Chris Davidson Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Tom has asked me to post the following on this forum. Photos will come after his descriptions. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Photos next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 For simplicity, let's just say: Had James Altgens been anywhere near the position from which the "re-enactment" photo was taken from, then he would have appeared in the Z-film and thereafter, Specter; Shaneyfelt; & Company would not have had to cease publishings of frames of the Z-film at Z334. Which is of course prior to James Altgens coming into view in the film. Truthfully, nothing that difficult in understanding the WHY? of the majority of the WC's obfuscations. That is when one understands the reason for the WHY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 For simplicity, let's just say: Had James Altgens been anywhere near the position from which the "re-enactment" photo was taken from, then he would have appeared in the Z-film and thereafter, Specter; Shaneyfelt; & Company would not have had to cease publishings of frames of the Z-film at Z334. Which is of course prior to James Altgens coming into view in the film. Truthfully, nothing that difficult in understanding the WHY? of the majority of the WC's obfuscations. That is when one understands the reason for the WHY? Sorry Tom you are wrong. The Altgens 6 and the recreation were taken from very nearly the same spot, about 1 foot apart. Forget the movable objects and concentrate the FIXED. It is clear that very little lateral movement has taken place. Check the LOS and do a bit-o-math and you will see the location is very near the location shown on the Don Roberdeau Plat. Which also fits nicely with the Z film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Hey there Tom, Chris... If dawned on me that since we are comparing Altgens location in relation to Moorman.... a few things come to mind - according to Don's map, Altgens is 40 feet from Moorman... - if Altgens' recreation was moved up the street as hypothesized, is there any photo that captures Moorman's POV back toward the TSBD? Moorman 3 includes the concrete pillar at the far right of the frame... I took M3 and added Altgens and the recreation photos all centered on the concrete pillar... Since lenses dont matter according to the resident expert... if Moorman 3 was taken with a 105mm lens instead of the wider angle polaroid lens how would that compare to the two other photos? If Altgens moved only 10 inches, the moorman photo should not work at all from her location 40 feet NE of Altgens, when compared to either altgens or the recreation... If distance is the same, or very close, a change in focal length should not matter If moorman and altgens are taken from different distances it should NOT work and the recreation could NOT be sized to Moorman 3 No doubt I'm doing something wrong yet it appears from this overlay that the recreation photo could have EASILY been taken from moorman's location in her #3 image... 40 feet from Altgens. And that there is simply too much rotation within the photo to have the recreation only off by 10 inches.... unless CL can prove it with his math skills (PS - if CL is going to mention math repeatedly - don't you think he should show HIS work instead of just claiming he's right and not offer anything to back himself up?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Hey there Tom, Chris... If dawned on me that since we are comparing Altgens location in relation to Moorman.... a few things come to mind - according to Don's map, Altgens is 40 feet from Moorman... - if Altgens' recreation was moved up the street as hypothesized, is there any photo that captures Moorman's POV back toward the TSBD? Moorman 3 includes the concrete pillar at the far right of the frame... I took M3 and added Altgens and the recreation photos all centered on the concrete pillar... Since lenses dont matter according to the resident expert... if Moorman 3 was taken with a 105mm lens instead of the wider angle polaroid lens how would that compare to the two other photos? If Altgens moved only 10 inches, the moorman photo should not work at all from her location 40 feet NE of Altgens, when compared to either altgens or the recreation... If distance is the same, or very close, a change in focal length should not matter If moorman and altgens are taken from different distances it should NOT work and the recreation could NOT be sized to Moorman 3 No doubt I'm doing something wrong yet it appears from this overlay that the recreation photo could have EASILY been taken from moorman's location in her #3 image... 40 feet from Altgens. And that there is simply too much rotation within the photo to have the recreation only off by 10 inches.... unless CL can prove it with his math skills (PS - if CL is going to mention math repeatedly - don't you think he should show HIS work instead of just claiming he's right and not offer anything to back himself up?) Lets use YOUR numbers and then do the math...right here. So tell us how much the letters on the face of the TSBD "moved" in relation to the tree trunk in the recreation and the Altgens 6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 You first Lamson... You've done nothing to support your claims... SHOW YOUR WORK or move on already..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) You first Lamson... You've done nothing to support your claims... SHOW YOUR WORK or move on already..... What's the matter dave, you afraid to give us a number? I'll not hold you to super accuracy. Just tell us how much you think the letters moved compared to the tree and we can do the calculations right here in the open for all to see. And how can you complain if YOU supply us with your estimate of the inches moved. So what is it? 2 inches? 3 inches? 6 inches? A foot? 2 feet? So pick one and lets do the the math...you know ...how a LEVER works. What are you afraid of? So lets give you the formula.... Distance from Altgens to the tree is 220 feet. Distance from the tree to the face of the TSBD is 64 feet Lever factor is 64/220 Or 1/3.4 SO...for every 1 unit of horizontal movement at the face of the TSBD, there is a horizontal movement of 3.4 units in the opposite direct at the camera. Lets review: Letters move 1 inch, the camera moves 3.4 inches. Letters move 2 inches, the camera moves 6.8 inches. Letters move 3 inches, the camera moves 10.2 inches Letters move 6 inches, the camera moves 20.4 inches Letters move 12 inches, the camera moves 40.8 inches Letters move 24 inches, the camera moves 81.6 inches Letters move 48 inches the camera moves 162.2 inches. So tell us davie, how much did the letters move? Altgens at Moorman? ROFLMO! Edited March 1, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Let's get a little better idea of where Altgens was and how that alignes with Moorman Your logic is completely based on EXACT PERPENDICULAR MOVEMENT of the camera in relation to the direction the camera is pointed.... You assume the MAXIMUM change in LOS rather than what is possible based on the reality of the Plaza... Try this CL... if we were TRYING to recreate Altgens AND move him up closer to Moorman AND maintain a "close enough for gov't work" attitidue where would YOU move the camera and what would YOU do with focal length and LOS? If a person was to move closer to the TSBD by 20 feet and then perpendicular for 5 feet... and use a different focal length lens this person would have a view SIMILIAR to Altgens yet he would not be 220 feet from the TSBD any longer As this illustrates...moving perpendicular to the arrow pointing AT the TSBD could create the shift you are referring to in your LEVER math But we are not saying the recreation moved him in that direction... the recreation moved him UP THE STREET, closer to Moorman Based on the curve of the street we can see that movement in that direction would not affect the "letters on the TSBD" as much as your perpendicular movement would. So tell us CL... do we see any photos of where they placed the camera for this recreation, which lens was used to take the photo? And then explain to us your LEVER math as it relates to moving in OTHER directions rather than perpendicular... what are the LOS changes if you are not sure where the recreation camera is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Let's get a little better idea of where Altgens was and how that alignes with Moorman Your logic is completely based on EXACT PERPENDICULAR MOVEMENT of the camera in relation to the direction the camera is pointed.... You assume the MAXIMUM change in LOS rather than what is possible based on the reality of the Plaza... Try this CL... if we were TRYING to recreate Altgens AND move him up closer to Moorman AND maintain a "close enough for gov't work" attitidue where would YOU move the camera and what would YOU do with focal length and LOS? If a person was to move closer to the TSBD by 20 feet and then perpendicular for 5 feet... and use a different focal length lens this person would have a view SIMILIAR to Altgens yet he would not be 220 feet from the TSBD any longer As this illustrates...moving perpendicular to the arrow pointing AT the TSBD could create the shift you are referring to in your LEVER math But we are not saying the recreation moved him in that direction... the recreation moved him UP THE STREET, closer to Moorman Based on the curve of the street we can see that movement in that direction would not affect the "letters on the TSBD" as much as your perpendicular movement would. So tell us CL... do we see any photos of where they placed the camera for this recreation, which lens was used to take the photo? And then explain to us your LEVER math as it relates to moving in OTHER directions rather than perpendicular... what are the LOS changes if you are not sure where the recreation camera is? Why not just be a man davie and admit you have it wrong. Its really simple. Just say.. wow, the lever works great and I got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Let's get a little better idea of where Altgens was and how that alignes with Moorman Your logic is completely based on EXACT PERPENDICULAR MOVEMENT of the camera in relation to the direction the camera is pointed.... You assume the MAXIMUM change in LOS rather than what is possible based on the reality of the Plaza... Try this CL... if we were TRYING to recreate Altgens AND move him up closer to Moorman AND maintain a "close enough for gov't work" attitidue where would YOU move the camera and what would YOU do with focal length and LOS? If a person was to move closer to the TSBD by 20 feet and then perpendicular for 5 feet... and use a different focal length lens this person would have a view SIMILIAR to Altgens yet he would not be 220 feet from the TSBD any longer As this illustrates...moving perpendicular to the arrow pointing AT the TSBD could create the shift you are referring to in your LEVER math But we are not saying the recreation moved him in that direction... the recreation moved him UP THE STREET, closer to Moorman Based on the curve of the street we can see that movement in that direction would not affect the "letters on the TSBD" as much as your perpendicular movement would. So tell us CL... do we see any photos of where they placed the camera for this recreation, which lens was used to take the photo? And then explain to us your LEVER math as it relates to moving in OTHER directions rather than perpendicular... what are the LOS changes if you are not sure where the recreation camera is? Why not just be a man davie and admit you have it wrong. Its really simple. Just say.. wow, the lever works great and I got it wrong. what is utterly amazing is the lengths lone nuts will go in attempting to disprove the Z-film MIGHT have been altered, in fact, it's unbelievable... after 15+ years of watching board-forum reactions to that very possibility, childish and laughable come to mind... when you kids are done with your math, then you can enter the realm of the artist, the Hollywood/professional film compositor, where image manipulation and storyline reality change quite frequently... in fact, change to satisfy a script... hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) what is utterly amazing is the lengths lone nuts will go in attempting to disprove the Z-film MIGHT have been altered, in fact, it's unbelievable... after 15+ years of watching board-forum reactions to that very possibility, childish and laughable come to mind... when you kids are done with your math, then you can enter the realm of the artist, the Hollywood/professional film compositor, where image manipulation and storyline reality change quite frequently... in fact, change to satisfy a script... hmm. Too tough for you to follow dave? In case you missed it this has to do with Altgens 6.... Edited March 1, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 CL - while it is indeed a nice try... you completely forget about LOS in your LEVER math.... The LEVER Math only works with perpendicular movement CL... Do you have a photo of where they put the recreation camera? Do you know the lens used for the recreation? a simple yes or no here CL. If you do not know where the camera is or the lens used you CANNOT use your lever math... You ASSUME that the recreation camera and Altgens' camera are the same distance from the TSBD... You also assume that the recreation image is printed at the correct size, no cropping, just like Altgens again... and you do not know these as facts You can't use the Altgens camera position to determine the potential MOVEMENT of the recreation Camera - unless the movement is exactly perpendicular to the LOS... YOU need to figure out the different LOS possibilities for those two images to look so similiar... cause we KNOW where Altgens was, and we also know the curve of the street and the distances involved... You keep trying to tell us that there are no other locations in DP that the recreation photo could have been taken other than a 10 inch circle around Altgen's original position That's complete BS and you know it CL... Moving UP towards moorman and over is NOT the same as moving perpendicular to the LOS... your LEVER MATH is worthless in this example.... but again, nice try.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 CL - while it is indeed a nice try... you completely forget about LOS in your LEVER math.... The LEVER Math only works with perpendicular movement CL... Do you have a photo of where they put the recreation camera? Do you know the lens used for the recreation? a simple yes or no here CL. If you do not know where the camera is or the lens used you CANNOT use your lever math... You ASSUME that the recreation camera and Altgens' camera are the same distance from the TSBD... You also assume that the recreation image is printed at the correct size, no cropping, just like Altgens again... and you do not know these as facts You can't use the Altgens camera position to determine the potential MOVEMENT of the recreation Camera - unless the movement is exactly perpendicular to the LOS... YOU need to figure out the different LOS possibilities for those two images to look so similiar... cause we KNOW where Altgens was, and we also know the curve of the street and the distances involved... You keep trying to tell us that there are no other locations in DP that the recreation photo could have been taken other than a 10 inch circle around Altgen's original position That's complete BS and you know it CL... Moving UP towards moorman and over is NOT the same as moving perpendicular to the LOS... your LEVER MATH is worthless in this example.... but again, nice try.... First LENSES have no effect on Perspective. ONLY CAMERA TO SUBJECT DISTANCE changes perspective. if you don't understand perspective...look it up. A lens cannot effect the LOS. There is only one location where the Altgens can be taken from and only one where the recreation can be taken from....and they are less that a foot apart. How do we know? Triangulation. If you don't understand triangulation...look it up. You sure you want to go here davie? You are gonna get SMACKED DOWN AGAIN. All you did when you moved the camera directly forward is change the perspective, you did not change the LOS for the letter.. When you MOVED 5 feet perpendicular THEN you changed the LOS by 5 feet. So we recalculate from that. The new lever is 1/3.2 instead of 1/3.4. The UP 20 OVER 5 Movement results in a movement at the letters on the TSBD of a CALCULATED 18.75 inches. Poof. That's your silly BS blowing up in your face AGAIN! It measures 20 inches, a very good fit. What you DID do when you moved the camera up 20 and over five was change the LOS between the obelisk and the brick wall behind it. The movement FAR exceeds what is seen in the comparison between the Altgens and the recreation. My measurements and calculations for the brickwork movement between the two images is about 3 inches...or less than a foot at the camera. Meaning the recreation was shot from a position VERY CLOSE to the Altgens. POOF that's your crap blowing up in your face again... AS usual you don't have the first clue about any of this. How typical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Once again you try to confuse the issue... The 20 foot movement was not AT the TSBD but at an angle... the 5 foot movement was not perpendicular.. but at yet another ANGLE You have NO IDEA how the camera was moved or to where... you make assumptions and ASSUME the LEVER math works since you start your example off with a WRONG ASSUMPTION. and then support you WRONG ASSUMPTION with wrong movements Try again CL... The example you posted (red line movement to blue line) is approx 20 feet on the Don R map. (since Moorman is 40 feet from Altgens) Your own lines show the slight movement in the LOS to the TSBD lettering as you claim. If a 20 foot movement can result in a minor change to the LOS - AS YOU HAVE SHOWN AND PROVEN -... why do you keep claiming only a 10" movement for the recreation camera? 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