BLURRY PEOPLE WITH SHARP SHADOWS

[Chris Bristow]

7 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

An 11 degree field of view is like an ultra telephoto lens.  It'd be like looking down a paper towel tube.  Do you understand that?  Zapruder had the 35 mm film equivalent of a 35 mm lens on his 8mm film camera -- no speculation, that's documented.  Here are typical specs for a 35 mm lens:

 

35mm

Lens      54.4

Horizontal    37.8 Vertical

63.4 Diagonal

 

How do you get an 11 degree FOV for a lens that has roughly a 64 degree FOV in the diagonal?  Further, at what frame of the Zapruder film are you doing your "measuring?"  At the beginning?  When it's wide? Or when it crosses over past the Stemmons sign, when it gets more narrow, more telephoto-like?  Many complications here; you haven't explained squat. 

Told you a couple times how you can find the field of view by knowing Z's location and identifying stationary objects at the opposite edges of the main frame(Not including the sprocket area.) If you can't figure it out from that it is not my problem. 

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Chris Bristow said:

Told you a couple times how you can find the field of view by knowing Z's location and identifying stationary objects at the opposite edges of the main frame(Not including the sprocket area.) If you can't figure it out from that it is not my problem. 

No you didn't.  You only said that it could be done.  You also seem to have no conception of the absurdity of your work -- if it is indeed yours.  An 11 degree field of view is preposterous.  You'd be lucky if you got anything other than Kennedy's head in the frame with that kind of FOV.  It's on it's face laughable.  11 degrees!  

[Matt Cloud]

2 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

No you didn't.  You only said that it could be done.  You also seem to have no conception of the absurdity of your work -- if it is indeed yours.  An 11 degree field of view is preposterous.  You'd be lucky if you got anything other than Kennedy's head in the frame with that kind of FOV.  It's on it's face laughable.  11 degrees!  

Just to bring home the point one last (I hope) time.  The FOV on a sniper's scope is about 20 degrees.  That's a telescopic sniper scope.  You say Zapruder had half that.  11 degrees.  Complete nonsense. 

[Chris Bristow]

24 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

No you didn't.  You only said that it could be done.  You also seem to have no conception of the absurdity of your work -- if it is indeed yours.  An 11 degree field of view is preposterous.  You'd be lucky if you got anything other than Kennedy's head in the frame with that kind of FOV.  It's on it's face laughable.  11 degrees!  

What is crazy is your assertion about the field of view. It is measurably 11 degrees from start to finish. If you knew how to determine that you would have understood that knowing Z's location and the location of the objects at each side of a single Frame was enough info to draw the field of view on an overhead map. 
 Z was 63 to 65 ft from the limo at 312. The limo was 21.4 feet long but in 312 we only see 13 ft of it. Do the math and you will see that is also an 11 degree field of view from 63 ft away. 11 degrees shows 13 ft of the limo. You assumptions would only show JFK's head is so far off it demonstrates you don't understand how to figure it out.

 

Edited May 18 by Chris Bristow

[Matt Cloud]

5 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

What is crazy is your assertion about the field of view. It is measurably 11 degrees from start to finish. If you knew how to determine that you would have understood that knowing Z's location and the location of the objects at each side of a Frame was enough info to draw the field of view on an overhead map. 
 Z was 63 to 65 ft from the limo at 312. The limo was 21.4 feet long but in 312 we only see 13 ft of it. Do the math and you will see that is also an 11 degree field of view. 11 degrees shows 13 ft of the limo. You assumptions would only show JFK's head is so far off it demonstrates you don't understand how to figure it out.

Dude.  My contention is that that frame, and others right in that sequence, have been altered.  They are not to be used in determining Zapruder's FOV generally.  That would be done with replicating his camera and his lens at his position.  That's the only way to achieve an objective measurement.  The only way.  Indeed, your telling me that that frame indicates an 11 degree FOV -- a photographic impossibility with Zapruder's camera and lens -- only demonstrates that.  You make my point.  Well done.

Edited May 18 by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Basically agree with everything you stated.

 

Chris,

I have a great deal of respect for your work that challenges alterationists. Not because I'm an anti-alterationist, but because I do accept alterationism when warranted, but at the same time don't want to be mistaken in my alteration beliefs.

Because of that, I want to know precisely your position on the items we've discussed.

Please bear with me. I know you have already answered my questions. Like with this one:

 

23 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The back of head witnesses accounts  are too numerous and substantiated for them all to be wrong.

 

That is very clear and so I understand your position. Thank you.

But the next one appears ambiguous to me:

 

23 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The 4 bike cops all mistakenly thinking the limo almost fully stopped or fully stopped for a brief moment is very compelling. They were just a few ft away and trying to pace the limo throughout the parade. Miscalculating even a very short stop or extreme slowing would put them about 30+ ft off their position at the rear bumper. Can't fathom all of them making such a huge miscalculation. 

 

Because when you say, "The 4 bike cops all mistakenly thinking the limo almost fully stopped or fully stopped for a brief moment is very compelling," it sounds like you're saying that it is compelling that the cops are mistaken.

But when you say, "Can't fathom all of them making such a huge miscalculation,"  it sounds like you're saying that it's hard to believe the cops are mistaken.

Do you see how the two bold phrases are contradictory?

I considered the possibility that you intended for your two sentences to contradict, meaning that possibility A is compelling, but possibility B also had its merits... where A and B are opposites. But I'm not sure.

So will you make your position on this more clear for me?

 

23 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

When it comes to issues like the lamppost location it is documented in so many photos and verified by so many researchers I am extremely confident in it, and Parkland too.

 

Just one more thing:

What is your position on the gaping wound centered at the right temple as seen developing in the Z-film? The wound that no witness ever saw?

 

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Matt Cloud said:

Dude.  My contention is that that frame, and others right in that sequence, have been altered.  They are not to be used in determining Zapruder's FOV generally.  That would be done with replicating his camera and his lens at his position.  That's the only way to achieve an objective measurement.  The only way.  Indeed, your telling me that that frame indicates an 11 degree FOV -- a photographic impossibility with Zapruder's camera and lens -- only demonstrates that.  You make my point.  Well done.

Do you have any experience with photography?  Or just all abstract calculations.  An eleven degree FOV is not possible -- not even within the range of possibilities.  Not without film alteration that is. 

[Chris Bristow]

25 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

No you didn't.  You only said that it could be done.  You also seem to have no conception of the absurdity of your work -- if it is indeed yours.  An 11 degree field of view is preposterous.  You'd be lucky if you got anything other than Kennedy's head in the frame with that kind of FOV.  It's on it's face laughable.  11 degrees!  

The fact that you cannot grok how to fund the field of view proves you are talking beyond your knowledge base. Just making comparisons to a sniper scope is still your assumption. The math proves an 11 degree field of view. Learn some photogrammetry principles and the you will get it. I am done with this subject unless you can make a case built on understanding the very basic math there is no reason for me to keep trying to educate you on the matter.

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:

The fact that you cannot grok how to fund the field of view proves you are talking beyond your knowledge base. Just making comparisons to a sniper scope is still your assumption. The math proves an 11 degree field of view. Learn some photogrammetry principles and the you will get it. I am done with this subject unless you can make a case built on understanding the very basic math there is no reason for me to keep trying to educate you on the matter.

For the last time:  You are using what I contend is altered imagery to find measurements to say that the imagery isn't altered.  Your methods are totally unsound.  Full Stop.  You made my point.  You claim an eleven degree FOV.  That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment.  The math may indicate 11 degrees is the correct FOV at the frames you have measured.  But that does not in any way and indeed cannot in any way dispute or refute the claim of alteration.  Your work fails.  Utterly.  And without question.  Thanks for the clarification. 

[Chris Bristow]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

I have a great deal of respect for your work that challenges alterationists. Not because I'm an anti-alterationist, but because I do accept alterationism when warranted, but at the same time don't want to be mistaken in my alteration beliefs.

Because of that, I want to know precisely your position on the items we've discussed.

Please bear with me. I know you have already answered my questions. Like with this one:

 

 

That is very clear and so I understand your position. Thank you.

But the next one appears ambiguous to me:

 

 

Because when you say, "The 4 bike cops all mistakenly thinking the limo almost fully stopped or fully stopped for a brief moment is very compelling," it sounds like you're saying that it is compelling that the cops are mistaken.

But when you say, "Can't fathom all of them making such a huge miscalculation,"  it sounds like you're saying that it's hard to believe the cops are mistaken.

Do you see how the two bold phrases are contradictory?

I considered the possibility that you intended for your two sentences to contradict, meaning that possibility A is compelling, but possibility B also had its merits... where A and B are opposites. But I'm not sure.

So will you make your position on this more clear for me?

 

 

Just one more thing:

What is your position on the gaping wound centered at the right temple as seen developing in the Z-film? The wound that no witness ever saw?

 

Oh crap that was very misleading of me. Take out the word "mistakenly". I think I was referring to the LN explanations before editing the sentence.

 The gaping wound at the right temple in Z should be as fake as the rear O.C wound because it was not reported by almost everyone at Parkland. 
Although I don't know if the pressure may cause blood to rush back out of an entry wound in the right temple. So maybe the Z image is partially real. I don't know but accept the alteration of the O.C and consider the alteration of the limo stop real but can't figure out how that could be done well.

[Matt Cloud]

9 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

For the last time:  You are using what I contend is altered imagery to find measurements to say that the imagery isn't altered.  Your methods are totally unsound.  Full Stop.  You made my point.  You claim an eleven degree FOV.  That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment.  The math may indicate 11 degrees is the correct FOV at the frames you have measured.  But that does not in any way and indeed cannot in any way dispute or refute the claim of alteration.  Your work fails.  Utterly.  And without question.  Thanks for the clarification. 

Indeed you may have inadvertently proven alteration with your calculation of an 11 degree FOV at Frame 314 or whatever.  Once more, I thank you.

[Chris Bristow]

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

For the last time:  You are using what I contend is altered imagery to find measurements to say that the imagery isn't altered.  Your methods are totally unsound.  Full Stop.  You made my point.  You claim an eleven degree FOV.  That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment.  The math may indicate 11 degrees is the correct FOV at the frames you have measured.  But that does not in any way and indeed cannot in any way dispute or refute the claim of alteration.  Your work fails.  Utterly.  And without question.  Thanks for the clarification. 

"That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment."
it is photographically provable in any Z frame that shows objects at each side of the frame. That 11 degrees is the reason the lamppost does not show up near the sign. At this point You must be assuming the Z film is fake because it does show the 11 degree FOV. But even if fake that 11 degree FOV is the reason the lamppost is not seen in the same frames as the sign. Real or fake you assumption about the lamppost is explained and debunked by the provable 11 degree FOV.
   Your theory about the lamppost is debunked by the measurable 11 FOV we see in Z whether that 11 degrees is real ar fake the lamppost was out of frame and your theory is debunked.

[Chris Bristow]

Just now, Chris Bristow said:

"That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment."
it is photographically provable in any Z frame that shows objects at each side of the frame. That 11 degrees is the reason the lamppost does not show up near the sign. At this point You must be assuming the Z film is fake because it does show the 11 degree FOV. But even if fake that 11 degree FOV is the reason the lamppost is not seen in the same frames as the sign. Real or fake you assumption about the lamppost is explained and debunked by the provable 11 degree FOV.
   

 

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

"That is not photographically possible, given Zapruder's equipment."
it is photographically provable in any Z frame that shows objects at each side of the frame. That 11 degrees is the reason the lamppost does not show up near the sign. At this point You must be assuming the Z film is fake because it does show the 11 degree FOV. But even if fake that 11 degree FOV is the reason the lamppost is not seen in the same frames as the sign. Real or fake you assumption about the lamppost is explained and debunked by the provable 11 degree FOV.
   Your theory about the lamppost is debunked by the measurable 11 FOV we see in Z whether that 11 degrees is real ar fake the lamppost was out of frame and your theory is debunked.

Zapruder's equipment did not permit an 11 degree field of view.  End of story.  If the math on the frame shows 11 degrees, the Zapruder Film has had telephoto work done on it.  There's no other way around it.  That would be something that the blow-up technicians at NPIC (Homer McMahon) could do, with their enlarger.  Enlarge the 8mm frame, take a bigger picture of that and then re-insert a cropped image back into the 8mm strip.  That's it.  11 degree FOV  was not within Zapruder's capability.  Nothing more to say.  I'll accept your math.  Well done.

[Chris Bristow]

21 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Do you have any experience with photography?  Or just all abstract calculations.  An eleven degree FOV is not possible -- not even within the range of possibilities.  Not without film alteration that is. 

Not abstract calculations. Photogrammetry is a hobby I have been studying for maybe 13 years. Prior to that I was an optician and passed the state boards on optics to be licensed. In the 70's I studied film and tv production at a community college followed by a year at a private film school.
 It seems obvious to me from your responses that is is you who is lacking knowledge of basic principles of topics and perspective.