Shanet Clark Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 (edited) The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER. The anomalies are problematic. Edited April 28, 2005 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 (edited) dgh02: Interpolated frames? On a optical 'film' printer? Hey listen, I understand how difficult and sore your side feels -- they couldn't BS JCostella, he didn't buy the nonsense -- so, just dig up your own Physicist that can challenge John and give it a whirl -- been 2 going on 3 years now, still NO experts from your side... Just Rollie hiding behind; " Doug Horne must not of understood..." please Try for a moment to keep up with the discussion David. Who said anything interpolation and optical printers? Is reading beyond you now too? We are not sore, rather highly amused watching you guys spinl down the drain. Who gives a crap abourt Costella and his PhD. Hes a woo woo, PhD and all. Now maybe I understand why he's teaching high school math and not at UM. Like I said maybe he should pick up a camera and provide some emperical evidence as proof of concept. While he's at it perhaps he could even learn about light and shadow. It would be an inprovement. dgh02: Durnavich showed what? roflmfao! You are behind the times... Loved his Pov-Ray (sign)nonsense though tsk-tsk... Miller? Well we know all about him He showed what happens whan a camera moves. What did Costella show? Oh yea I remember...that he does not know how a camera works...LOL! [dgh02: the MPI version, and added the missing frames -- Good for them, too bad thats not what we were discussing. Try to stay on topic. dgh02: yeah, I know compositing comes from way back, made mention of that somewhere, and of course the black art of motion compositing came from the 'still' world... Hands on? Well lets see a few pieces your film work, after all if your claiming compositing expertise, I think I can pass judgement on that -- you've done motion work? Post a URL, more than one of us would like to see your 'expertise' in action.... Who needs to show motion? A composite is a composite. And an optical printer is just a device that made doing composites in motion fast, affordable and reasonably accurate. There is nothing "magic" to an optical printer. Heres one I have online, goes back to 1977. Shot on 8x10 chrome. After the shot the client decided they did'nt like the way the dry ice "smoke" looked in the original so the base with the smoke, water and arrows had to be changed. Since the product was long gone the set was rebuilt without the product and the new background was combined with the furnace in the darkroom. BTW, I did ALL of the work. http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596424 Now its your turn. dgh02: What's this? mine is bigger than yours? Company's been in the family for 29 years. Good to know. You are working OPM. dgh02: bet that composite is digital... LOL Of course it is. It is 2005 in case you forgot. BTW who is Owen? Edited April 28, 2005 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.The anomalies are problematic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why am I not suprised. Fetzer would be your cup-o-tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.The anomalies are problematic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why am I not suprised. Fetzer would be your cup-o-tea. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like you get your tea from the Officer's Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.The anomalies are problematic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why am I not suprised. Fetzer would be your cup-o-tea. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like you get your tea from the Officer's Club. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <G> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 BTW David there are 39 composite images on my pbase page, some assembled by me and some assembled by agency folks. http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/root All digital but one. It is 2005 after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 (edited) BTW who is Owen? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr Lamson, Mr Healey, means Evan Burton. Is it asking to much that BOTH of you keep your posts civil? This silly schoolboy sneering is doing neither of you any favours. IMHO. Thanks.... Edited April 28, 2005 by Stephen Turner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 BTW who is Owen? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr Lamson, Mr Healey, means Evan Burton. Is it asking to much that BOTH of you keep your posts civil? This silly schoolboy sneering is doing neither of you any favours. IMHO. Thanks.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I knew that Steven. This is a civil conversation considering it's with one of the JFKResearch group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 BTW who is Owen? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr Lamson, Mr Healey, means Evan Burton. Is it asking to much that BOTH of you keep your posts civil? This silly schoolboy sneering is doing neither of you any favours. IMHO. Thanks.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I knew that Steven. This is a civil conversation considering it's with one of the JFKResearch group. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Craig. The problem here, is that this kind of behavior simply turns many people off. I dont pretend to be an, expert in photo-analysis, therefore I rely on people such as yourself for interpritation of this important evidence. All I am saying is that detachment, & civility add to your arguement,rather than detract. Thanks, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 David Healy wrote: "we're no closer to the "conspiracy' conclusion than we were when Thompson did his work, why the continue cover-up, opinion?" David, somewhere in your namesakes book "Best Evidence," Lifton describes his frustration at trying to explain the sognificance of the film to Wesley Liebeler et al. Lifton concluded that "the problem is not logical, its psychological." The human mind is the next great frontier of science, and I sincerely hope the answer to your question is coming soon. In the meantime, I must thank you for inspiring me to figure out the winner of the Kentucky Derby. I predict that it will be (a) an exciting race ( the best two minutes in sports this year and © that the winner will be a long shot. It is only appropriate that the winner's name will be CLOSING ARGUMENT. Ray "Do not block the way of inquiry" C.S. Peirce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 "In the meantime, I must thank you for inspiring me to figure out the winner of the Kentucky Derby. I predict that it will be (a) an exciting race ( the best two minutes in sports this year and © that the winner will be a long shot. It is only appropriate that the winner's name will be CLOSING ARGUMENT." Ray David, three out of four ain't bad. I bet $3 Win, Place & Show on CLOSING ARGUMENT and collected $134.00. Granted I had two minutes hard work jumping up & screaming, and I had to sing a Stephen Foster song, but I enjoyed it all immensely. I now predict that: (a) Closing Argument will run in the money in the Preakness in two weeks. ( History will determine that 1. the Zapruder film is basically authentic (splices/missing frames notwithstanding) 2. The film proves that JFK was killed by an exploding bullet fired from the wooden fence on the Grassy Knoll, from the guy shown in the Moorman photo (From memory its page 126 in Josiah Thompson's book). 3. Fetzer will never topple Thompson from the pantheon. Even though Thompson has feet of clay, his contribution to the case will forever be important. So put that in your pipe & smoke it! Ray "Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 (edited) J. Raymond Carroll wrote: "In the meantime, I must thank you for inspiring me to figure out the winner of the Kentucky Derby. I predict that it will be (a) an exciting race ( the best two minutes in sports this year and © that the winner will be a long shot. dgh01: you can send me via this forum a 15% comission... wasn't that big of a deal, had to be the one with 4 legs -- I accept VISA or MC It is only appropriate that the winner's name will be CLOSING ARGUMENT." Ray David, three out of four ain't bad. I bet $3 Win, Place & Show on CLOSING ARGUMENT and collected $134.00. Granted I had two minutes hard work jumping up & screaming, and I had to sing a Stephen Foster song, but I enjoyed it all immensely. I now predict that: (a) Closing Argument will run in the money in the Preakness in two weeks. dgh01: I'll still take the one with 4 legs, I'll narrow it down a bit, this one has a regular length tail ( History will determine that 1. the Zapruder film is basically authentic (splices/missing frames notwithstanding) dgh01: Authentic? With missing frames? you better get no further than the 2 dollar window Ray, what the hell are you smoking? roflmao! 2. The film proves that JFK was killed by an exploding bullet fired from the wooden fence on the Grassy Knoll, from the guy shown in the Moorman photo (From memory its page 126 in Josiah Thompson's book). 3. Fetzer will never topple Thompson from the pantheon. Even though Thompson has feet of clay, his contribution to the case will forever be important. So put that in your pipe & smoke it! dgh01: soon as you find me something authentic, to light it with! roflmao Ray "Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce dgh01: you should of seen it on the big screens at the Bellagio in Vegas. If you can't be trackside, the ONLY place to watch the races, is at a Vegas Sports book, period! David Edited May 8, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later If that's true Dave, I'm sure you could cite various examples of films made back in '63 - '64 which used composting so undetectably. One reason I find theories of alteration hard to believe is that even decades later composting in big budget Hollywood movies appears faked to the naked eye let alone withstand close scrutiny and frame by frame analysis. I don't care what some guy wrote in a book, I am interested in actual examples The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.The anomalies are problematic. Shanet - Please fill us in on your experience training in forensic photo analysis or in photography and filmmaking in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 The question isn't: did "I" have the technical skills, know-how, and was the equipment available to alter the Z-film in 1963-'64? You know that, don't you? Of course the answer is; there was abundant talent available to do that type of job -- I come a bit later, 7 years later If that's true Dave, I'm sure you could cite various examples of films made back in '63 - '64 which used composting so undetectably. One reason I find theories of alteration hard to believe is that even decades later composting in big budget Hollywood movies appears faked to the naked eye let alone withstand close scrutiny and frame by frame analysis. I don't care what some guy wrote in a book, I am interested in actual examples The more I study it, the more I believe FETZER.The anomalies are problematic. Shanet - Please fill us in on your experience training in forensic photo analysis or in photography and filmmaking in general Hello Len, I'm sure you've access to SMPTE [society of Motion Picture/Television Engineer] Society monthly periodoicals. They have a lengthy history. SMPE (as it was known before television) first act as a professional society was setting the standards for commercial 35mm film, in 1915. They've published (monthly) continuosly since then. Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title. Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's. btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Hello Len,I'm sure you've access to SMPTE [society of Motion Picture/Television Engineer] Society monthly periodoicals. They have a lengthy history. SMPE (as it was known before television) first act as a professional society was setting the standards for commercial 35mm film, in 1915. They've published (monthly) continuosly since then. Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title. Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's. btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too! Dave I asked you specificly for examples not references to a book (or by extension a magazine). I'll check my local libraries but I doubt the magazine you refer to is available here (I'm in Brazil remember). May be to convince us all you could scan and post some frames or better yet cite some movies that we could rent at our local video stores. If such techniques were so common you should have no problem citing various examples. The question of photo analysis creds was directed at Shanet. Edited December 12, 2005 by Len Colby 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