back some day when you have something of value to add davie. 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