Undressing CE884, Randomly

[Craig Lamson]

I'll run the scenario for you.

11.2mph average = 16.464ft per sec /18.3fps = .899ft per frame.

.899ft per frame x 5 frames = 4.498ft

4.498- .9ft (CE884 161-166) = 3.598ft difference.

30ft/3.598ft = 8.33ft

152 frames 161-313

152/18.3 = 8.30 seconds

Relationship Yes. Coincidence No.

chris

ROFLMAO! You are really getting silly now.

[Mark Knight]

So what are you saying, Craig?

Are you saying that ALL of the recreations--BECAUSE they are recreations--are inherently flawed?

That's what it SEEMS you are saying.

If so, then it would appear you're saying that we'll never be able to properly examine the JFK assassination because there ARE inherent flaws in ANY attempted recreation.

Since I'm NOT trying to put words in your mouth...am I correctly INTERPRETING what you're saying?

If I'm not interpreting your words correctly, please tell us what you ARE trying to say.

[Craig Lamson]

So what are you saying, Craig?

Are you saying that ALL of the recreations--BECAUSE they are recreations--are inherently flawed?

That's what it SEEMS you are saying.

If so, then it would appear you're saying that we'll never be able to properly examine the JFK assassination because there ARE inherent flaws in ANY attempted recreation.

Since I'm NOT trying to put words in your mouth...am I correctly INTERPRETING what you're saying?

If I'm not interpreting your words correctly, please tell us what you ARE trying to say.

Yes ALL recreations are flawed simply because you can never cover all the variables. Can recreations offer insight? Sure. Can they be counted on to be completely accurate? Never.

Lets take the recreations of the Z film for example. How do you find the location, in a recreation, of a single frame of the film?

Do you stand on the pedestal and try and sight it in? What happens if you get your eye or camera in the wrong place? Does that effect the outcome? Does human error figure into the equation?

I've photographed many 'recreations", images I had to try and duplicate for advertising. Many times I knew ahead of time I would need to try and duplicate the efforts and I would take copious notes so I could find the correct positions later. Even with solid notes, shooting to a computer so I could overlay the old image with the new one, it was impossible to get it all correct.

I often shoot parts and pieces, meaning I shoot a scene many different times with different lighting and them composite them all together in post (see gif below) If I even bump the camera ever so slightly the parallax and perspective changes enough that I need to start over because the parts no longer fit.

http://www.craiglamson.com/rvbuild.gif

So are recreations flawed? Of course.

Now if you feel otherwise please tell me why.

[Mark Knight]

Craig, I'm not going to argue the point with you...although I'm sure you're rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect.

In fact, I'm going to agree that, due to the nature of recreations, there will always be an error factor involved. Without using a tripod, try taking the same photo from the same location on two separate dates. There will inevitably be an error factor involved.

The question then becomes, is the error significant or insignificant? And that depends on many factors. So I suppose you might say that, to a great extent, I agree with you.

[Mark Knight]

BEYOND that, whatever errors there were in the original survey were certainly subject to compounding, obfuscation, and downright manipulation at the hands of the Warren Commission. Altering the data that the surveyor computed, for whatever reason, by folks who were NOT trained in proper surveying techniques, is simply a matter of taking a less-than-ideal recreation and turning it into a completely worthless farce.

[Craig Lamson]

BEYOND that, whatever errors there were in the original survey were certainly subject to compounding, obfuscation, and downright manipulation at the hands of the Warren Commission. Altering the data that the surveyor computed, for whatever reason, by folks who were NOT trained in proper surveying techniques, is simply a matter of taking a less-than-ideal recreation and turning it into a completely worthless farce.

I don't know if they just screwed it up or did it for a reason. The problem is trying to take data that is just an educated guess and saying it is accurate so the film of the event is false.

Is the film false? I don't think so after some really careful study over a lot of years. Obviously others feel quite different.

That said to think any of the recreations nailed it exactly is really wishful thinking.