Patrick Block Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=23077 http://24.152.179.96:8400/A524C/317.png The links to the #317 Frames being discussed ^ Hello Mr. Thompson- I'd like to address your post and the interesting image you've posted. Thanks for sharing this and taking the time to debate with someone brand new here. I think that a lot of the posters on the boards, on both sides of the issue, cause wedges to to be pushed between researchers outside of the facts of the evidence being presented with rudeness and a sort of lack of any kind of respect. A helluva a lot more progress towards resolution on many issues, like this one, would result a lot quicker if people didn't constantly rub things in other parties faces to make them defensive and more willing to consider evidence quietly, rather than causing them to want to brawl with one another. The board ought to be a place one can come and learn, ask questions, and contribute. I think your image answers a lot of the questions I've had about how it is people can be puzzled by what seems perfectly obvious to me. You've had this image of yours to study now for decades, and clearly, there is no sign of any black patches in this image. It's no wonder you are perplexed! The image I used of frame #317 isn't 'mine' as you phrased it. I want to make it clear to begin with that I borrowed it here on this thread. It isn't the HD neutral scan I was discussing-but it is a reasonably clear but much smaller 1.34mb image that poster Chris Davidson offered up. (The HD scan frame is nearly 73mb large so it has way more raw information). I don't want to steal Chris' thunder. It's a very nice image. He said it is from a recent documentary, I think. I'm re-adding a link to it here so we can all take a close look at both your image, and the other, to see which contains more actual detail and a truer likeness to the reality of the situation. I am not a scientist or an expert in digital technology, but I am a painter. I work in oils, guache and delicate watercolors, and I expect my eye for details in color- hue, value, that sort of thing, is as good as anyones. I've included a shot of my "full portrait" I sent in for my avatar on the site, so you can see I actually am someone who deals in lines and color, full time, professionally. I am sure you will agree with me that if a person has two photos, and one shows important details that the other completely loses, that the details on the more complete photo is more accurate...assuming you have a test object to prove these things exist. Everyone agree? Let's look at the image you have trusted for these many decades, and which you have used to initially base your impression that there is no "jet black patch" on JFK's noggin. Let's check out Jackie's red and green stemmed roses. I'm including a link of a regular news type photo of the car that is very clear that includes everything I will discuss for comparison purposes. In my borrowed version of frame #317, which is as you noted a higher contrast image than the better neutral scanned HD frame, we see a central, larger rose surrounded by green leaves. There are two, or three, very small buds or partial roses, that are quite hard to discern. One near Jackie's shoulder. One directly below the large obvious one, and perhaps one to the right of those, but that is highly debatable. In any case. Flowers visible. Test photo confirms them existing. In your image, you can't make out the subject are flowers at all, you only know there are flowers existing there at all is because of the frame I borrowed from Chris Davidson's post. You could make an equally convincing argument, using your frame, that there are "no roses" in frame #317, just as there is "no black patch", because both are invisible in your frame, are they not? Is this not a fair representation? What does this say about the quality of your image to judge the President's hair and the black patch? On Davidson's frame of 317, Connally is clearly and undeniably wearing a white collar and dark jacket. In your frame, no white collar is visible at all. You can see the shape of it at the rear of the jacket, but the white is completely obscured and looks the same as the black jacket because of the muddiness of the overall image overwhelming the true detail of his collar. Again, look at the good test photo of the motorcade showing which collar is accurate. If the frame you have been looking at for all these decades shows Connally's white shirt collar to be black, is it fair to judge the President's hair against the black patch? Which of our two frames more fairly depicts the actual reality of Frame #317? Do you see the problem you have here, and fully understand why you can't see the very real jet black patch in your image? I honestly can understand your frustration in having to cope with rethinking things you long ago thought resolved. I hope you will agree with me here that the frame I am using reasonably depicts the red roses, Connally's white collar, the interior blue doorframe between Jackie and Nellie, the nature of the subtle highlights on top of each person's head, and also the state of the President's hair, with it's very real jet black artwork with unnaturally defined edges. Even without the much clearer and less contrasty Wilkerson HD scan, the obvious nature of the artwork on the President's head stands out vividly in this particular frame. If you look closely at the rear of the back of Kennedy's head at #317 and compare it to #312, they are utterly different in appearance. This is because JFK has a black painted-in patch starting at frame #315 of the film. His hair on the back of his head is brown before this, jet-black after, if the frame is focused at all. #317 is unique in that it appears that the black patch has not been integrated into the rest of JFK's hair like it has been in every other frame. In other words, it shows the edges of the physical artwork. Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black. In the higher definition neutral scan, which hasn't crushed the blacks for aesthetic reasons, like is normally done in a commercial film, the blackest things on the frame are the black patch on JFK's head, and the side of the car. Everything else has degrees of darkness. This makes the artwork more obvious there than here. In this frame I used, Jackie's shadow, and Connally's coat are very black too. I hope you will give some thought to my posts. I understand perfectly well the shock involved in contemplating this sort of blatant alteration. It is not easy to digest- for any of us. Edited January 11, 2012 by Patrick Block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) The procedure described is valid and it's validity has been shown on numerous occasions. It's validity will be shown once again when the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven" come out of hibernation and give us scans to deal with. Until then, I have better things to do than to continue a discussion with you about a procedure that has to remain hypothetical until we have something real to work with. You may enjoy discussing every thing that comes up with respect to your claim of Zapruder film forgery. I don't. JT The procedure is not hypothetical. You proposed its use here. If its validity has been shown on numerous occasions, point us to those proofs. Absent that, researchers may safely assume that it is junk science. Whether the "Hollywood Seven" gives you something to apply the procedure to is hypothetical. If they do, your Disney 3D-View-Masters of it will be as useless as those of the 313 head spray effect. This from mr.junk science himself.... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 This is what I mean about having someone who works in motion pictures who understands the process of doing artwork on film. Silly boy, he posted dreck aside from the simple fact that better images show more detail.... When he posts some actual data aside from, I paint therefore I know, THEN he might bring something of value to the table. Until then, replace your head into its place of comfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black. TRY MEASURING IT. You do understand how to do that, don't you? Lets use the Davidson image for example: 31x31 pixel average JFK's head shadow 25,26,21 rgb JFK's jacket shadow 17,18,16 rgb Kellermans head shadow 26,29,22 rgb And the blackest black, and still not crushed...the unexposed film base, plus fog 5x5 pixel average 11,4,1 rgb. Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Only the shadow knows!!! Visually speaking of course. http://24.152.179.96:8400/B649F/1.gif chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) This is what I mean about having someone who works in motion pictures who understands the process of doing artwork on film. Silly boy, he posted dreck aside from the simple fact that better images show more detail.... When he posts some actual data aside from, I paint therefore I know, THEN he might bring something of value to the table. Until then, replace your head into its place of comfort. Craig, he just explained in concrete and efficient terms why the other photo does not show the black patch, OK? I especially liked this; "You could make an equally convincing argument, using your frame, that there are "no roses" in frame #317, just as there is "no black patch", because both are invisible in your frame, are they not?" And this: "If the frame you have been looking at for all these decades shows Connally's white shirt collar to be black, is it fair to judge the President's hair against the black patch? Which of our two frames more fairly depicts the actual reality of Frame #317?" Can you explain to me why you didn't do this? I'm waiting. Maybe because you didn't want to, because it does not fit your preconceived conclusion. Well Duh.... Did you notice Healy, who I normally disagree with at every turn, posted about the quality of the frame Tink supplied and I did not disagree? Block told you something everyone with a working brain knows, better images show more detail. What he din NOT actually he did NOT tell you is why. He waved his hands. But you don't have the first clue so you gush. Is that because it fits your conclusions? This is photo 101 stuff. If you failed to notice this you don't have any business in this conversation. Do I have to tell you everything or can you think for yourself? When I first saw this frame from Tink a long time ago I told him them we could not use it. It has been languishing on my hard drive for years. That he wants to now share it is his business. Everyone else can decide what to do with it, just like I did. Like I said other than his simple statement that better images show more detail the rest was dreck. And like I predicted, Jimmy D gushes. Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Only the shadow knows!!! Visually speaking of course. http://24.152.179.96:8400/B649F/1.gif chris Interesting, thanks. You must however remember that image is loaded with compression artifacts. Notice the unexposed film edge at the bottom of the images. By definition this is as black as a reversal film can produce. It is not 'dappled black like your gif shows. Which is why I used average readings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I think you are quite right here, Craig. There are further ways to go to show this but basically you are right on track. (imo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Uh Craig: Someone shows in simple and easy to understand terms--no mumbo jumbo--why a certain image is really not that useful, and he does it in the idiom he is familiar with, that is color and hue, I tell him nice job, and you jump on and object-- Because he told you NOTHING! There is a REASON WHY Tinks image looks like it does. Can you tell us from this dreck WHY? Of course not. And yet jimmy swooons. And then you say in a clear attempt to control the debate: "Stupid JIm, Oh, I did that before." YET another example of Jimmy D making stuff up...AGAIN! You sure as heck did not do it now. And you sure as heck never did it as well as he did. Or Tink would not have shown it again. OK. Only Tink can decide what he wants to post. He does not clear his posts by me. Healy posted an objection well before Block. If I would have had a problem with that assessment I would have posted it. Get over yourself jimmy. ANd FYI, can you show me where I have ever been a Z film alterationist? Please, show me. I am waiting, you smear artist. (Sound of crickets) (More sound of crickets.) (Even more sound of crickets. And louder.) Where have I said you were an alterationist jimmy? (is that crickets I hear?) You have a REALLY bad habit of making stuff up from thin air. So your goofy comment about it fitting my preconceived notions is just a way of you to get back at me. Because, OTOH, you have clearly been in the the other camp forever: helmet buckled down, teeth locked in,black gunpowder smear on your face, ready to knife someone no matter what someone says. And you yourself have admitted this. Clearly empty DRECK excited you. If you don't have pre-concieved notions, you would have been underwhelmed. So which is it jimmy? Now, someone comes on who really knows film special effects, and has a pal who also knows them and automatically, Craigster plays the Black Knight from Monty Python: "No man shall Pass." What? "No man shall pass." Not this time Craigy. Oh we will see jimmy, we will see. This time, I think they might have something. And of course this one sums it up nicely. So far you have heard...I see this, so believe me. And jimmy wets himself. You look so scholarly [/sacrasm] A perfect example of your inability, to understand even the simplest of things photographic. Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Uh Craig: Someone shows in simple and easy to understand terms--no mumbo jumbo--why a certain image is really not that useful, and he does it in the idiom he is familiar with, that is color and hue, I tell him nice job, and you jump on and object-- And then you say in a clear attempt to control the debate: "Stupid JIm, Oh, I did that before." You sure as heck did not do it now. And you sure as heck never did it as well as he did. Or Tink would not have shown it again. OK. ANd FYI, can you show me where I have ever been a Z film alterationist? Please, show me. I am waiting, you smear artist. (Sound of crickets) Two minutes pass (More sound of crickets.) Two more minutes pass (Even more sound of crickets. And louder.) So your goofy comment about it fitting my preconceived notions is your usual cheap rhetoric, you know Lamsonian gas. Its a way for you to disguise your own agenda. Because, OTOH, you have clearly been in the the other camp forever: helmet buckled down, teeth locked in, black gunpowder smeared on your face, ready to knife anyone, no matter what that person says. No matter who he may be. I swear if even the late great Whitlock himself rose form the dead and said something suspicious about that blacked out portion of the rear skull, you would say, "But he doesn't know the proper basics of still photography." Even though he was the finest MOTION PICTURE matte artist of his day. You yourself have admitted this. Now, someone comes on who really knows film special effects, and has a pal who also knows them and automatically, Craigster plays the Black Knight from Monty Python: "No man shall Pass." What? "No man shall pass." Not this time Craigy. This time, I think they might have something. Jim, I have highlighted a section of your post that is clearly in violation of Rule iv of the forum, which reads: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. I am bringing this to your attention as a fellow member. It is my hope that ALL members choose to cite Rule iv when other members cross the line, rather than return fire. As a consequence, I am asking you to soften or remove the offending passage. If you feel others on this thread are also in violation, I request you similarly cite Rule iv, and ask them to edit their posts as well. Edited January 11, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Uh Craig: Someone shows in simple and easy to understand terms--no mumbo jumbo--why a certain image is really not that useful, and he does it in the idiom he is familiar with, that is color and hue, I tell him nice job, and you jump on and object-- Because he told you NOTHING! There is a REASON WHY Tinks image looks like it does. Can you tell us from this dreck WHY? Of course not. And yet jimmy swooons. And then you say in a clear attempt to control the debate: "Stupid JIm, Oh, I did that before." YET another example of Jimmy D making stuff up...AGAIN! You sure as heck did not do it now. And you sure as heck never did it as well as he did. Or Tink would not have shown it again. OK. Only Tink can decide what he wants to post. He does not clear his posts by me. Healy posted an objection well before Block. If I would have had a problem with that assessment I would have posted it. Get over yourself jimmy. ANd FYI, can you show me where I have ever been a Z film alterationist? Please, show me. I am waiting, you smear artist. (Sound of crickets) (More sound of crickets.) (Even more sound of crickets. And louder.) Where have I said you were an alterationist jimmy? (is that crickets I hear?) You have a REALLY bad habit of making stuff up from thin air... So your goofy comment about it fitting my preconceived notions is just a way of you to get back at me. Because, OTOH, you have clearly been in the the other camp forever: helmet buckled down, teeth locked in,black gunpowder smear on your face, ready to knife someone no matter what someone says. And you yourself have admitted this. Clearly empty DRECK excited you. If you don't have pre-concieved notions, you would have been underwhelmed. So which is it jimmy? Now, someone comes on who really knows film special effects, and has a pal who also knows them and automatically, Craigster plays the Black Knight from Monty Python: "No man shall Pass." What? "No man shall pass." Not this time Craigy. Oh we will see jimmy, we will see. This time, I think they might have something. And of course this one sums it up nicely. So far you have heard...I see this, so believe me. And jimmy wets himself A perfect example of your inability, to understand even the simplest of things photographic. Craig, I have highlighted sections of your post that are clearly in violation of Rule iv of the forum, which reads: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. I am bringing this to your attention as a fellow member. It is my hope that ALL members choose to cite Rule iv when other members cross the line, rather than return fire. As a consequence, I am asking you to soften or remove the offending passage. If you feel others on this thread are also in violation, I request you similarly cite Rule iv, and ask them to edit their posts as well. P.S. As a response to this post, Craig removed the worst of his statements. I, accordingly, I have removed them from the top part of this post. It's baby steps, I know, but I hope all members will get in the habit of not only moderating their own behavior, but notifying others when they are in violation of Rule iv. Thank you, Craig. Edited January 11, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 Hello Mr. Block, May I compliment you on this posting? It is clear, extremely reasonable and deserves a really good answer. I'm only sorry that I don't have the time today to give it the answer it deserves. One thing confuses me and perhaps you could help me. Chris Davidson posted a full-frame of 317 that he got from the National Geographic video. You used it to point out the black spot on the back of Kennedy's head. John Costella posted a close-up of Kennedy in 317 from the same source(see post #211). The Costella close-up looks very much like the close-up I posted (see post #230) and does not show the black spot on the back of Kennedy's head. I'll attach both Costella's close-up and mine below so that you can take a look at them. This seems to be a perennial problem when we begin posting versions of Zapruder frames. Going back to origins, it seems to me almost everyone would agree to the following points: (1) the raw material used by the Hollywood Seven and which you saw begins with a copy of the Zapruder film that is at least a fourth and possibly a fifth generation copy. (2) My own set of transparencies was made from transparencies that were direct copies from the original. These direct copies from the original made by LIFE in the 1960s have apparently been lost. (3) The MPI 4" by 5" transparencies now held by the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas were made from the original film more recently. (4) Everyone agrees that the MPI transparencies are closer to the original than any other copies and they are available for viewing. Because of all this, I traveled to Dallas and spent two afternoons examining extremely closely the MPI transparencies. They are glorious. They show no black spot at the back of Kennedy's head and look very much like the close-up I am attaching below. I understand that Ms. Wilkinson reviewed the MPI transparencies in Dallas and I am not aware if she has said anything about her examination. I can certainly understand why anyone might decline to take my version of the Z film as definitive. Likewise, I hope you would understand why I would not take the Wilkinson copy as definitive. Since everyone agrees that the MPI version is the best version available why not take it as definitive? This was important enough for me to go to Dallas and look at it. If it is important to you, I hope you'd do the same and report back to the rest of us. JT http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=23077 http://24.152.179.96:8400/A524C/317.png The links to the #317 Frames being discussed ^ Hello Mr. Thompson- I'd like to address your post and the interesting image you've posted. Thanks for sharing this and taking the time to debate with someone brand new here. I think that a lot of the posters on the boards, on both sides of the issue, cause wedges to to be pushed between researchers outside of the facts of the evidence being presented with rudeness and a sort of lack of any kind of respect. A helluva a lot more progress towards resolution on many issues, like this one, would result a lot quicker if people didn't constantly rub things in other parties faces to make them defensive and more willing to consider evidence quietly, rather than causing them to want to brawl with one another. The board ought to be a place one can come and learn, ask questions, and contribute. I think your image answers a lot of the questions I've had about how it is people can be puzzled by what seems perfectly obvious to me. You've had this image of yours to study now for decades, and clearly, there is no sign of any black patches in this image. It's no wonder you are perplexed! The image I used of frame #317 isn't 'mine' as you phrased it. I want to make it clear to begin with that I borrowed it here on this thread. It isn't the HD neutral scan I was discussing-but it is a reasonably clear but much smaller 1.34mb image that poster Chris Davidson offered up. (The HD scan frame is nearly 73mb large so it has way more raw information). I don't want to steal Chris' thunder. It's a very nice image. He said it is from a recent documentary, I think. I'm re-adding a link to it here so we can all take a close look at both your image, and the other, to see which contains more actual detail and a truer likeness to the reality of the situation. I am not a scientist or an expert in digital technology, but I am a painter. I work in oils, guache and delicate watercolors, and I expect my eye for details in color- hue, value, that sort of thing, is as good as anyones. I've included a shot of my "full portrait" I sent in for my avatar on the site, so you can see I actually am someone who deals in lines and color, full time, professionally. I am sure you will agree with me that if a person has two photos, and one shows important details that the other completely loses, that the details on the more complete photo is more accurate...assuming you have a test object to prove these things exist. Everyone agree? Let's look at the image you have trusted for these many decades, and which you have used to initially base your impression that there is no "jet black patch" on JFK's noggin. Let's check out Jackie's red and green stemmed roses. I'm including a link of a regular news type photo of the car that is very clear that includes everything I will discuss for comparison purposes. In my borrowed version of frame #317, which is as you noted a higher contrast image than the better neutral scanned HD frame, we see a central, larger rose surrounded by green leaves. There are two, or three, very small buds or partial roses, that are quite hard to discern. One near Jackie's shoulder. One directly below the large obvious one, and perhaps one to the right of those, but that is highly debatable. In any case. Flowers visible. Test photo confirms them existing. In your image, you can't make out the subject are flowers at all, you only know there are flowers existing there at all is because of the frame I borrowed from Chris Davidson's post. You could make an equally convincing argument, using your frame, that there are "no roses" in frame #317, just as there is "no black patch", because both are invisible in your frame, are they not? Is this not a fair representation? What does this say about the quality of your image to judge the President's hair and the black patch? On Davidson's frame of 317, Connally is clearly and undeniably wearing a white collar and dark jacket. In your frame, no white collar is visible at all. You can see the shape of it at the rear of the jacket, but the white is completely obscured and looks the same as the black jacket because of the muddiness of the overall image overwhelming the true detail of his collar. Again, look at the good test photo of the motorcade showing which collar is accurate. If the frame you have been looking at for all these decades shows Connally's white shirt collar to be black, is it fair to judge the President's hair against the black patch? Which of our two frames more fairly depicts the actual reality of Frame #317? Do you see the problem you have here, and fully understand why you can't see the very real jet black patch in your image? I honestly can understand your frustration in having to cope with rethinking things you long ago thought resolved. I hope you will agree with me here that the frame I am using reasonably depicts the red roses, Connally's white collar, the interior blue doorframe between Jackie and Nellie, the nature of the subtle highlights on top of each person's head, and also the state of the President's hair, with it's very real jet black artwork with unnaturally defined edges. Even without the much clearer and less contrasty Wilkerson HD scan, the obvious nature of the artwork on the President's head stands out vividly in this particular frame. If you look closely at the rear of the back of Kennedy's head at #317 and compare it to #312, they are utterly different in appearance. This is because JFK has a black painted-in patch starting at frame #315 of the film. His hair on the back of his head is brown before this, jet-black after, if the frame is focused at all. #317 is unique in that it appears that the black patch has not been integrated into the rest of JFK's hair like it has been in every other frame. In other words, it shows the edges of the physical artwork. Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black. In the higher definition neutral scan, which hasn't crushed the blacks for aesthetic reasons, like is normally done in a commercial film, the blackest things on the frame are the black patch on JFK's head, and the side of the car. Everything else has degrees of darkness. This makes the artwork more obvious there than here. In this frame I used, Jackie's shadow, and Connally's coat are very black too. I hope you will give some thought to my posts. I understand perfectly well the shock involved in contemplating this sort of blatant alteration. It is not easy to digest- for any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black. TRY MEASURING IT. You do understand how to do that, don't you? Lets use the Davidson image for example: 31x31 pixel average JFK's head shadow 25,26,21 rgb JFK's jacket shadow 17,18,16 rgb Kellermans head shadow 26,29,22 rgb And the blackest black, and still not crushed...the unexposed film base, plus fog 5x5 pixel average 11,4,1 rgb. LMAO! above is subject to your computer monitors gamma setting.... no benchmark, hence useless.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black. TRY MEASURING IT. You do understand how to do that, don't you? Lets use the Davidson image for example: 31x31 pixel average JFK's head shadow 25,26,21 rgb JFK's jacket shadow 17,18,16 rgb Kellermans head shadow 26,29,22 rgb And the blackest black, and still not crushed...the unexposed film base, plus fog 5x5 pixel average 11,4,1 rgb. LMAO! above is subject to your computer monitors gamma setting.... no benchmark, hence useless.... Uh no....Wanna try again? We are reading the information contained in the pixels NOT what is displayed on the monitor. Changing the monitor calibration settings will change the way those pixels look WHEN THEY ARE DISPLAYED, but that does not change the data contained in those pixel. Pretty basic imaging stuff dave. And you fail! ROFLMAO! Edited January 11, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Tink, We hope that your game plan is not to attempt to create as much uncertainty as possible so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail. What precisely is your position supposed to be? That this extremely conspicuous feature of the back of the head, which not only he and his friend, Director of what is probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world today, who are both experts, have confirmed but which has also been identified by the Hollywood group IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE? Could you elaborate on the reports that the slide set to which you so often refer, which must be the most valuable possession of The 6th Floor Museum, was "lost" or "misplaced" for around two weeks time? Some of us worry that, who ever may have taken them, might have had them digitally redone to remove features like the black patch on the back of the head. Is there anything to that or is it only a "false rumor"? These guys are real experts, not faux-experts like you and Lamson. And when have you ever addressed the FIVE PHYSICAL FEATURES that distinguish the original film from what we have today? In case you lost track of them, take another look at "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", Veterans Today. And of course the photographic and film evidence has to be evaluated in relation to the medical, ballistic, and testimonial evidence, where I have been concentrating on the latter. The film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 contradicts earlier frames, so I am baffled that you seem to have made no mention or notice of frame 374, which by itself demonstrates that the film is not even self-consistent, which proves by itself that it has been faked. Compare the blacked out area at the back of the head with the blow-out that it is concealing, Tink. Surely you cannot continue with this charade forever. "You never give us your money, you only give us your funny paper"! Get real, Tink. The jig is up. Jim Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer An uncorrected violation of Rule iv was deleted 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