Jack White Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Looking through some z frames just now, I found that Clint Hill used superhuman speed to get on top of the trunk. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 Same frames, different study. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Interesting observations Jack. Not that i would necessarily agree with 'superhuman speed' side of things, but 'blur' is fascinating. Trying to decode the factors that caused various blurs certainly seems difficult, but I don't think it necessarily has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Interesting observations Jack. Not that i would necessarily agree with 'superhuman speed' side of things, but 'blur' is fascinating. Trying to decode the factors that caused various blurs certainly seems difficult, but I don't think it necessarily has to be. If one watches the motorcade footage taken on 11/22/63 before JFK reached Dealey Plaza they will see the same sort of blurring in those films as well. A Photography expert could give the specifics as to the "Why" side of things, but I can tell you that basically depending on the movement of a camera at a given moment in time can cause selective blurring. Note that in one frame the blurring seems to effect vertical objects more than horizontal ones and then visa-versa in other frames. That is related to in part to the movement of the camera when that frame was exposed. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 (edited) I find the most compelling indication of genuineness to be the transitional blurs. ( as the camera is sweeping across the landscape the photons the lens is transmitting towards the film, are continuously redirected according to the aspect of the lens, and for the duration that these photons are not blocked by the shutter, leaves a trail on the film. This trailpicks up on the following ( and preceding ) frame. ) This establishes continuity and helps pinpoint missing frames. ( (of course) also so for the ghost images in the between sprocket area.) So, once you 'see' the lens, you see the impossibility of artifice beyond the rudimantary. ( For example such as mechanically blurring an image, or exicing it entirely, or blending by splicing. I think those are possibly all identifeied on the film as it is known. In itself an indicator of a conspiracy of sorts. ( down and dirty, no james bond stuff.) The hardest blurs to see, apart from those that are very fast movements, are those in the direction towards or away from the camera, (which I suppose means that component of any movement that is in such a direction). Edited May 30, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 When I posted this study last night, I was aware that Hill was seen in frames BEFORE AND AFTER FRAME 405. But I COULD NOT FIND HIM IN 405. So I posed the question of where was he in 405. I later spent about 30 minutes trying to find him, and think that LAZY ANIMATORS simply FLOATED HIM IN AIR AND COVERED HIM WITH PYRACANTHA LEAVES! "He" is so high above the car that the curb and street can be seen under him. Look at the attached study, and you will see a dark blob several feet above the car trunk lid. This is supposed to represent Hill. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Not only that, they forgot to add his cape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 (edited) Maybe if one used the full wide version of the frames and cross referenced them with the Nix film, then maybe Hill's posture would not be so much of a mystery. Bill Miller Edited May 30, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I am confused. How can these two pictures, which are the same frames from the same film, have such a different image? Call me dense if you wish, but, I don't get it at all. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 (edited) I am confused. How can these two pictures, which are the same frames from the same film, have such a different image? Call me dense if you wish, but, I don't get it at all. Chuck MPI botched the numbering of the frames Edited May 30, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 (edited) I am confused. How can these two pictures, which are the same frames from the same film, have such a different image? Call me dense if you wish, but, I don't get it at all. Chuck Chuck and I see a great disparity between 405 as posted by Jack and 405 as posted by "Bill." Jack's initial point is still supported, Clint Hill is flying thru time and space without concern for laws of physics........... Edited May 30, 2006 by Shanet Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is? Mr. WHITE. No. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Jack doesn't understand perspective or how the illusion of blurred sunlit leaves between the subject and the camera can fool someone either. It is even more interesting as to how quick Shanet was willing to support Jack's observation without actually studying it for accuracy. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 Three people have asked whether the CURB IS SEEN THROUGH HILL in z410. That could be. I also wonder where his feet and legs are! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) If people will get good images to work with and watch the green foliage and illuminated leaves move across the screen, then they might be able to understand why it looks like part of Clint Hill is missing. The green of the pyracantha bush matches that of the green of the south pasture. Add some slight blur and things only get worse when trying to tell where one thing starts and the other ends, unless of course they study very closely the changes taking place from frame to frame. Bill Miller Edited May 31, 2006 by Bill Miller 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