Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight. Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy... I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints? Back-on-point, still photog - back on point So lurkers stay tuned! ... Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark. As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Craig wrote: Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight. Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy... I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints? Back-on-point, still photog - back on point So lurkers stay tuned! ... Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark. "background and experience..." ROFL -- maybe you'll be so kind as posting your resume here, huh? So what praytell, does photographing mobile homes, washers and dryers have to do with optical film printing -- possible Zapruder film alteration? Come to think of it, your team ever find someone with credentials, ANY credentials to refute the SMPE/SMPTE articles of Ray Feildings book? You find anyone, anywhere of that stature bring 'em in here Craigster -- then we'll discuss the Zapruder film why would you assume anything new regarding the Z-film studies would be run past the Lone Neuter's, you included? "Truth is truth..." LOL, save it for the uninitiated, Craigster, that one goes way back to comp-u-serve days - you or your supposed knowledge impresses no ONE that I know, facts being what they are, you're not even on the radar screen As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care. of course you don't, thats why you can't stay away from here, or is this a paying job? Chow Edited January 16, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Craig wrote:Exactly David who really cares? Its always amusing though to watch the tinfoil hats go nuts in situations like this. I'm guessig yours is a bit too tight. Love it when you non-creative types resort to Lone Neuter comedy... I love it when tinfoils like you with no real experience in any of this attempt to degrade anyone who rains on your parade. You are a loser David. It's okay Craig, only hurts for a little while - we know you're one of those great perservers of Dealey Plaza 'Lone Neuter' photo history.... -- now thats over, maybe you can tell us what version of the Z-film D.Rather saw that day so long ago. Split or unsplit film? Was it the alledged Zapruder camera original or one of the three optical prints? Back-on-point, still photog - back on point So lurkers stay tuned! ... Whats to hurt David? I have the background and experience, unlike you so if theres pain involved its from your end. As for the rest of your post, back on point, what point? I could care less if the "history of the Dealy Plaza photo record is preserved" Truth is truth, simple as that. Now if you and the rest of your tin foil buddies have some truth post it. So far you and yours have been shown to be miserable failures. Now thats gotta hurt AND leave a mark. "background and experience..." ROFL -- maybe you'll be so kind as posting your resume here, huh? So what praytell, does photographing mobile homes, washers and dryers have to do with optical film printing -- possible Zapruder film alteration? Come to think of it, your team ever find someone with credentials, ANY credentials to refute the SMPE/SMPTE articles of Ray Feildings book? You find anyone, anywhere of that stature bring 'em in here Craigster -- then we'll discuss the Zapruder film why would you assume anything new regarding the Z-film studies would be run past the Lone Neuter's, you included? "Truth is truth..." LOL, save it for the uninitiated, Craigster, that one goes way back to comp-u-serve days - you or your supposed knowledge impresses no ONE that I know, facts being what they are, you're not even on the radar screen As for Rather and his viewing of the Z film...I really dont care. of course you don't, thats why you can't stay away from here, or is this a paying job? Chow Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about. Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit. In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong. But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites, and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination. There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal. BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period. That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 OK...now that the sniping has resumed, which detracts from any SERIOUS discussion of film images...I'd like to comment on the UNSPOKEN, UNWRITTEN implications of the photos that began this thread. Is it possible...repeat, POSSIBLE...that perhaps the photo on the right was produced from the image on the left...and that, just PERHAPS, the original image MIGHT have been an examination of ANOTHER rifle...possibly even the Enfield owned by Buell Wesley Frazier(?)...and the Mannlicher-Carcano was substituted into the photo for the purposes of keeping the MC rifle in the public's mind, rather than some other weapon? This is no big "conspiracy" thing I'm proposing...I'm merely suggesting that the "wrong" rifle might have been "accidentally" photographed by the press, and that some editor may have realized that it WASN'T the alleged assassin's rifle...meaning that this "wrong" rifle had no news value...and, rather than scrap the dramatic photograph, an image of the MC was "substituted" for this "wrong" rifle... Is this a possibility...I'm not suggesting any sinister implications, I'm only raising the possibility that the photo may have been altered for ostensibly innocent reasons, i.e., to save some photog's and/or editor's butt, rather than as a part of some grand conspiracy. Since we know that Frazier's Enfield was taken to DPD, could this have happened? WOULD this have been possible? Would it have been LIKELY to have happened, under ANY circumstances? Anyone with press experience want to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 As a photographer and cutter of Ulano masks for more than 40 years, it is my opinion that the mask was cut as a dodging tool to uniformly HOLD BACK the exposure on the rifle to bring out details in the dark metal. This used to be a very common operation to assure best repro quality. Nothing sinister, in my opinion. If expertly done this dodging is not detectable...it just lightens very dark areas in a controlable manner. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Craig wrote: Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about. dgh: mines in the front of my GZFH chapter.... well in relationship to 1963-64 its your, what's that guys name again? Damocles- damolcles sword - you know the one hanging over every lone neuter's head Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit. dgh: maybe you'll be so kind to explain why the US governemnt commissioned the 1st serious one in this country during the early stages of WW2 -- would you like the URL? Watch the dance lurkers -- Tell me Craigster all about the truth re Optical Film Printing - technology In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong. dgh: well by all means -- please give it your best shot -- fill the lurkers in, what the secret? If its the ridiculous theory regarding contrast levels -- you really need a life. But first maybe you can tell us what the contrast level of the optical fi;lm prints are in relationship to the alledged Zapruder camera original -- we can start there... But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites, dgh: now that lurkers is peanut gallery NOISE -- the lone neuters hereabouts have NEVER pointed to anything resembling a film motion composite using travelling mattes. We've asked, many times, no examples, no experts -- just Craig and of course we know what he's doing here -- I doubt Craig knows the term travelling matte... and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination. dgh: well why yes, that's why most entertainment industry optical printers circa 1963-64 had tolerance levels within 0.001 of an inch [includes aerial optical blocks], you realize that don't you? So as I sit here watching a 25 layer composite (one of 230 :23 second HD animations) rendering, please, tell me all about it .... oh, final digital product goes to 35mm. Back to the peanut gallery There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal. well hell, why didn't you say that a few years back -- NOW I know your problem -- you've got to deal with reality, read: bow to the client -- on my end -- I create new reality thats why they call it showbiz. With that understanding, no wonder you haven't a clue as to what motion film compositing is, or its history... BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period. dgh: we've noticed That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs. dgh: how silly Edited January 16, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) Craig wrote: Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about. dgh: mines in the front of my GZFH chapter.... well in relationship to 1963-64 its your, what's that guys name again? Damocles- damolcles sword - you know the one hanging over every lone neuter's head Irrelevent David. I could care LESS about your resume. Learn to read and stay on topic. Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit. dgh: maybe you'll be so kind to explain why the US governemnt commissioned the 1st serious one in this country during the early stages of WW2 -- would you like the URL? Watch the dance lurkers -- Tell me Craigster all about the truth re Optical Film Printing - technology An animation stand would be a far better piece of kit to do the alterations your side suggests. An optical printer was developed FOR ONE REASON...to make reasonable composites IN A TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. In other words to do the job good enouth and CHEAP! In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong. dgh: well by all means -- please give it your best shot -- fill the lurkers in, what the secret? If its the ridiculous theory regarding contrast levels -- you really need a life. But first maybe you can tell us what the contrast level of the optical fi;lm prints are in relationship to the alledged Zapruder camera original -- we can start there... I can see you have had no real experience duping Kodachrome to other film stocks. Even to Kodachrome dupe stock its a bad experience. Dupe to interneg stock or reversal stock and you have color crossovers that you can't fix. THAT David is a FACT OF LIFE you cannot get past. But please try, lay out the stock chain and then show us actual examples of the results. Should be no problem for you, being an EXPERT and all. But you miss my point. All of this crap you guys base on Costellas "science" is flawed by the very simple fact that even Costella has admitted on this very forum that the can't normalize the Z frames to do his sign study...and yet he still says he can...Sheesh. He is a world class huckster... But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites, dgh: now that lurkers is peanut gallery NOISE -- the lone neuters hereabouts have NEVER pointed to anything resembling a film motion composite using travelling mattes. We've asked, many times, no examples, no experts -- just Craig and of course we know what he's doing here -- I doubt Craig knows the term travelling matte... EARTH TO DAVID! a motion picture composite is a still frame composite, and thats not going to change no matter how many "motion picture terms" you throw around to they and make yourself feel like and "expert" A composite is a composite is a composite. Movie composites move past the viewer with motion and sound masking all tiny mistakes. A still sits there and allows the viewer to study it in depth, or even with magnification. So please give us a few of those wonderful movie composite frames, made on an optical printer...BY YOU..so we can study them in depth. What ya afraid of David? and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination. dgh: well why yes, that's why most entertainment industry optical printers circa 1963-64 had tolerance levels within 0.001 of an inch [includes aerial optical blocks], you realize that don't you? So as I sit here watching a 25 layer composite (one of 230 :23 second HD animations) renderin g, please, tell me all about it .... oh, final digital product goes to 35mm. Back to the peanut gallery The accuracy of the printer really means nothing. Its a smoke screen. Its the art that matters. We started down this path many months ago and you ran away and hid. I understand why you hid, because this is where you lose. Its the art David...and thats where the accuracy matters. You gonna tell me that the artists can paint masks to .001 accuracy? LOL! Who cares what the printer can do DAVID...ITS THE ART! There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal. well hell, why didn't you say that a few years back -- NOW I know your problem -- you've got to deal with reality, read: bow to the client -- on my end -- I create new reality thats why they call it showbiz. With that understanding, no wonder you haven't a clue as to what motion film compositing is, or its history... Actually we extend reality ... up close and personal...not to some lousy resolution like you video flakes. We actually have to understand light and shadow...and we have to make images that stand all on their own. You video pukes could use some real lessons from REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS. Of course when you are shooting cowboys how much skill does it really take anyway? BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period. dgh: we've noticed And you think you are doing this to solve the case? LOL! That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs. dgh: how silly Yes you and your horde are silly. Edited January 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Don't get so testy champ -- okay you don't have top post your resume -- even if you volunteered too -- You got something to hide? Funny about a animation stand - I believe I speak of one -- Of course there's many more way's than just a animation stand -- but you know that, right? A nd what are you going to compare these color variations too, if the original camera original doesn't exist? Hell I don't even have to go into blowing up to 35mm.... tsk-tsk Craig wrote: Of course I'll be happy to post my resume here David, right after you post that composite film clip you have created USING FILM and an optical printer. After you David. You like to throw around the term optical printer like it actually means something and it makes you feel ilke you actual know what you are talking about. dgh: mines in the front of my GZFH chapter.... well in relationship to 1963-64 its your, what's that guys name again? Damocles- damolcles sword - you know the one hanging over every lone neuter's head Irrelevent David. I could care LESS about your resume. Learn to read and stay on topic. Truth is an optical print is just a piece of kit, and its not the only way to produce composites, nor is it the method that would make the most sense in the theory you posit. dgh: maybe you'll be so kind to explain why the US governemnt commissioned the 1st serious one in this country during the early stages of WW2 -- would you like the URL? Watch the dance lurkers -- Tell me Craigster all about the truth re Optical Film Printing - technology An animation stand would be a far better piece of kit to do the alterations your side suggests. An optical printer was developed FOR ONE REASON...to make reasonable composites IN A TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. In other words to do the job good enouth and CHEAP! In fact it makes the LEAST sense given the original film stock AND the level of changes your side suggests. You David are a blowhard who like to throw around terms that you think make it seem you know what you are talking about. Its pretty clear you don't...hell you don't even understand WHY the argument you try and defend is so wrong. dgh: well by all means -- please give it your best shot -- fill the lurkers in, what the secret? If its the ridiculous theory regarding contrast levels -- you really need a life. But first maybe you can tell us what the contrast level of the optical fi;lm prints are in relationship to the alledged Zapruder camera original -- we can start there... I can see you have had no real experience duping Kodachrome to other film stocks. Even to Kodachrome dupe stock its a bad experience. Dupe to interneg stock or reversal stock and you have color crossovers that you can't fix. THAT David is a FACT OF LIFE you cannot get past. But please try, lay out the stock chain and then show us actual examples of the results. Should be no problem for you, being an EXPERT and all. But you miss my point. All of this crap you guys base on Costellas "science" is flawed by the very simple fact that even Costella has admitted on this very forum that the can't normalize the Z frames to do his sign study...and yet he still says he can...Sheesh. He is a world class huckster... But back on point, my experience includes making MANY film based composites, dgh: now that lurkers is peanut gallery NOISE -- the lone neuters hereabouts have NEVER pointed to anything resembling a film motion composite using travelling mattes. We've asked, many times, no examples, no experts -- just Craig and of course we know what he's doing here -- I doubt Craig knows the term travelling matte... EARTH TO DAVID! a motion picture composite is a still frame composite, and thats not going to change no matter how many "motion picture terms" you throw around to they and make yourself feel like and "expert" A composite is a composite is a composite. Movie composites move past the viewer with motion and sound masking all tiny mistakes. A still sits there and allows the viewer to study it in depth, or even with magnification. So please give us a few of those wonderful movie composite frames, made on an optical printer...BY YOU..so we can study them in depth. What ya afraid of David? and like it or not David, doing this stuff for stills AND print is far more exacting than the stuff in a movie. Of course thats exactly WHY you have yet to post any examples of your film compositing work ( Its my guess its really because you have NOT produced any) and why you have not brought forth any examples of film compositing using ANY method that can stand up to detailed examination. dgh: well why yes, that's why most entertainment industry optical printers circa 1963-64 had tolerance levels within 0.001 of an inch [includes aerial optical blocks], you realize that don't you? So as I sit here watching a 25 layer composite (one of 230 :23 second HD animations) renderin g, please, tell me all about it .... oh, final digital product goes to 35mm. Back to the peanut gallery The accuracy of the printer really means nothing. Its a smoke screen. Its the art that matters. We started down this path many months ago and you ran away and hid. I understand why you hid, because this is where you lose. Its the art David...and thats where the accuracy matters. You gonna tell me that the artists can paint masks to .001 accuracy? LOL! Who cares what the printer can do DAVID...ITS THE ART! There was a reason we still photographers found every trick we could to NOT do composites David....thats because composites SUCK when you look at them up close and personal. well hell, why didn't you say that a few years back -- NOW I know your problem -- you've got to deal with reality, read: bow to the client -- on my end -- I create new reality thats why they call it showbiz. With that understanding, no wonder you haven't a clue as to what motion film compositing is, or its history... Actually we extend reality ... up close and personal...not to some lousy resolution like you video flakes. We actually have to understand light and shadow...and we have to make images that stand all on their own. You video pukes could use some real lessons from REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS. Of course when you are shooting cowboys how much skill does it really take anyway? BTW I stop by here for entertainment....period. dgh: we've noticed And you think you are doing this to solve the case? LOL! That and I love seeing guys like you make an _ss of yourselfs. dgh: how silly Yes you and your horde are silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You have doing the backstroke down pat David.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You have doing the backstroke down pat David.... when you know your gig -- you don't have to flail around.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You have doing the backstroke down pat David.... when you know your gig -- you don't have to flail around.... I know, thats why you are flailing around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Thank you, Jack, for what I will credit as an expert opinion. Just sorry I had to wade through all the unproductive CRAP to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Thank you, Jack, for what I will credit as an expert opinion.Just sorry I had to wade through all the unproductive CRAP to find it. Just do not take your "wader's" off yet Mark. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscbkyd.htm "CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative. (159) " Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) "CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative. (159) "] That should read "negatives", Tom. It turned out there were TWO negatives that disappeared while in the possession of the DPD. While I agree with Jack that there is probably nothing sinister about this photo, I also agree with Jack that it's quite possible there was some monkey business surrounding the backyard photos. Edited January 17, 2006 by Pat Speer 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