Jason Vermeer Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) Jack, I am not a photo expert. I offered a possible explanation that ran counter to your premise you stated above. I followed your rules and didn't call you any names. I maintain that the frames are capturing the same information but due to different distances and angles of the cameras, the resultant images are different but that it does not constitute fakery. I have been informed that I am referring to line of sight differences or perspective differences. You invited the "challenge" and offered 2 replies, one of which was not related to your post. Are we done here? Jason Vermeer Edited April 19, 2006 by Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 19, 2006 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) Jack, I am not a photo expert. I offered a possible explanation that ran counter to your premise you stated above. I followed your rules and didn't call you any names. I maintain that the frames are capturing the same information but due to different distances and angles of the cameras, the resultant images are different but that it does not constitute fakery. I have been informed that I am referring to line of sight differences or perspective differences. You invited the "challenge" and offered 2 replies, one of which was not related to your post. Are we done here? Jason Vermeer Jason...I read your initial reply and found nothing that required a reply, especially when your initial sentence started with a criticism of me instead of addressing the images. You offered your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. You presented no facts to dispute that Hill and Jackie are very close in one frame and very far apart in another. The Nix frame shows her HAND grasping Hill's ELBOW, not his wrist as you erroneously stated. The Z film shows no such event. My challenge was for anyone to produce a Z frame that shows her GRASPING HIS ELBOW as seen in Nix. So far nobody has accepted that challenge. If you can, please do so. Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the frame. That is research. Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will quickly admit if I am wrong. Thanks for your interest. Jack (No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.) Edited April 19, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the frame. That is research. Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will quickly admit if I am wrong. Thanks for your interest. Jack (No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.) This is to you, Jack - one of the "incometentuers" ... have you corrected your example and got the correct Zframe to compare to Z90 ... I look forward to seeing your correction and findings at that time. You wrongly used an MPI frame that was misnumbered ... one would think that getting the correct numbered frame to compare to N90 would be a prioroty to someone who claims to only deal in facts - you better get on it, Jack! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited April 19, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Jack, I am not a photo expert. I offered a possible explanation that ran counter to your premise you stated above. I followed your rules and didn't call you any names. I maintain that the frames are capturing the same information but due to different distances and angles of the cameras, the resultant images are different but that it does not constitute fakery. I have been informed that I am referring to line of sight differences or perspective differences. You invited the "challenge" and offered 2 replies, one of which was not related to your post. Are we done here? Jason Vermeer Jason...I read your initial reply and found nothing that required a reply, especially when your initial sentence started with a criticism of me instead of addressing the images. You offered your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. You presented no facts to dispute that Hill and Jackie are very close in one frame and very far apart in another. The Nix frame shows her HAND grasping Hill's ELBOW, not his wrist as you erroneously stated. The Z film shows no such event. My challenge was for anyone to produce a Z frame that shows her GRASPING HIS ELBOW as seen in Nix. So far nobody has accepted that challenge. If you can, please do so. Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the frame. That is research. Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will quickly admit if I am wrong. Thanks for your interest. Jack (No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.) Hello Jack As a disinterested observer I would have to say that while you say you are talking about "facts" I think you are making a leap of faith judgement that the Nix film in fact shows Jackie grabbing Hill's elbow. I would seem apparent to me, though, that you are reaching that conclusion based on a blurry frame of a film taken at a distance from the event, such that it is hard to say exactly what is happening. In fact if you look at the same Nix frame closely it almost appears that Jackie and Hill are passing each other with Jackie moving to the back of the limousine and Hill moving clambering onto the trunk into the car itself. This movement does correspond to what is apparent in Zapruder frames 388 and 391 that Bill shows in his post. Thus my conclusion would be that the frame of the Nix film only seems to show Jackie is grasping Hills' elbow but she is not in fact doing so. All my best Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 This movement does correspond to what is apparent in Zapruder frames 388 and 391 that Bill shows in his post. You mean I was right about Z388? Where did Bill post this, I missed it. I was told that I had no understanding of this. Now I'm hopelessly confused. But that always seems to happen to me whenever provocateurs and whatever get together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) Jack, I am not a photo expert. I offered a possible explanation that ran counter to your premise you stated above. I followed your rules and didn't call you any names. I maintain that the frames are capturing the same information but due to different distances and angles of the cameras, the resultant images are different but that it does not constitute fakery. I have been informed that I am referring to line of sight differences or perspective differences. You invited the "challenge" and offered 2 replies, one of which was not related to your post. Are we done here? Jason Vermeer Jason...I read your initial reply and found nothing that required a reply, especially when your initial sentence started with a criticism of me instead of addressing the images. You offered your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. You presented no facts to dispute that Hill and Jackie are very close in one frame and very far apart in another. The Nix frame shows her HAND grasping Hill's ELBOW, not his wrist as you erroneously stated. The Z film shows no such event. My challenge was for anyone to produce a Z frame that shows her GRASPING HIS ELBOW as seen in Nix. So far nobody has accepted that challenge. If you can, please do so. Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the frame. That is research. Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will quickly admit if I am wrong. Thanks for your interest. Jack (No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.) Is your understanding of perspective, parallax and LOS so lacking that you fail to see whats is happening in the frames you posted? Why yes it is, as based on your continued failing in this regard in every photo "study" you have published. Any "photo expert" worth his salt (that leaves you off the list) would never make the statement that Jackie was grasping Hills arm in Nix. To to so would be grasping at straws at best. In other words it cannot be stated as fact because the evidence (the Nix frame) is inconclusive. What you have offered is a poor opinion stated as fact. Sorry but its no where near a fact. No, a "photo expert" that was worth his salt ( that leaves you out again) would look for additional evidence to either support or debunk your opinion that Jackie was grabbing Hills elbow in the Nix frame you posted. Additional evidence is available and it's very clear evidence...the Zapruder film. The frames from the Zapruder film show that Jackie WAS NOT grabbing Hills elbow. In addition the perspective, parallex and los from both films MATCH for the area in question. There is NO INCONSISTANCY between the two films in this case. What we have an ignorant old man making things up out of thin air once again. You should really give up this photo thing because regardless of what Shanet says, you are horrible at it. (which has been PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN, beyond any reasonable doubt.) So your challenge has been met, two frames, one from Nix and one from Zapruder shaow the same thing .... the frames you originally posted. Edited April 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) This movement does correspond to what is apparent in Zapruder frames 388 and 391 that Bill shows in his post. You mean I was right about Z388? Where did Bill post this, I missed it. I was told that I had no understanding of this. Now I'm hopelessly confused. But that always seems to happen to me whenever provocateurs and whatever get together. Hi Ron Bill posted those two frames in post #10 in this thread, posted by him yesterday at 07:44 PM board time. Chris Edited April 19, 2006 by Christopher T. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) '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.... Edited April 19, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hackett II Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 (edited) Yeh, David ... you're right ... you and your photo expert(s) only had to be told that you knuckle-heads were using the wrong film frame to correspond with N90 beacuse MPI misnumbered them ... but hey, you clowns are the experts ... RIGHT? 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! Again, I think it was this non-photo expert who had to tell you where to find the information about the average running speed of the Nix camera, but again what do I know ... you guys are the experts ... RIGHT? 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.... Let's reverse that ignorance ... IF THERE IS INCONSISTENCY, THEN LET THE "INCOMPETENTEURS" LIKE YOURSELF SHOW US WHERE IT'S AT ... should be a piece of cake as you say. You also made the ridiculous remark the other day by saying, "Clue: forget about Z-313, there a much better sync point re NIX and Zapruder." If there is one point in the entire assassination sequence that all the films caught - it was the head exploding. It is a fact that the head exploded when a bullet smashed in to it - thats indisputable. One merely needs to take each film at the precise moment JFK's head explodes on film and count forwards or backwards one frame at a time in each film to see if the frames do or do not correspond. Now getting back to your remark, other than the head shot ... what point on the assassination films were you talking about as being a much better sync point ... I cannot wait to hear this one! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited April 19, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 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. As in other cases of suggested alteration, what would be the purpose of altering how Hill jumps on the car and who grabs whom? What difference does it make? But lest I provoke any provocateurs (depending on which side they're on, I'm not sure), I must say that I have come to have serious doubt myself about one aspect of the Z film, unrelated to the frames here at issue. Perhaps it's best that I start a separate thread on the subject, which I shall promptly proceed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 '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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Not meaning to belabor the point but...is it possible to have two non-synchronized movie cameras capture an event at precisely the same time? I'm just wanting to learn this out of sheer curiosity. Thank you. Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 '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 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