a CHALLENGE for the provocateurs...

[Craig Lamson]

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

[...]

Any "photo expert" worth his salt ...

No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) [...]

___________________

guess its about time to ask where ALL these photo experts ARE that you theorize about? All this noise you spout, what I see from you in particular is undeclared "opinion", IOW, empty bandwidth -- get those so-called "phot/film experts" over here, have 'em bring their credentials, too!

If there's consistency between the Nix/Zapruder films, then after three + years, why haven't we seen a motion presentation displaying such? Should be a piece of cake... then again, high technology has a tendency to throw film purists off a bit....

Blah blah balh. I'm here, my credentials are well know. I am a photo expert. My statements can be proven emperically. Want anything else poser?

Now you on the other hand claim many decades as an imaging professional. So show us what you know. Throw your hat into the ring on this very claim from your friend White. But if all you have to offer is your guard dog routine, you might as well just stfu because you are nothing but white noise....

when it comes to you delivering ANYTHING we know what to expect NOTHING!

have a nice life -- PRO whatever.... LOL

I see you are still a chicken s__t David. Still afraid to comment on Whites work. Such a coward. I guess when you actually have put your neck on the line rather that simply read a few articles in a book and then do a book report you just chicken out. So like all of you BS artists from Fetzers horde..cut and run when it heat is on. Chickens..the whole lot of you.

You have a good life too David, I'm sure its nice and cool under that rock.

Edited April 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

I see you are still a chicken s__t David. Still afraid to comment on Whites work. Such a coward. I guess when you actually have put your neck on the line rather that simply read a few articles in a book and then do a book report you just chicken out. So like all of you BS artists from Fetzers horde..cut and run when it heat is on. Chickens..the whole lot of you.

Craig, in all fairness to David ... he has stated that he has not seen any evidence of photo and film alteration, thus he is saying that Jack's claims have not convinced him of anything. He hasn't come right out and said Jack's claims are unfounded ... probably for the very reason you suggest, but he has said it in another round-about-way as I just described.

I also hope that you aren't expecting David to ever debate the evidence of the case with you for he knows that for him it would be like taking a knife to a gun fight. David is a mouth piece ... anyone doing a search and compiling his responses on this forum has no choice but to see this. Put youself in his place ... he wrote a piece on the possibilty that the Zapruder film might be altered by way of using an optical printer and it ended up in a book full of some of the most outlandish claims and blunders one could imagine, thus making him look guilty by association. Even his optical printing alteration probablity claim has been shown IMO to be weak for it failed to consider the other things needed to occur to make his chapter in the "TGZFH" seem plausible. It would take a fair amount of character for someone to stand up and admit they were in error .... that's why no one should expect the participants in Fetzer's last book (TGZFH) to ever admit they were wrong.

Bill

Edited April 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jim Hackett II]

If those two proffered frames depict the same actions and implying the same "time" and or the same version of events, someone else needs glasses far worse that I ever did or will.

FWIW

Jim

Jim, you are clueless...

OH SO TYPICAL. FO CRAIG.

You are exposing your agenda again.

Clueless because I don't agree. TYPICAL AND EXPECTED.

I have for 3 decades suspected films are altered with or without anyone else's book or pontification by internet experts. I refuse to surrender the right of freedom of the mind to jackasses as you are conducting yourself to be.

Jason Vermeer pointed out IT IS POSSIBLE FOR TWO CAMERAS TO RUN AT DIFFERENT FRAME RATES.

Rather than dictate meaningless ad hominem attacks as tranparent as your motives are Craig you might address the points raised. AGAIN AS USUAL.

You sir and this topic as it is being treated reveal and agenda about reputation and something other than truth. Otherwise why refuse to produce refered to but never produced "experts".

AGAIN OH SO TYPICAL.

The issues atending the cover up and LIES attending the murder of Jack Kennedy are too important to be treated so cavalierly as you do.

Rather be what you call "clueless" than agenda riddled.

I don't have to agree with your view and not doing so doesn't designate me as clueless, it labels the attacker as out of mental ammunition for discussion. NUFF SAID AND VERY CLEARLY!

I retain my own freedom of thought, Sorry.

Clueless...Laughing all the way to truth past disruption and refusal to address questions asked by those that are not aware of agenda. I am and you are more than clueless, much more insidious than clueless - obfuscating.

Or you would in a civil manner discuss the issues attending film alteration. Or write your own book.

Yeah Right. I'll watch the B & N for it.

THE QUESTIONS STARTED ABOUT ALL FILM ALTERATION ******

LONG*** BEFORE**** JIM **** FETZER*** PUBLISHED ** A BOOK*** ON *** THE*** QUESTION!

Any new member would never know this point is not new.

A point you seem to have forgotten in your narrow focus of ad homenim attacks of NO MERIT WHAT SO EVER, aside from demonstrating you are at present incapable if civil discussion of the matter.

I am not of that "club" Craig.

Have a great deluded life Craig.

EVER hear the old R n R song about "Don't ask me what I think of you..."

Some serve research and some bear agenda.

I serve reality and research and those engaged in the real research agenda free. I can change my mind can you? Obviously not.

Save your meaningless ad homenim attacks for those so easily impressed.

I'll keep integrity and freedom of thought as an independent historian of these matters, you can keep your own chosen level of conduct ever clearer as to your own choice.

Discussion in civil manner wins out over dictation of view and ad homenim attack EVERY SINGLE TIME.

One of those three states of human interaction promotes LEARNING - the other two halt it.

This is the education forum REMEMBER?

Edited April 22, 2006 by Jim Hackett II

[Bill Miller]

Jim,

I think Craig is at a point where he is tired of the shotty efforts put forth by those claiming to be authoritive on the subject of Zfilm alteration. Craig is a photo expert when it comes to understanding the inner-workings of photograqphy and that is where the probablities of the Zfilm being altered end ... he just wants those who think otherwise to debate him with using actual facts and known data, which doesn't seem to ever happen.

Bill

Edited April 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

Bill, to my eyes the frames posted by Jack match. You said they didn't match because he posted the wrong frame. You then posted two frames, the one posted by Jack, 380, and the one right before, which I assume to be 379. What was the MPI numbering problem and how does it factor into this argument? Was the frame posted by Jack actually 379?

As far as people's understandings of line of sight...I believe this is the source of many of the mistakes in photo-analysis. Without an understanding of Dealey Plaza, someone might look at the Nix film without realizing his camera is pointed Northwest while Zapruder's is pointed pretty much to the South. The people in front of Kennedy in the Nix film are therefore to the east of those behind Kennedy in the Zapruder film.

[Craig Lamson]

If those two proffered frames depict the same actions and implying the same "time" and or the same version of events, someone else needs glasses far worse that I ever did or will.

FWIW

Jim

Jim, you are clueless...

OH SO TYPICAL. FO CRAIG.

You are exposing your agenda again.

Clueless because I don't agree. TYPICAL AND EXPECTED.

I have for 3 decades suspected films are altered with or without anyone else's book or pontification by internet experts. I refuse to surrender the right of freedom of the mind to jackasses as you are conducting yourself to be.

Jason Vermeer pointed out IT IS POSSIBLE FOR TWO CAMERAS TO RUN AT DIFFERENT FRAME RATES.

Rather than dictate meaningless ad hominem attacks as tranparent as your motives are Craig you might address the points raised. AGAIN AS USUAL.

You sir and this topic as it is being treated reveal and agenda about reputation and something other than truth. Otherwise why refuse to produce refered to but never produced "experts".

AGAIN OH SO TYPICAL.

The issues atending the cover up and LIES attending the murder of Jack Kennedy are too important to be treated so cavalierly as you do.

Rather be what you call "clueless" than agenda riddled.

I don't have to agree with your view and not doing so doesn't designate me as clueless, it labels the attacker as out of mental ammunition for discussion. NUFF SAID AND VERY CLEARLY!

I retain my own freedom of thought, Sorry.

Clueless...Laughing all the way to truth past disruption and refusal to address questions asked by those that are not aware of agenda. I am and you are more than clueless, much more insidious than clueless - obfuscating.

Or you would in a civil manner discuss the issues attending film alteration. Or write your own book.

Yeah Right. I'll watch the B & N for it.

THE QUESTIONS STARTED ABOUT ALL FILM ALTERATION ******

LONG*** BEFORE**** JIM **** FETZER*** PUBLISHED ** A BOOK*** ON *** THE*** QUESTION!

Any new member would never know this point is not new.

A point you seem to have forgotten in your narrow focus of ad homenim attacks of NO MERIT WHAT SO EVER, aside from demonstrating you are at present incapable if civil discussion of the matter.

I am not of that "club" Craig.

Have a great deluded life Craig.

EVER hear the old R n R song about "Don't ask me what I think of you..."

Some serve research and some bear agenda.

I serve reality and research and those engaged in the real research agenda free. I can change my mind can you? Obviously not.

Save your meaningless ad homenim attacks for those so easily impressed.

I'll keep integrity and freedom of thought as an independent historian of these matters, you can keep your own chosen level of conduct ever clearer as to your own choice.

Discussion in civil manner wins out over dictation of view and ad homenim attack EVERY SINGLE TIME.

One of those three states of human interaction promotes LEARNING - the other two halt it.

This is the education forum REMEMBER?

Ah Jim. I see you are the same nutjob as you always have been...and without a doubt you are TOTALLY clueless about what you see in the frames White posted. You are one of those sheep living in a fantasy world.

You and White and many others on this board are way beyond learning. Your fantasy wil not allow for the real truth about these issues. To do so would destroy your belief system, flawed as it is.

I've offered more than my share of detailed analysis, emperical testing and more yet still the sheep prefer to believe the musings of a nutjob old man. Like I said, the belief system won't alow it. So why bother? When the makers of these absurd claims and thier guarddogs want to deal with the glaring errors of thier work, I'll be happy to supply the evidence...again. However thats not likely to happen...because they are gutless.

You have a problem with that...fine. I really could care less.

And yes I do have an agenda... the truth about the claims of photo alteration. Thats it. Problem is you can't handle the truth.

Edited April 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Bill, to my eyes the frames posted by Jack match. You said they didn't match because he posted the wrong frame. You then posted two frames, the one posted by Jack, 380, and the one right before, which I assume to be 379. What was the MPI numbering problem and how does it factor into this argument? Was the frame posted by Jack actually 379?

Pat - the frame Jack used is at least two frames off. Jack is aware of the MPI mistake and has been for some time ... I assume he had forgotten about it when he used an MPI frame and tried to equate it to N90. It seems only right that if one is going to lay claim to alteration by using Jackie's arm position in two separate films ... that they at least get the correct frames befoe doing so. The difference in Jackie's arm position between the MPI Z380 and the correct Costella Z380 can be seen below. The link to Costella's frame numbering is also included.

Bill

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Edited April 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ronald R. Williams]

Jim,

It is good to see you posting. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.

This is TYPICAL (and educational), isn’t it?

It’s like Pavlov’s dog. Jack White posts something on a forum and these same mutts show up and start foaming at the mouth.

It’s just soooo predictable.

Ron W

[Bill Miller]

It’s like Pavlov’s dog. Jack White posts something on a forum and these same mutts show up and start foaming at the mouth.

It’s just soooo predictable.

Ron W

Hello, Ron. I take it that because it is Jack that we should just ignore his mistakes. That if he uses a film frame of MPI's and calls it Z380, when in fact MPI had made a mistake in their numbering and this is why MPI's Z380 doesn't match N90 like it should, we should just ignore it and allow others who wouldn't know any better to remain misinformed.

Got you, but no dice. ...... That would hardly make this an 'education forum' if we did that.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Jim,

It is good to see you posting. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.

This is TYPICAL (and educational), isn’t it?

It’s like Pavlov’s dog. Jack White posts something on a forum and these same mutts show up and start foaming at the mouth.

It’s just soooo predictable.

Ron W

Ah..another photograhically clueless sheep checks in...how predictable. Why don't you educate all of us and show us why this silly claim of Whites is correct.?

[Blair Dobson]

all of this bickering is just pointless.

to all of you "experts" i will say this:

provide the frames from the nix and zapruder films.

(actually good copies of the nix film/frames are hard to find)

i will lay both of them together on a base frame rate of 18fps and speed control one and then the other to synch up.

i can then tell you what was sped up where, what looks to have frames missing etc.

then you can see for yourself what the speed differences are etc etc.

i can also isolate clint hill and his feet as well.

some things to keep in mind about spring wound cameras:

they are not what is called "crystal sync" so they vary each time the sprocket goes around but this can be compensated for.

number the frames accordingly.

this will end the bickering.

here is a fast example of what i am talking about.

my response to all of you bickering ninnies is to put up or shut up.

provide the files and the specifics for comparison and i will gladly show you by example.

let the frames speak for themselves as it were.

for that matter, get me whatever film frames you have of any of the films and i'll montage them all according to their respective time fram, frame rate and perspective.

(working on lee foremans request from a few months ago as we speak.)

this blathering and name calling makes you all look like blowhards.

put your theory up to a motion test and we'll see what comes out in the wash.

you could all be right.

cheers

(by the way, i am a professional in the field of editing before any of you go off on my credentials.)

Edited April 24, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Jason Vermeer]

Blair, I like it.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I like it.

You don't mince words.

[Bill Miller]

(by the way, i am a professional in the field of editing before any of you go off on my credentials.)

Would you like to know where you can buy the Zapruder and Nix films on DVD .... that would allow you to achieve the best captures to work with.

Bill

[Blair Dobson]

(by the way, i am a professional in the field of editing before any of you go off on my credentials.)

Would you like to know where you can buy the Zapruder and Nix films on DVD .... that would allow you to achieve the best captures to work with.

Bill

Thanks Bill, this next rant is not directed at you but I notice alot of this " buy it from amazon" stuff going on.

just a quick point:

i'm not paying some shuck artist on amazon 72 dollars for " the complete headshot collection" because this material should be made FREE to researchers.

BY OTHER REASERCHERS.

and while on that point, there are people who share and there are peolpe who seem to HORDE things and for what reason i don't know.

It's really simple:

If you want to take some footage and compare it? get it to me or point out where i can find it.

I'm not interested in paying money for material that should be free.

the idea that people make money off this murder is just grotesque.

end rant

my time is limited but as i have said before, and this gos to jack white and anyone else:

if you have a theory and you wat to compare footage, let me know and i will be more than happy to do it.

and another thing

(new rant)

i might not agree with some of jacks theories but they are at least interesting and thought provoking.

as i have nothing nasty to say about jack or his research, i don't post nasty stuff about it. period.

jack might one day uncover something HUGE or he may not, but he works just as hard as anyone else.

i get a big kick out of jack's stuff and i also get a kick out of some of the more bizarre theories other people have but that doesn't mean i need to act like a bloddy three year old.

so, to reiterate:

put up or shut up.

[Blair Dobson]

jason:

what i did with that gif was to put the nix film and the zapruder film on split screens. they both start at one frame before the headshot.

these were versions i got from the web or other researchers from here.

not the best quality. and they vary in speed as well.

now i could take the time (which i may just do)

and take the frames from zapruder that are available all over the web and rebuild it that way.

this whole argument about "frame numbers" and "film fakery" will become moot when the two are compared on a frame to frame basis.

it's also more compelling when they are cropped, stabilized and montaged.

it is my opinion that by using one to compare to the other, that the theories on film speed issues, missing frames, headsnaps etc etc will become more clear.

the chances that nix was "faked" in exactly the same fashion as the ZAP film are next to none so if there are speed issues (ie; it was sped up) then we will be able to see.

the most consistant factor between both films are clint hills feet in terms of a visual guide.

i am making another version of that gif there which i will post tonight or later tomorrow so you can all see what i mean.

cheers.