Craig Lamson Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) [ Craig, All your BS about panning and your visual references is just that - BS... the appearance of speed?? Youve lost your mind. A car traveling at 10 mph will cover X amount of ground in X amount of time whether it's filmed or not, whether it is going at the camera, at an angle, or away from the camera... X number of frames at an agreed upon frame rate in X amount of time results in a speed... if the last car in the motorcade which we cannot see was going 10mph I can tell you the distance in the amount of time based on the number of frames being analyzed... from 313 to 337, 1.31 seconds at 10mph THAT car traveled 19.2 feet - even you should understand that. So you tell me Craig... from 300 to 337 is 37 frames at 18.3 fps equals 2.022 seconds. CALCULATE how fast is the limo going - show us how the great and might Lamson detemines DISTANCE How about an easier one... the limo leaves Love Field and travels for 11 seconds (or what would be 201 frames at 18.3fps) Please show us how you would CALCULATE the limo's speed Now a little tougher one - you up to it? From frame 100 to 200 is 100 frames at 18.3fps is 5.464 seconds There is a visible splice at 132 There is a visible splice at 154 How fast was the limo traveling from frame 100 to frame 200? I've already explained why it can't be done... but you know better - so show us. Put up or shut up already Craig... Use a calculator if you can't do the math... in fact don't even do the math - just explain how you would even begin to CALCULATE an answer given the available information... BS hun? I see that all of this really blows right over your head, kind of like how you got the photographic perspective all backwards. No worries dAVE we ALL now know where you rank on basic matters photographic. But lets review AGAIN. Limo filmed at the turn requires LESS pan speed than a limo passing directly in front of the cameraman. No need to take my word for this BASIC FACT dAVE, just step outside and do it yourself. Then I will be happy to accept your admission you mucked it up AGAIN. I'm sure SOMEONE can put it into maths for you dAVE, but there is rely no need...all one has do is look. As for your "calcs" on the speed. Be my guest but your claim you can't do it just reinforces my original point...looking and trying to judge speed is a fools errand. And what was it dAVE tried to do? Oh yea...dAVE thinks he can judge speed by looking. You do the 'math" as to what that means. Edited March 24, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 So what up Mr. L?? Can't see how wrong you are about the "appearance of speed" Can't figure out how fast the limo was going without guessing about distance We can give you as much time as you need... but I expect we wont hear from you on this subject again... but most assuredly you will find some way to attack and confuse in an attempt to mask your lack of knowledge on the issue. So predictable. Sure would be refreshing for you to admit you're wrong here - as you expect everyone else to - and show an ounce of class. But we wont hold our breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) So what up Mr. L?? Can't see how wrong you are about the "appearance of speed" Can't figure out how fast the limo was going without guessing about distance We can give you as much time as you need... but I expect we wont hear from you on this subject again... but most assuredly you will find some way to attack and confuse in an attempt to mask your lack of knowledge on the issue. So predictable. Sure would be refreshing for you to admit you're wrong here - as you expect everyone else to - and show an ounce of class. But we wont hold our breath. The one needing to admit error ( still awaiting your admission on the perspective thing in another thread btw) is you. Your ignorance of something as simple as foreshortening shows the world that you simply have no business commenting on anything photography based. Also my original point was that you CAN'T, with any degree of reliability, GUESS at the speed of the limo because of the varying nature of the pan speed. And rest assure I am FULLY correct that this change in pan speed DOES happen. If you think other wise, then actually PROVE your point instead of waving your hands ( thats what you did with your silliness about frames per second etc.) NONE of that applies to the VISUAL APPEARANCE of speed and the changing rate of the camera pan speed. Your ignorance of all this is amazing. Thats WHY I baited you with the calculated speed. Of course here are no good metrics to do that, again that was my original point that blew right over your head. So lets review again. dAVE can't calculate the speed nor can he see it visually. His work on this and his silly conclusions have been rendered moot..... Edited March 24, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 So what up Mr. L?? Can't see how wrong you are about the "appearance of speed" Can't figure out how fast the limo was going without guessing about distance We can give you as much time as you need... but I expect we wont hear from you on this subject again... but most assuredly you will find some way to attack and confuse in an attempt to mask your lack of knowledge on the issue. So predictable. Sure would be refreshing for you to admit you're wrong here - as you expect everyone else to - and show an ounce of class. But we wont hold our breath. The one needing to admit error ( still awaiting your admission on the perspective thing in another thread btw) is you. Your ignorance of something as simple as foreshortening shows the world that you simply have no business commenting on anything photography based. Also my original point was that you CAN'T, with any degree of reliability, GUESS at the speed of the limo because of the varying nature of the pan speed. And rest assure I am FULLY correct that this change in pan speed DOES happen. If you think other wise, then actually PROVE your point instead of waving your hands ( thats what you did with your silliness about frames per second etc.) NONE of that applies to the VISUAL APPEARANCE of speed and the changing rate of the camera pan speed. Your ignorance of all this is amazing. Thats WHY I baited you with the calculated speed. Of course here are no good metrics to do that, again that was my original point that blew right over your head. So lets review again. dAVE can't calculate the speed nor can he see it visually. His work on this and his silly conclusions have been rendered moot..... CL: Also my original point was that you CAN'T, with any degree of reliability, GUESS at the speed of the limo because of the varying nature of the pan speed. Looking at this question we see a classic Specter-ism.. assume something - wrong as it may be - and then build a case around it. I NEVER attempted to guess the speed of the limo using what I saw in the Zfilm, Muchmore or Nix... EVER. What I said was the speed CANNOT BE CALCULATED since we cannot know the distances involved, only the time as represented by the films frame rate. What does that have to do with pan rate? No one cares about the pan rate or the visible appearance of speed... only you.. it has no bearing on this thread at all, the only reason you keep talking pan rates is that you have nothing to say about the subject... "BAITED" ? yeah, you're such an intellectual giant The other part of this thread had to do with determining the speed at which Hill would have to run to cover the distances involved BASED ON THE FRAME COUNT AND FRAME RATE... panning?, we don't need no stinkin' panning... Craig, all you do is argue off topic points and think you are contributing, or annoying, or misdirecting when all you do is show your lack of understanding a topic and your perverse sense of personal accomplishment when we are supposed to be discussing the evidence... One last time, slowly.... in 24 frames at 18.3fps, how fast is the limo going? Don't bother looking at the films, they wont help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) So what up Mr. L?? Can't see how wrong you are about the "appearance of speed" Can't figure out how fast the limo was going without guessing about distance We can give you as much time as you need... but I expect we wont hear from you on this subject again... but most assuredly you will find some way to attack and confuse in an attempt to mask your lack of knowledge on the issue. So predictable. Sure would be refreshing for you to admit you're wrong here - as you expect everyone else to - and show an ounce of class. But we wont hold our breath. The one needing to admit error ( still awaiting your admission on the perspective thing in another thread btw) is you. Your ignorance of something as simple as foreshortening shows the world that you simply have no business commenting on anything photography based. Also my original point was that you CAN'T, with any degree of reliability, GUESS at the speed of the limo because of the varying nature of the pan speed. And rest assure I am FULLY correct that this change in pan speed DOES happen. If you think other wise, then actually PROVE your point instead of waving your hands ( thats what you did with your silliness about frames per second etc.) NONE of that applies to the VISUAL APPEARANCE of speed and the changing rate of the camera pan speed. Your ignorance of all this is amazing. Thats WHY I baited you with the calculated speed. Of course here are no good metrics to do that, again that was my original point that blew right over your head. So lets review again. dAVE can't calculate the speed nor can he see it visually. His work on this and his silly conclusions have been rendered moot..... CL: Also my original point was that you CAN'T, with any degree of reliability, GUESS at the speed of the limo because of the varying nature of the pan speed. Looking at this question we see a classic Specter-ism.. assume something - wrong as it may be - and then build a case around it. I NEVER attempted to guess the speed of the limo using what I saw in the Zfilm, Muchmore or Nix... EVER. Oh PLEASE! Your guessing at the speed of fhe limo from a VISUAL OBSERVATION was the entire basis of my post. Let me quote you ONCE AGAIN. dAVE sez: "Just my opinion at this point yet Hill's ability to reach that limo so quickly suggests it was going much slower than it appears to be in Zapruder." and "I am saying the motorcade was traveling much slower than the z film suggests and some of the key frames between 310 and 337 have been removed which would have showed a drastic slow down of the limo, shots fired, Hill racing to the limo, and then what we do see - the limo racing away as Hill holds on for dear life." No what we are looking at is yet another prime example of your woeful ignorance of all things photographic, Not to mention you can't even remember what it is you have said in previous posts.... What I said was the speed CANNOT BE CALCULATED since we cannot know the distances involved, only the time as represented by the films frame rate. What does that have to do with pan rate? No one cares about the pan rate or the visible appearance of speed... only you.. it has no bearing on this thread at all, the only reason you keep talking pan rates is that you have nothing to say about the subject... "BAITED" ? yeah, you're such an intellectual giant Well dAVE once again you STEP in it. The rate of pan effects the visual appearance of the speed of the limo, the VERY THING you are trying to judge...VISUALLY. Your intellectual prowess is a bit lacking in this regard.... The other part of this thread had to do with determining the speed at which Hill would have to run to cover the distances involved BASED ON THE FRAME COUNT AND FRAME RATE... panning?, we don't need no stinkin' panning... LOL! You sure don't. Why should you, you can't even begin to understand the implications.. Craig, all you do is argue off topic points and think you are contributing, or annoying, or misdirecting when all you do is show your lack of understanding a topic and your perverse sense of personal accomplishment when we are supposed to be discussing the evidence... As has been shown my post was not off topic at all. I point out your glaring shortcomings in this matter. And as usual when davE is trying in vain to discuss things photographic the subject matter sails right over his head. One last time, slowly.... in 24 frames at 18.3fps, how fast is the limo going? Don't bother looking at the films, they wont help. Maybe YOU should take your own advice dAVE. And then take some basic photographic classes. Until then you should refrain from posting on photographic issues...unless you are a glutton for punishment... Edited March 26, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 Standing on your little soapbox and screaming "A-B-C" when the rest of us are talking about "X-Y-Z" whatever. Craig, you present yourself as an expert with regards to photographic and by inference film/video/digital imagery a TEACHER is not supposed to have a political agenda.. If you are saying that using the Oxberry and the skills available in 63 make it impossible - show us why, if you agree that it was even remotely possible... one would think you, of all people, would be the MOST interested in how "they" did it.... be the most amazing compositie job in history and you don't even want to investigate the possibility? - and this is your livelihood along with JFK your hobby?? WTF are you doing Craig then? disruption just for the sake of it? Then, you skip over all this MATH and only talk about the comparison of what we see in the films to the MATH... and then, out of context? Later, when I found that I had incorrectly applied Hill's differential speed to the entire distance, I corrected myself... but there were still MATHEMATCAL problems... looking at the film only occurs after the MATH... and NOT in determining speed but relative position of the objects by frame and framerate... thanks agian for showing me the errors of my way... you truly are an asset to this forum Peace out DJ My original post: How does Clint Hill catch the limo? At 9.8mph the limo travels 14.4 feet per sec Hill is off at 313 and reaches the limo at 337 = 24 frames 24 frames / 18.3 fps = 1.3 seconds for Hill to reach limo Limo travels 18.85 feet at 9.8 mph in 1.3 seconds Hill is approx 12 feet from limo at 313 which equates to 6 feet from the running board to the front of the Queen Mary plus the 6 feet or so from the QM to the limo... Total run of 30.85 (18.85 + 12) feet to be covered in 1.3 seconds requires Hill to sprint at over 25mph if limo travels at 9.8mph If Hill runs the expected average speed of 11.2 mph the limo must be going 2.5 mph for him to reach it in the 1.3 seconds we see. 18.3 fps 9.8 mph 51744 feet per hour 862.4 fpminute 14.4 fpsecond 313 hill off 337 hill on 24 diff 1.3 seconds for 24 frames 18.85 distance at 9.8 mph 12.00 distance from Hill to Limo at 313 30.85 Total distance to cover 25 Hill's speed 15.2 mph differential 80256 feet per hour 1337.6 fpminute 22.3 fpsecond 1.38 seconds needed to overtake limo If the limo was traveling at 5mph Hill need only run at 16mph to reach the limo... which for a short sprint is possible... it would also result in Hill running at 11mph FASTER than the limo In the Muchmore collage... from z323 to z333 – about 1/2 second – Hill gets from the front of the QM to the rear of the limo... IN WHAT APPEARS AS A SINGLE STEP – Step at 318 - left foot Step at 323 - right foot By 326 he is accelerating away from SS car and towards limo Step at 328 - left foot lands on street – by 329 left foot is planted and right foot is moving forward Between 326 and 329 it appears as if the entire scene in the street has moved west and between 326 and 337 Hill’s left foot has moved considerably down the street – it does not appear as if Muchmore changes her position other than panning left. Step at 333 SHOULD be right foot on the ground yet left foot still on street but seems to have moved from being in front of Jean Hill to being WEST of Moorman Step at 337 is right foot ONTO LIMO – notice how far to the west his left foot has moved... from landing in front of Jean to being noticeably west of Moorman If the limo stopped, then the QM and some of the closer following vehicles would also have had to stop... especially the QM or else it would have hit the limo. After this analysis I feel as if the limo slowed down severely right before 313. The jerkiness of the Nix film thru this sequence is almost absurd and there are definitely frames missing. With many of the other vehicles “stopping” due to the severe slowdown of the limo, the assumption could be easily made that the limo “stopped momentarily” when in reality it was simply inching along. By watching the stabilized Zfilm it is obvious the limo slows considerably just before 310 as we see the motorcycles ride up beside the limo... given the closeness of the QM and cycle escort, there is no reason to assume the QM or cycles would change speeds significantly during the motorcade... especially BOTH cycles as wee see in the Zfilm just before 313. DJ: is this the statement you are hanging your entire rebuttal upon Craig? That we can see something in the film, make an assumption and then go back and check the math... as in, does the limo going at 8/9/10/11.2mph during 301-337 make sense with what Hill accomplishes? and how fast must Hill be going to accomplish this? There is no GUESSING speed by looking at the film So maybe one of our resident experts can explain how this happens and is accomplished on film as well as it jiving with Altgens testimony that from z255 to z313 the limo traveled from a max of 40 feet away to 15 feet away... or moving 25 feet in 58 frames... the limo either has to be going 5mph that entire time or the foreground and background do not match the street scene as we see it in Zapruder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Standing on your little soapbox and screaming "A-B-C" when the rest of us are talking about "X-Y-Z" whatever. Are you cognitively impaired or just ignorant of the subject at hand? Craig, you present yourself as an expert with regards to photographic and by inference film/video/digital imagery a TEACHER is not supposed to have a political agenda.. If you are saying that using the Oxberry and the skills available in 63 make it impossible - show us why, I never claimed to be teacher and clearly teachers do have a massive political agenda. Just look at Jimmy D Fetzer and John Costella...but I digress. I've made NO claims it was impossible to create a composite film in1963. Zero, Nada. None. I've simply looked at the claims put forth by folks like you and see if they fit the standard and well established principles of photography. If they don't, like you have demo'ed on numerous occasions, I point it out and show why. If that makes you look silly in the process...bonus points. And of course the alterationist field is truly a target rich environment. Now if thats an agenda so be it. if you agree that it was even remotely possible... one would think you, of all people, would be the MOST interested in how "they" did it.... be the most amazing compositie job in history and you don't even want to investigate the possibility? - and this is your livelihood along with JFK your hobby?? I'm very interested in seeing the silly alterationists bumble around trying to show alterations. And I take great personal pleasure in busting their claims. Great entertainment. As I've stated more than once, I don't give a rats behind who killed JFK. I don't really care for JFK the man or the President. I do this for entertainment and I also enjoy putting my photographic experience to use in another venue. It a GREAT learning experience. And of course seeing you with your panties all in a bunch is another bonus. WTF are you doing Craig then? disruption just for the sake of it? See above. Sorry my presence makes your incompetence in this field so visible. Oh wait, I'm not sorry. Then, you skip over all this MATH and only talk about the comparison of what we see in the films to the MATH... and then, out of context? Later, when I found that I had incorrectly applied Hill's differential speed to the entire distance, I corrected myself... but there were still MATHEMATCAL problems... looking at the film only occurs after the MATH... and NOT in determining speed but relative position of the objects by frame and framerate... I'm not interested in your speculative math arguments. Just more of the standard JFK CT handcwaving that can't be supported with fact. And Yes you are making claims of alteration BASED in part on your judgement of speed in the film...which is a fools errand...again you do the math and figure out what that make you dAVE. thanks agian for showing me the errors of my way... you truly are an asset to this forum Far more than you can ever conceive dAVE. Peace out DJ Edited March 27, 2011 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