David Josephs Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 As I was examing the extent of the fall "back and to the left" I noticed the blurrs and clarity of these three frames and what looks like a shot flying thru the top of JFK's head. At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects... yet on 319... the background is not blurry while the foreground is a mess... If one shot when thru the right temple and out the back... "something" had to leave the trail of particles high up... (if the xrays are trustworthy for this) Simultaneous shots accomplishes this and would be good reason to remove key frames DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 As I was examing the extent of the fall "back and to the left" I noticed the blurrs and clarity of these three frames and what looks like a shot flying thru the top of JFK's head. At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects... yet on 319... the background is not blurry while the foreground is a mess... If one shot when thru the right temple and out the back... "something" had to leave the trail of particles high up... (if the xrays are trustworthy for this) Simultaneous shots accomplishes this and would be good reason to remove key frames DJ Why in the would would you say this: "At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects" If you had even the first clue how blurring works? There is over-panning, under-panning, no panning but a camera move, no panning but a subject move, no panning and no camera move, perfect panning with a foreground subject move....and on it goes. This is complex blur. So, why don't you try and figure out exactly how the different blurs actually occurred rather than flying directly to ct fantasy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 As I was examing the extent of the fall "back and to the left" I noticed the blurrs and clarity of these three frames and what looks like a shot flying thru the top of JFK's head. At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects... yet on 319... the background is not blurry while the foreground is a mess... If one shot when thru the right temple and out the back... "something" had to leave the trail of particles high up... (if the xrays are trustworthy for this) Simultaneous shots accomplishes this and would be good reason to remove key frames DJ Why in the would would you say this: "At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects" If you had even the first clue how blurring works? There is over-panning, under-panning, no panning but a camera move, no panning but a subject move, no panning and no camera move, perfect panning with a foreground subject move....and on it goes. This is complex blur. So, why don't you try and figure out exactly how the different blurs actually occurred rather than flying directly to ct fantasy? I was just going to suggest various blur types It's actually quite an interesting exercise measuring all the various movements. There's a lot to be found there when one considers also exposure speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 4, 2012 Author Share Posted April 4, 2012 No doubt there are reasons to explain what we see... What caught my eye was watching these frames in context - it SEEMS as if JFK is hit again thru the top of the head... Probably the effect of the blurr and camera movement... but it SEEMS that his head moves much more abnormally than just blur. Just a theory... a hypothesis... to explain the hole in the lower head and the trail of particles in the upper.... A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support. And of course Craig... I have no idea how blurring works. and you haven't a clue about how math shows the zfilm impossible... We'll just leave it at that and call it even..... when you can figure out why the WCR tell us the limo was only going 3mph from z161-z166... you let us know... if not, we can explain it again. I'll start measuring blur... after you explain how to do it correctly and actually SHOW US... like we do with the math. And then we can talk about the assassiantion itself... you got the chops to present something other than photo analysis... or just going to stay in your safe little world where conclusions and connections are irrelevent to your participation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) No doubt there are reasons to explain what we see... What caught my eye was watching these frames in context - it SEEMS as if JFK is hit again thru the top of the head... Probably the effect of the blurr and camera movement... but it SEEMS that his head moves much more abnormally than just blur. Just a theory... a hypothesis... to explain the hole in the lower head and the trail of particles in the upper.... A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support. Uh dude, that in no way describes what it is you have done in this thread. You simply went directly to fantasy and bypassed logic and coherence. And of course Craig... I have no idea how blurring works. But you tell us in your opening post that you DO...let me remind you. DJ -"At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects... yet on 319... the background is not blurry while the foreground is a mess..." and you haven't a clue about how math shows the zfilm impossible... I absolute DO have a clue and the so called math does NOT show the zfilm impossible. Heck the work is one pile of garbage on top of another pile of garbage on top of yet another and to top it all off the author can't even get his measurements on a map HE scaled to match Don's amp for example. I'll suggest its David J. who has lost his first clue and descended into fantasy. We'll just leave it at that and call it even..... Well, no we won't, you are no where near even. when you can figure out why the WCR tell us the limo was only going 3mph from z161-z166... you let us know... if not, we can explain it again. You see, that's the heart of your problem, you CAN'T explain it. You can only FANTASIZE about why it happened. And of course that is the root of your problem. I'll start measuring blur... after you explain how to do it correctly and actually SHOW US... like we do with the math. Come on Dave, you can't even understand the simple things like perspective, triangulation and how a lever works. And then we can talk about the assassiantion itself... you got the chops to present something other than photo analysis... Why in the world would I want to do that? To get into endless posts about things that can't be proven, in areas where I have no advanced knowledge? Why then I would look just as silly as you. or just going to stay in your safe little world where conclusions and connections are irrelevent to your participation? Its the world where I have real knowledge to present, unlike you. And I know it simply frosts your cookies to see your photographic fantasies brought down in flames. Besides, I've yet to see any connection to scratch-off lottery tickets and the JFK case. Have you? The area of real knowledge you bring to the discussion is what again? Edited April 5, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 No doubt there are reasons to explain what we see... What caught my eye was watching these frames in context - it SEEMS as if JFK is hit again thru the top of the head... Probably the effect of the blurr and camera movement... but it SEEMS that his head moves much more abnormally than just blur. Just a theory... a hypothesis... to explain the hole in the lower head and the trail of particles in the upper.... A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support. Uh dude, that in no way describes what it is you have done in this thread. You simply went directly to fantasy and bypassed logic and coherence. And of course Craig... I have no idea how blurring works. But you tell us in your opening post that you DO...let me remind you. DJ -"At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects... yet on 319... the background is not blurry while the foreground is a mess..." and you haven't a clue about how math shows the zfilm impossible... I absolute DO have a clue and the so called math does NOT show the zfilm impossible. Heck the work is one pile of garbage on top of another pile of garbage on top of yet another and to top it all off the author can't even get his measurements on a map HE scaled to match Don's amp for example. I'll suggest its David J. who has lost his first clue and descended into fantasy. We'll just leave it at that and call it even..... Well, no we won't, you are no where near even. when you can figure out why the WCR tell us the limo was only going 3mph from z161-z166... you let us know... if not, we can explain it again. You see, that's the heart of your problem, you CAN'T explain it. You can only FANTASIZE about why it happened. And of course that is the root of your problem. I'll start measuring blur... after you explain how to do it correctly and actually SHOW US... like we do with the math. Come on Dave, you can't even understand the simple things like perspective, triangulation and how a lever works. And then we can talk about the assassiantion itself... you got the chops to present something other than photo analysis... Why in the world would I want to do that? To get into endless posts about things that can't be proven, in areas where I have no advanced knowledge? Why then I would look just as silly as you. or just going to stay in your safe little world where conclusions and connections are irrelevent to your participation? Its the world where I have real knowledge to present, unlike you. And I know it simply frosts your cookies to see your photographic fantasies brought down in flames. Besides, I've yet to see any connection to scratch-off lottery tickets and the JFK case. Have you? The area of real knowledge you bring to the discussion is what again? ahhh, you been trolling wikipedia again, I see..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 ahhh, you been trolling wikipedia again, I see..... Healy, you might want to revisit the entire thread and see exactly WHO WROTE WHAT. Then maybe you won't look quite so silly. 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