Josh Cron Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I see what you mean now David. You're right. I went back and read all of Zapruder's statements I have available, and I can't find any reference to him saying he stopped filming at any point. While reading his testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw, I found this bit interesting: Q: After going to the Eastman people did you go anywhere else with your film? A: Yes. They advised me not to cut the film. This was 8 millimeter of the old type that was actually a 16 millimeter film, it was cut after it was developed, and they advised me to go to another -- I think it was Jamieson film, or something like that, to have them developed there into a 16, and they were to somehow process it and split 8 millimeter, and that's what I did. I really don't know much about film. What does Zapruder mean by cutting the film in this statement? And if he was told not to cut it, and didn't, who did? Is this just something that had to be done after developing a film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states: (I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001." There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame... yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133... the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo. If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that. At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade. Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario? According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please. Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck. Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you. "First Frame Over-Exposure: The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence. Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll." And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this: "Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised. What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked. Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. " Thanks for proving me correct...again. So, in essence, Zavada is saying that while it does happen in the Zapruder camera, ie Z001, it doesn't happen at other stop/start locations.... 132/133 being one of them.... You can show that 134 has a 10% decrease in exposure to 133? that would be helpful to see, if that is really the case... and whether or not anything else can explain a change in exposure.... All we really have then is Zapruder's testimony telling us whether he filmed the entire turn or not... does he EVER explain that he didn't want to waste film on motorcycles, or desired not to run out of film so he paused...? Can you offer ANYTHING that suggests Zapruder stopped filming... since his testimony both at in the WCR and at the Shaw trial below is pretty consistently describing a non-stopping situation. He SAYS he filmed the entire time. So yes, while the camera MAY or MAY NOT create the overexposure after a start/stop.. as is plainly evident at z001, you can present no evidence that the camera did indeed stop filming, AND the transition from 132 to 133 ALSO appears as a splice would appear... Doesn't it? This is an actual question... IF the film was spliced and copied, this is EXACTLY what it would look like, no? Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out. We have to take it on faith that it did not occur THIS TIME, even though there is no evidence to support Zap stopping his filming, and we have evidence that the START time prior to 133 exhibited the over exposure to an extreme extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 I see what you mean now David. You're right. I went back and read all of Zapruder's statements I have available, and I can't find any reference to him saying he stopped filming at any point. While reading his testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw, I found this bit interesting: Q: After going to the Eastman people did you go anywhere else with your film? A: Yes. They advised me not to cut the film. This was 8 millimeter of the old type that was actually a 16 millimeter film, it was cut after it was developed, and they advised me to go to another -- I think it was Jamieson film, or something like that, to have them developed there into a 16, and they were to somehow process it and split 8 millimeter, and that's what I did. I really don't know much about film. What does Zapruder mean by cutting the film in this statement? And if he was told not to cut it, and didn't, who did? Is this just something that had to be done after developing a film? Excellent questions Josh... Google "Technical Aspects" by David Healy... while there is some commentary in there, he illustrates very plainly what happens with Zapruders original 16mm WIDE (two opposite sides of 8mm film in a cartridge that is taken out and flipped to record the second 8mm side - when complete we have two 8mm film sequences, on runing down the film, the other running up. The 16mm width is split into the two 8mm films and spliced together to create on long 8mm film - these cartridges are usually 25 feet so when done you have a 50 foot 8mm film. At the time there were 16mm projectors which would show the 16mm pre-slit film... This is what was supposedly shown at Kodak) As I am working on the day to day movements of the MASTER: 0183, the missing 184, and the copies 185, 186, 187 the RECORD shows there was an extra 16mm original and NO 8mm films created on 11/22. If an 8mm film was created at either Jamieson or Kodak, I have not seen the evidence for it... Yet Zapruder was showing an 8mm version in his office to Stolley... As soon as I'm done with the table, I'll start a new thread... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states: (I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001." There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame... yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133... the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo. If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that. At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade. Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario? According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please. Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck. Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you. "First Frame Over-Exposure: The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence. Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll." And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this: "Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised. What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked. Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. " Thanks for proving me correct...again. So, in essence, Zavada is saying that while it does happen in the Zapruder camera, ie Z001, it doesn't happen at other stop/start locations.... 132/133 being one of them.... Yep, and he had a number of 414 cameras that did NOT do it at all... You can show that 134 has a 10% decrease in exposure to 133? that would be helpful to see, if that is really the case... and whether or not anything else can explain a change in exposure.... Be happy to do just that, just supply the frames that have not had any levels or curve adjustments that to normalize the exposure frame to frame. You can't show me web images where we can be assured this has not happened. Of course if you had the relevant experience, you would konw that. All we really have then is Zapruder's testimony telling us whether he filmed the entire turn or not... does he EVER explain that he didn't want to waste film on motorcycles, or desired not to run out of film so he paused...? Does he ever explain he DID NOT do that? Of course not. Can you offer ANYTHING that suggests Zapruder stopped filming... since his testimony both at in the WCR and at the Shaw trial below is pretty consistently describing a non-stopping situation. His testimony says nothing of the sort, you need to learn to read. And of course the Z film is perfectly consistant with a stop/start. He SAYS he filmed the entire time. So yes, while the camera MAY or MAY NOT create the overexposure after a start/stop.. as is plainly evident at z001, you can present no evidence that the camera did indeed stop filming, Again he said NO SUCH THING. Lets review and see you just make it up from thin air... "That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street" He does not say he filmed the entire time, he can't really remember..."I BELIEVE"... AND the transition from 132 to 133 ALSO appears as a splice would appear... Doesn't it? This is an actual question... IF the film was spliced and copied, this is EXACTLY what it would look like, no? And it looks just like a stop and start. The problem for your "copy" sillyness is the fact that two experts, Zavada and Ryan looked at the original microscopically and declared it camera original film. A "copy" looks different that camera originals... and Kodachrome camera stock makes really poor copy stock. Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out. We have to take it on faith that it did not occur THIS TIME, even though there is no evidence to support Zap stopping his filming, and we have evidence that the START time prior to 133 exhibited the over exposure to an extreme extent. Of course we have evidence, the Z film. It looks exactly as it should for a stop and start. And if you notice on your above quote Zapruder does not say he FILMED everything he saw, nor was he asked that question. " I saw the a..." Edited May 5, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states: (I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001." There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame... yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133... the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo. If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that. At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade. Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario? According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please. Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck. Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you. "First Frame Over-Exposure: The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence. Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll." And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this: "Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised. What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked. Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. " Thanks for proving me correct...again. So, in essence, Zavada is saying that while it does happen in the Zapruder camera, ie Z001, it doesn't happen at other stop/start locations.... 132/133 being one of them.... Yep, and he had a number of 414 cameras that did NOT do it at all... You can show that 134 has a 10% decrease in exposure to 133? that would be helpful to see, if that is really the case... and whether or not anything else can explain a change in exposure.... Be happy to do just that, just supply the frames that have not had any levels or curve adjustments that to normalize the exposure frame to frame. You can't show me web images where we can be assured this has not happened. Of course if you had the relevant experience, you would konw that. All we really have then is Zapruder's testimony telling us whether he filmed the entire turn or not... does he EVER explain that he didn't want to waste film on motorcycles, or desired not to run out of film so he paused...? Does he ever explain he DID NOT do that? Of course not. Can you offer ANYTHING that suggests Zapruder stopped filming... since his testimony both at in the WCR and at the Shaw trial below is pretty consistently describing a non-stopping situation. His testimony says nothing of the sort, you need to learn to read. And of course the Z film is perfectly consistant with a stop/start. He SAYS he filmed the entire time. So yes, while the camera MAY or MAY NOT create the overexposure after a start/stop.. as is plainly evident at z001, you can present no evidence that the camera did indeed stop filming, Again he said NO SUCH THING. Lets review and see you just make it up from thin air... "That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street" He does not say he filmed the entire time, he can't really remember..."I BELIEVE"... AND the transition from 132 to 133 ALSO appears as a splice would appear... Doesn't it? This is an actual question... IF the film was spliced and copied, this is EXACTLY what it would look like, no? And it looks just like a stop and start. The problem for your "copy" sillyness is the fact that two experts, Zavada and Ryan looked at the original microscopically and declared it camera original film. A "copy" looks different that camera originals... and Kodachrome camera stock makes really poor copy stock. Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out. We have to take it on faith that it did not occur THIS TIME, even though there is no evidence to support Zap stopping his filming, and we have evidence that the START time prior to 133 exhibited the over exposure to an extreme extent. Of course we have evidence, the Z film. It looks exactly as it should for a stop and start. And if you notice on your above quote Zapruder does not say he FILMED everything he saw, nor was he asked that question. " I saw the a..." He was asked "What did you see as you took your films". . He then responded with what he "saw" (as in, "I saw. . " ) The clear implication is that he is describing what he saw "as [he] took" the film of what he saw. That's just plain English. What kind of silly argument are you attempting to make here? Mr. Lamson. Why don't you just say that you believe the film is unaltered, and you really don't care what the contrary data is? DSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) [ He was asked "What did you see as you took your films". . He then responded with what he "saw" (as in, "I saw. . " ) The clear implication is that he is describing what he saw "as [he] took" the film of what he saw. That's just plain English. What kind of silly argument are you attempting to make here? Mr. Lamson. Why don't you just say that you believe the film is unaltered, and you really don't care what the contrary data is? DSL Yea, clear as mud... You will notice he was not asked, what did you film, but rather what he saw as he took his films in Dealy Plaza. BIG difference. You can see a lot of things you may or may not film. If you stop and start a camera during the course of an event are you not seeing all the action that transpires while you are 'taking" your film? What was that "clear" impication again? LOL! Makes your argument look kind of silly... And what a wonderful illustration that shows the folly of trying to make a piece of so called testimonial a"evidence" fit a preconcieved notion.... and why trying to rely on such statements is a fools errand. Why don't you just say your worldview demands the Zfilm be fake, evidence be damned, or your house of cards comes tumbling down. Lets cut to the chase. There is NO evidence that shows Zapruder did not start and stop his camera or shows he filimed the entire event without stopping.. The physical evidence ( his film) is completely consistant with a start and stop. David Josephs claimed he had : "Irrefutable proof Z was altered prior to Z133" The fact of the matter was he did not, and that his understanding of the technical aspects of the Zfilm were completley incorrect. Round and round the circle goes. Silly claims once again. Edited May 5, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Craig, Your interpretation of Zapruder's testimony is quite self-serving. Joseph's & Lifton's interpretation more closely describes what is meant in "colloquially" phrased English. Your interpretation is very much a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) Craig, Your interpretation of Zapruder's testimony is quite self-serving. Joseph's & Lifton's interpretation more closely describes what is meant in "colloquially" phrased English. Your interpretation is very much a stretch. So says the guy mariried the the unproven claim the z film has been altered. Pot meet Kettle. Thanks so much for proving my point about the limited value of witness statements...again Edited May 5, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) Can't deal with the argument presented so resort to insults and non-sequitor? nice. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion While the word xxxxx and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. SOUNDS familiar.. again nice to see you staying with within your limits and abilities When asked what he did, does the man EVER SAY, "I stopped filming the motorcade for a few seconds"? No. In fact he says quite the opposite... Regarding the 10% decrease ... can you at least provide Zavada's tests that prove such a thing? As sadly, my week with the original frames was last month... And no Craig, it is only consistent with SOME of the stop/starts and completely DIFFERENT from the most recent STOP/START at z001... Please post any other STOP/START frames you have and prove what you claim, that the others did not look like z001, and had the 10% decrease in the following frames Didn't they used CAMERA ORIGINAL stock to create the copies... the copies are IDENTICAL to the original... and two of the tree copies do not have 0185 or 0187, just 0183 print thru... Zavada NEVER got the orignal film... he got what was given to him... Alterations and copying occuring well before he had his hands on any "original"... unless you can prove otherwise Repeating the same answer does not make it any more correct Craig... Zapruder does not say he stopped filming... Zapruder DOES SAY he saw, while filming, the turns onto Houston and onto Elm... The film itself is not proof of itself... but nice try. Like saying CE399 was THE bullet because we have THE bullet and it's obvious... Why don't the other two prints have their print copy numbers on them Craig? Yet the one produced between the other two, does.... 0186... If the film was altered and copied onto CAMERA ORIGINAL STOCK... wouldn't the final copied film LOOK original under any analysis? Edited May 8, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good work, David. You may be on to something here. The easiest way to know that you probably are close to something...is when the Trolls dismiss you out of hand. It is signature. Keep at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Can't deal with the argument presented so resort to insults and non-sequitor? nice. Actually I did deal with your silly and technically naive arguments in detail and destroyed them. As usual you display your complete inability to read and comprehend. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion While the word xxxxx and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. SOUNDS familiar.. again nice to see you staying with within your limits and abilities I see you stiil can't deal directly with your photographic shortcomings. You never will. The subject matter is simply beyond your limited ability to comprehend as we can see first hand once again below. When asked what he did, does the man EVER SAY, "I stopped filming the motorcade for a few seconds"? No. In fact he says quite the opposite... Wrong again. LEARN TO READ. Lets review your quotes AGAIN. He tells us he CAN'T remember and tells us what he SAW. Not a single statement that tells us WHAT HE DID OR DID NOT FILM. POOF...that yet another instance of David "lets just make some crap up from thin air" Josephs taking a witness statement and warping it completely. Your history of this continues... And we can add yet another wonderful example of why trying to decode witness statements is such a fools errand. Regarding the 10% decrease ... can you at least provide Zavada's tests that prove such a thing? As sadly, my week with the original frames was last month... Ask him yourself, or ask Tink since he was he the one who reported it. This is NOT rocket science. Oh wait, then you would be required to understand the technical aspects...never mind. And no Craig, it is only consistent with SOME of the stop/starts and completely DIFFERENT from the most recent STOP/START at z001... Please post any other STOP/START frames you have and prove what you claim, that the others did not look like z001, and had the 10% decrease in the following frames Ask Zavada. He did extensive tests. He tells us the the problem can be intermittent. And that David blows you out of hte water...again. The framesa re consistant witht a stop start. Deal with it. You lost. Or ask your buddies Burnham or Davidson to post their stop start frames. Didn't they used CAMERA ORIGINAL stock to create the copies... the copies are IDENTICAL to the original... and two of the tree copies do not have 0185 or 0187, just 0183 print thru... Once again you show the entire world that you have zero photographic technical ability. Tell you what, when you have learned the perils of using camera original stock for duplication and the massive contrast build that occurs, get back to us. Photographic copies of camera original film are NEVER identical. This is Photo Lab 101. The photographic ignorance you display here is astounding. Zavada NEVER got the orignal film... he got what was given to him... Alterations and copying occuring well before he had his hands on any "original"... unless you can prove otherwise ROFLMAO! You make a statement like this and then trell me I have to prove it wrong? ROFLMAO! Zavada and others studied the film MICROSCOPICALLY . dave cites a fantasy from Doug Horne. ROFLMAO! Repeating the same answer does not make it any more correct Craig... Zapruder does not say he stopped filming... Zapruder DOES SAY he saw, while filming, the turns onto Houston and onto Elm... And your empty and technically naive claims about alteration are simply that...empty, and based on your gross photographic ignorance., No he DOES NOT SAW he saw the turn while filming. He just says HE SAW IT. Your fantasy is getting the better of you...again. The film itself is not proof of itself... but nice try. Like saying CE399 was THE bullet because we have THE bullet and it's obvious... Wrong again. But nice try at evasion. Your problem is you can't impeach the film, in fact no one has. Why don't the other two prints have their print copy numbers on them Craig? Yet the one produced between the other two, does.... 0186... I have no clue. I've not studied it. If the film was altered and copied onto CAMERA ORIGINAL STOCK... wouldn't the final copied film LOOK original under any analysis? Only to a whack job who did not have the first clue about the photographic duplication process. And of course all of this takes us back to the top.... Thanks once again for proving this... "A waste of time, since your warped world view and silly bias makes you totally unable to to understand the technical issues or even discover your own gross error. Educate your own self, if you have the ability. Like I said you don't understand any of this correctly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good work, David. You may be on to something here. The easiest way to know that you probably are close to something...is when the Trolls dismiss you out of hand. It is signature. Keep at it. Is that the very best you can do Burnham? How pathetic. Invent stuff from whole cloth much? 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