David Josephs Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Jim, Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both. Greg, I've never personally taken a movie at 18.3fps, hand wound, similiar camera and examined each frame. Are you saying this has been done and in not a single frame does this occur? LOGICALLY that makes sense of course... but my gut tells me that of all the frames in a panning sequence like that, there are bound to be some frames where everything is in focus... I'm just not exactly sure why.... I'm more than willing to be wrong here. Much more telling to me are the survey measurements that are offered to try and account for distances over Zframes...which translate to huge swings in speed... which are impossible... 206/207 is a very key area and may be where a piece of film COULD have been inserted.. yet agan the HOW boggles mind... to a point. and then I rememebr which assassination we're talking about... Thanks for the wonderful info everyone... DJ removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Thanks, Ed. I dare say that Mr. Lamson and I go way back. His arguments were no more reasonable when I first encountered him than they are today. Having said that, it is sufficient to show a SINGLE frame -- ANY FRAME -- in which the foreground, the middle-ground, and the background are all CRISP. Why? Because IF the limo never stopped how can we account for the lack of motion blur within the frame? The only answer adequate to that evidence is that the limo DID stop. The fact that the extant film does not show a stop at all results in self-impeachment. I do not need more than one frame to demonstrate this. His claim that I need to make sure that the source of the frames is consistent is a lame distraction technique. This can be demonstrated using a SINGLE frame. Z-216, for example, shows the foreground, mid-ground, and background to be equally crisp. How can this be possible in the real world where the mid-ground (the limousine) is in motion? Where objects are stationary a panning camera will cause blur. Where objects are in motion, a camera panning in a synchronous manner will capture crisp images for those items in synchronous motion, but capture blur for all objects that are stationary. So, how is it that in Z-216 there is virtually NO BLUR AT ALL? Since you are at a complete loss when it comes to these arguments, you don't know 'reasonable' from shinola. VIRTUALLY NO BLUR AT ALL? Really, Why not show us your calculations that prove this point? Simple request, UNLESS you are just waving your hands. Balls in your court. Is your evidence up to the task? BTW, you are going to need to show us a frame that has NOT been heavy altered like the Costella frame you just posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Deleted, dupe Edited January 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Jim, Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both. Greg, I've never personally taken a movie at 18.3fps, hand wound, similiar camera and examined each frame. Are you saying this has been done and in not a single frame does this occur? LOGICALLY that makes sense of course... but my gut tells me that of all the frames in a panning sequence like that, there are bound to be some frames where everything is in focus... I'm just not exactly sure why.... I'm more than willing to be wrong here. Much more telling to me are the survey measurements that are offered to try and account for distances over Zframes...which translate to huge swings in speed... which are impossible... 206/207 is a very key area and may be where a piece of film COULD have been inserted.. yet agan the HOW boggles mind... to a point. and then I rememebr which assassination we're talking about... Thanks for the wonderful info everyone... DJ removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way... David, I am not an expert on film. But, I do know that when a camera is panning the stationary objects MUST be blurred on the film. It is inescapable. I also know that when a subject is in motion it will remain crisp so long as the rate of the panning coincides with the rate of travel. That is the reason for panning: to keep the subject in crisp focus for a s long as possible. However, if the objects in motion are crisp on the film then the stationary objects in the foreground and the background MUST be blurred. This is indisputable. So, if we have ANY FRAME that simultaneously has foreground, background, and mid-ground objects in crisp focus, then none of the objects are in motion. Straight line logic. It is inescapable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way... If you remove frames, what do you do about ghost images?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 While I agree with Craig that the sources used need to be comparable, I have to respect the statements by Mr. Burnham regarding seeing the other film. That MUST be kept in mind when discussing 'this' Z film. To not do so is a disservice to Greg and the others whom have viewed it. Thanks, Ed Ah, the other film. I don't "respect" Burnham's statement about that film at all. He offers ZERO evidence for the existence of this film but his word and quite frankly I don't see his "word" as trustworthy. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Craig, In an earlier post, I asked David Josephs if he had read Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997). If he had he would know that, in addition to his studies on Greer's head turns, which were twice as fast as humanly possible and which Roy Schaeffer had independently discovered (page 166), when Noel Twyman asked Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, why the background is blurred in frame 302 but sharp in frame 303, he told him that the limo is moving in frame 302 but standing still in frame 303 Can you pack any more crap into a 5 pound bag? BIG problem whit Ryan...He looked at the original film and told Zavada that it was not altered. Is it any wonder, Twyman showed him really crappy b/w multi generational images. But lets look at 302 and 303. If the the limo is STOPPED in 303 the background is sharp ( your statement) why is the limo BLURRED in 303? Can't wait for your answer.... (page 159) and that the "blobs" of brains and gore gushing out to the right/front of his head had been painted in (page 160). We also know (because none of the witnesses reported it and it is not present in "the other film", which has been viewed by William Reymond, Milicent Cranor, Rich DellaRosa, and Gregory Burnham, among others) Show us ANY proof of the existence of this OTHER FILM....if it was so readily available, Where was it shown? By whom? WHEN? You know Jim...EVIDENCE other than hearsay. Again RYAN who microscopically viewed the original say...NOT ALTERED. Wanna try again? This time with actual FACTS. that the back-and-to-the-left motion did not take place at the time. The massive extrusion of brain debris that impacted Bobby Hargis so hard that he initially had thought that he himself had been shot is also missing from the film (page 165), where, as I explained in HOAX (2003), Secret Service agents were nauseated when they observed JFK brain debris across the back of the trunk (page 27). So the absence of debris blowing out to the left/rear and missing from the trunk should also be there if the extant version of the film was authentic. More crap in a 5 pound package....Please show us the film/camera/shutter speed/camera stability combination has the required resolution to see this debris on the trunk. Very simple stuff Jim, and if you fail this part of your argument goes down in flames.... And he should take a look at John's tutorial on Zapruder film alteration, "THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ where he explains that the blood spray dissipates far too rapidly to be a bona fide phenomenon. For whatever reason, he has declined to respond. Costella has declined because he can't. If he does he gets shown as incompetent. His statements are a complete hand wave, and he knows it. Just like the rest of his garbage in Hoax...woefully uninformed and fatally flawed. Costella can't prove the Zapruder imaging system can even RECORD the data he says is missing... But here is an example of what Noel learned about frames 302 and 303, where, when the camera is panning the limo, the limo will be sharp but the background will be blurred (as in frame 302); but both the limo and the background are sharp in frame 303, because the limo has come to a stop. So I can't wait for you to "explain away" what the laws of optics require and David should appreciate. This is another proof of alteration that, like frame 374, is internal to the film, David Josephs surely ought to find most convincing. 374, my oh my... Jim Edited January 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Jim, Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both. Greg, I've never personally taken a movie at 18.3fps, hand wound, similiar camera and examined each frame. Are you saying this has been done and in not a single frame does this occur? LOGICALLY that makes sense of course... but my gut tells me that of all the frames in a panning sequence like that, there are bound to be some frames where everything is in focus... I'm just not exactly sure why.... I'm more than willing to be wrong here. Much more telling to me are the survey measurements that are offered to try and account for distances over Zframes...which translate to huge swings in speed... which are impossible... 206/207 is a very key area and may be where a piece of film COULD have been inserted.. yet agan the HOW boggles mind... to a point. and then I rememebr which assassination we're talking about... Thanks for the wonderful info everyone... DJ removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way... David, I am not an expert on film. But, I do know that when a camera is panning the stationary objects MUST be blurred on the film. It is inescapable. I also know that when a subject is in motion it will remain crisp so long as the rate of the panning coincides with the rate of travel. That is the reason for panning: to keep the subject in crisp focus for a s long as possible. However, if the objects in motion are crisp on the film then the stationary objects in the foreground and the background MUST be blurred. This is indisputable. So, if we have ANY FRAME that simultaneously has foreground, background, and mid-ground objects in crisp focus, then none of the objects are in motion. Straight line logic. It is inescapable. Then show us ANY frame where this is in fact the case....Your first attempt was an utter failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Dr. Fetzer, Recall Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne: [snip] ...He acknowledged it would be very difficult to alter the film at that time. [snip] Fail. Edited January 8, 2012 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Kathy, I regard you as very sincere but rather naive. EVERYONE who gets into the middle of issues like this by expressing their professional opinions about these matters finds their lives made miserable by counterparts of the Craig Lamsons on this forum. Roderick Ryan was an impeccable source, Rollie Zavada is not. And for Lamson to impugn Monk's character is simply nauseating. Monk is as honest as the day is long; Lamson, alas, is not. For his position to be correct would require repealing the laws of optics. If you have never read my summary of Doug Horen's work in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", then I recommend that you read it at your earliest opportunity, because it clarifies crucial issues about the alteration of the film, including when and by whom it was revised (archived at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/ ) The chain of custody was broken and, if you can't tell from all the proof I have adduced that the film is a recreation, I don't know what to tell you. Jim Dr. Fetzer, Recall Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne: "I had dinner with Rod, Richard Trask and Chuck Bard. Part of our conversation centered on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and Rod’s comments published by Twyman. Rod mentioned that he was quite uncomfortable with Twyman’s reporting, but that when presented with black and white prints of selected scenes he reported what he believed he saw. He acknowledged it would be very difficult to alter the film at that time. At lunch break of the sub group had an opportunity to view the original Zapruder 8mm film. This was my fourth “hands-on” viewing and Rod’s first. We both carefully examined the film including microscopically. I challenged Rod to identify any evidence of alteration. Essentially he accepted that the film appeared authentic and that he would not challenge NARA’s position that it was." Pg.14, The Zavada Response http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Dr. Fetzer, Recall Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne: [snip] ...He acknowledged it would be very difficult to alter the film at that time. [snip] Fail. Nice logic...You have no problem with Ryan when it suits you but then post this when it does not. Are you now saying Ryan does not know what he is talking about? ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) I notice through several stabilized Zapruder copies online that Connally's face is immediately darker after he passes the lamppost, for no natural reason. Edited January 8, 2012 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Just to show the duplicity of Craig Lamson, Costella created a technically superior version of the film by removing pin-cushion and aspect-ratio distortion which provides the highest quality version of the film we have, which is archived at assassinationscience.com. It is an illustration of his own willingness to engage in deception to suggest that Costella DISTORTED the film. It is Lamson who is DISTORTION Costella's contribution. He ought to be ashamed of posts like this one. Thanks, Ed. I dare say that Mr. Lamson and I go way back. His arguments were no more reasonable when I first encountered him than they are today. Having said that, it is sufficient to show a SINGLE frame -- ANY FRAME -- in which the foreground, the middle-ground, and the background are all CRISP. Why? Because IF the limo never stopped how can we account for the lack of motion blur within the frame? The only answer adequate to that evidence is that the limo DID stop. The fact that the extant film does not show a stop at all results in self-impeachment. I do not need more than one frame to demonstrate this. His claim that I need to make sure that the source of the frames is consistent is a lame distraction technique. This can be demonstrated using a SINGLE frame. Z-216, for example, shows the foreground, mid-ground, and background to be equally crisp. How can this be possible in the real world where the mid-ground (the limousine) is in motion? Where objects are stationary a panning camera will cause blur. Where objects are in motion, a camera panning in a synchronous manner will capture crisp images for those items in synchronous motion, but capture blur for all objects that are stationary. So, how is it that in Z-216 there is virtually NO BLUR AT ALL? Since you are at a complete loss when it comes to these arguments, you don't know 'reasonable' from shinola. VIRTUALLY NO BLUR AT ALL? Really, Why not show us your calculations that prove this point? Simple request, UNLESS you are just waving your hands. Balls in your court. Is your evidence up to the task? BTW, you are going to need to show us a frame that has NOT been heavy altered like the Costella frame you just posted. Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) David, You really need to study these issues in greater depth. The laws of optics are inviolable and John explains a lot of this in his tutorial. You should watch it. Jim, Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both. Greg, I've never personally taken a movie at 18.3fps, hand wound, similiar camera and examined each frame. Are you saying this has been done and in not a single frame does this occur? LOGICALLY that makes sense of course... but my gut tells me that of all the frames in a panning sequence like that, there are bound to be some frames where everything is in focus... I'm just not exactly sure why.... I'm more than willing to be wrong here. Much more telling to me are the survey measurements that are offered to try and account for distances over Zframes...which translate to huge swings in speed... which are impossible... 206/207 is a very key area and may be where a piece of film COULD have been inserted.. yet agan the HOW boggles mind... to a point. and then I rememebr which assassination we're talking about... Thanks for the wonderful info everyone... DJ removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way... Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Kathy, I regard you as very sincere but rather naive. EVERYONE who gets into the middle of issues like this by expressing their professional opinions about these matters finds their lives made miserable by counterparts of the Craig Lamsons on this forum. Roderick Ryan was an impeccable source, Rollie Zavada is not. And for Lamson to impugn Monk's character is simply nauseating. Monk is as honest as the day is long; Lamson, alas, is not. For his position to be correct would require repealing the laws of optics. If you have never read my summary of Doug Horen's work in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", then I recommend that you read it at your earliest opportunity, because it clarifies crucial issues about the alteration of the film, including when and by whom it was revised (archived at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/ ) The chain of custody was broken and, if you can't tell from all the proof I have adduced that the film is a recreation, I don't know what to tell you. Jim Dr. Fetzer, Recall Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne: "I had dinner with Rod, Richard Trask and Chuck Bard. Part of our conversation centered on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and Rod’s comments published by Twyman. Rod mentioned that he was quite uncomfortable with Twyman’s reporting, but that when presented with black and white prints of selected scenes he reported what he believed he saw. He acknowledged it would be very difficult to alter the film at that time. At lunch break of the sub group had an opportunity to view the original Zapruder 8mm film. This was my fourth “hands-on” viewing and Rod’s first. We both carefully examined the film including microscopically. I challenged Rod to identify any evidence of alteration. Essentially he accepted that the film appeared authentic and that he would not challenge NARA’s position that it was." Pg.14, The Zavada Response http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf If Burnham can to show actual PROOF of the existence of this film, let him. At this point his account is simply hearsay. Let him prove his case. I surely don't have to "trust" his word. And you lose again on the "optics" front Jim. Tell us how a limo STANDING STILL in 303 has BLURRED highlights, while the background in your words...is sharp. Inquiring minds really want to see your answer Jim. Your claims about alteration are built on a house of incompetence. 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