Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) David, Craig raises an important question. I believe you are not informed about the ghost panels, which are double-exposures in the sprocket area that link successive frames to one another. Had the film merely been edited by removing frames, for example, as you appear to think, that would have been immediately detectable, because those double-exposures cannot be faked. It was for this reason that the individual frames had to be re-shot (in the CIA's lab at Kodak in Rochester) to create a new ("fabricated") film, as John Costella has explained in many places, including in his tutorial, which I AGAIN encourage you to study. 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?????? 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 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. Of COURSE he altered and distorted the film. If you don't understand even this most basic of matters, you are not qualified to discuss any of this. The Costella version is taken from poor source material and then interpolated and adjusted. To say it is not a distorted version of the original is simply untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Everyone on this forum can tell the difference between frame 302 (where the camera is following the limo, which is moving relative to the background) and 303 (where it is not). There is nothing subjective about this as a predictable outcome of the laws of optics. 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. 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) Costella is a physicist with a Ph.D. in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects. Lamson, I gather, is self-taught. Costella is a professional, Lamson an amateur. The difference between 302 and 303 is obvious, so Lamson says, "Don't believe your lying eyes!" 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. Of COURSE he altered and distorted the film. If you don't understand even this most basic of matters, you are not qualified to discuss any of this. The Costella version is taken from poor source material and then interpolated and adjusted. To say it is not a distorted version of the original is simply untrue. 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 Astute observation, David. That is probably because that was the juncture at which they began to recreate the film at the CIA lab in Rochester. Nice point! I notice through several stabilized Zapruder copies online that Connally's face is immediately darker after he passes the lamppost, for no natural reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I invite Craig Lamson to post frames Z-302 and Z-303 from ANY SOURCE of his choosing. Perhaps he can then demonstrate the inferiority of the Costella frames. Perhaps he can show us how the images in the frames that he posts do not demonstrate the SAME extreme disparity of blur that we see in the Costella frames. Perhaps he will just go away or FAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Costella is a physicist with a Ph.D. in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects. Lamson, I gather, is self-taught. Costella is a professional, Lamson an amateur. No JIm, Costella is not photographic professional. He is less qualified than most advanced amateurs. He can't even get parallax correct, nor understand how lihgt creates shadows... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm I on the other hand I apprenticed for 3 years and have over 30 years of direct professional photographic experience in the advertising field. And as you can see above I have also proven empirically that Costella has no clue when it comes to photography. My experience extends into the direct creation of high quality composite images both film and digitally based. What experience can Costella claim? Your vaunted PhD Costella is no professional at all in this regard. His ignorance of simple things like parallax and the properties of light and shadow prove that in spades. Edited January 9, 2012 by Craig Lamson 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, Rollie Zavada's role in all of this has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb. He was an expert on celluloid and knew nothing about the content of the film. Read INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). If you are going to insert yourself beyond your knowledge and competence, don't be surprised that I and others are not impressed. If you "just disagree with (me)", then if you are rational, you have reasons for that. Explain one or more of the arguments that prove the lack of authenticity of the film and explain why we are wrong. One or two examples would be fine. Explain my position (so I know you understand it) and refute it. Roderick Ryan was an impeccable source,Rollie Zavada is not I don't care if you call me naive or not, but it is statements you make like this one which makes me so dismissive of your work. You can't even say an expert is an expert if what he says goes against your theories. You are aware of Zavada's credentials, and you can't even give him any expert status. I am supposed to read your stuff, and buy it, or be forever designated as naive, or ignorant, etc. Well, I don't. And yes I have all of your books, and yes, I've read them. I just don't agree with you. 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) Sure. Costella is an expert with a Ph.D. Lamson is a professional for hire. Scholars like Costella have no stake in this other than exposing the truth. I only wish I could say the same about you. We all know about your claims to superiority. We would all agree you have a greater superiority complex. Costella is a physicist with a Ph.D. in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects. Lamson, I gather, is self-taught. Costella is a professional, Lamson an amateur. No JIm, Costella is not photograpic professional. He is less qualified than most advanced amateurs. He can't even get parallax correct, nor understand how lihgt creates shadows... www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm I on the other hand I apprenticed for 3 years and have over 30 years of direct professional photographic experience in the advertising field. And as you can see above I have also proven empirically that Costella has no clue when it comes to photography. My experience extends into the direct creation of high quality composite images both film and digitally based. What experience can Costella claim? You vaunted PhD Costella is no professional at all in this regard. His ignorance of simple things like parallax and the properties of light and shadow prove that in spades. 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) Kathy, Here are some of the issues. Pick and choose: (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N Which do I have wrong and why? Jim Kathy, Rollie Zavada's role in all of this has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb. He was an expert on celluloid and knew nothing about the content of the film. Read INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). If you are going to insert yourself beyond your knowledge and competence, don't be surprised that I and others are not impressed. If you "just disagree with (me)", then if you are rational, you have reasons for that. Explain one or more of the arguments that prove the lack of authenticity of the film and explain why we are wrong. One or two examples would be fine. Explain my position (so I know you understand it) and refute it. Roderick Ryan was an impeccable source,Rollie Zavada is not I don't care if you call me naive or not, but it is statements you make like this one which makes me so dismissive of your work. You can't even say an expert is an expert if what he says goes against your theories. You are aware of Zavada's credentials, and you can't even give him any expert status. I am supposed to read your stuff, and buy it, or be forever designated as naive, or ignorant, etc. Well, I don't. And yes I have all of your books, and yes, I've read them. I just don't agree with you. 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 Sure. Costella is an expert with a Ph.D. Lamson is a professional for hire. Scholars like Costella have no stake in this other than exposing the truth. I only wish I could say the same about you. We all know about your claims to superiority. We would all agree you have a greater superiority complex. If Costella is a "photo and compositing expert" which is the subject at hand here, please post his experience. Being a PhD in a different field does not make him an expert. Just post it Jim, its not really that hard. And how in the world can your "expert" Costella fail so miserably at parallax and shadows? ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) I invite Craig Lamson to post frames Z-302 and Z-303 from ANY SOURCE of his choosing. Perhaps he can then demonstrate the inferiority of the Costella frames. Perhaps he can show us how the images in the frames that he posts do not demonstrate the SAME extreme disparity of blur that we see in the Costella frames. Perhaps he will just go away or FAIL. Lets show YOUR utter fail Burnham. This is not about the disparity of the blur, it is about Fetzer's claim that the limo is STOPPED in 303 and that the background is sharp. Try and get with program, if you have have ability. Adjacent frames can have HUGE disparity in bluring and not be at all suspect. Overpanning for example can produce larger blurs that a sustained pan. Lets be consistent and use the Costella frames...303 Clearly the limo is not stopped as the highlights on the roll bar show blur... And clearly the background is not sharp as the blur on Moorman's legs shows... Another EPIC Burnham fail. Edited January 9, 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 Perhaps he can then demonstrate the inferiority of the Costella frames. No problem, Now maybe YOU can go away.... A Costella frame on the right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Kathy, Thanks, I've read this before and I use a couple of different blurring programs myself. Costella is clearly proficient in the math required to do this work....I'm not. I just use it. Edited January 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson 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, So Roderick Ryan is wrong and you are right? Ryan received the Academy Award for his contributions to cinematography in 2000. Why in the world do you think your opinion would outweigh his? Moreover, where did this "blob" come from? There is no support for it in the medical evidence. I am rather taken aback that you would think that such a casual reaction by you would have any weight. If this is the level of your thought process, then I can understand why the study of the film is not one of your strong suits. And are you going to also claim that the wound to the back of his head has NOT been painted over in black, contrary to the finding of the Hollywood experts? And what is this huge list of witnesses to the limo stop? Why in the world would they be reporting a dramatic slowing or a complete stop if a dramatic slowing had not taken place as the limo came to an abrupt halt? Have you read Rich DellaRosa's summary of what he observed in the "other" film? Do you think that Monk, William Reymond, Milicent Cranor and others are MAKING THIS UP? Why in the world would EVEN ONE PERSON have described the limo stop if it hadn't happened? Do you not understand that the limo HAD TO SLOW as it was coming to a STOP, where some saw part of it, others more. Do you simply discount what we have been told by Toni Foster and by Louis Witt? Why in the world would they be lying? How do you account for the physical anomaly of the passengers being THROWN FORWARD in frames following 313 when they should instead be BEING PULLED BACKWARD, since the limousine is officially supposed to be accelerating dramatically? Even the Mayor's wife, Dearie, confirmed that the limo and the motorcade had stopped. Do you also believe that Clint Hill was mistaken about what he reported consistently for 47 years at the time in "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" Thanks for posting your response. I guess you think that Toni Foster and Louis Witt have over-active imaginations. Is that your response? I have no doubt that you have done the best that you can do. Here's what Toni Foster had to say, Kathy. But according to you, of course, she is wrong. Here's what Louis Witt testified to the HSCA. Even Tink has told us Louis Witt was there. How do you explain their having such very specific recollections? Are they simply fantasizing? And why would anyone do such a thing in connection with the assassination of our 35th President? Jim Here's 2 The blob was not painted in..the shadow is the same on Jackie. This is evident to me by inspection of the zfilm I see on the boards ############### The limo slowed, did not come to a stop. Have you seen this analysis by Duke Lane? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5708&view=findpost&p=50316 Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer 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