Shaneyfelt33 vs Z413

[Jack White]

Lyndal Shaneyfelt took photos from the Zpedestal to replicate

Zapruder frames.

In comparing CE33 with frame 413, I find numerous differences,

many of which are difficult to explain.

The most apparent is the width of Main Street and the placement

of the centerstripe.

Debunkers, on your mark, get set...

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Lyndal Shaneyfelt took photos from the Zpedestal to replicate

Zapruder frames.

In comparing CE33 with frame 413, I find numerous differences,

many of which are difficult to explain.

The most apparent is the width of Main Street and the placement

of the centerstripe.

Debunkers, on your mark, get set...

Jack

Try scaling the images correctly before doing any comparison studies.

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

also the shanyfelt needs to be rotated clockwise about half a degree.

As well, the problem with the Costella frames is that they HAVE been altered in various ways, and therefore, particularly the peripheral items, may or may not line up with unaltered frames, and also other photos even though correctly aligned, will have differences simply because of diifferences in lens distortions. These appear to be a minor consideration in this instance. It's hard to be definite because of resolution which introduces a degree of error in seeing exactly where a line is. The sun here also illuminates differently the poles and signs, causing a different 'bleed' of dark and light area interfaces.

[Jack White]

Lyndal Shaneyfelt took photos from the Zpedestal to replicate

Zapruder frames.

In comparing CE33 with frame 413, I find numerous differences,

many of which are difficult to explain.

The most apparent is the width of Main Street and the placement

of the centerstripe.

Debunkers, on your mark, get set...

Jack

Try scaling the images correctly before doing any comparison studies.

Bill Miller

THE IMAGES ARE SCALED CORRECTLY, USING TWO FIXED LOCATIONS.

also the shanyfelt needs to be rotated clockwise about half a degree.

As well, the problem with the Costella frames is that they HAVE been altered in various ways, and therefore, particularly the peripheral items, may or may not line up with unaltered frames, and also other photos even though correctly aligned, will have differences simply because of diifferences in lens distortions. These appear to be a minor consideration in this instance. It's hard to be definite because of resolution which introduces a degree of error in seeing exactly where a line is. The sun here also illuminates differently the poles and signs, causing a different 'bleed' of dark and light area interfaces.

John...the "half degree rotation" you mention, I think, is because Costella

corrected the Z frames for pincushion lens distortion, and the Shaneyfelt photo

is NOT corrected for pincushion distortion, which causes the verticals to slant

a little toward the corner if they are near the edge, such as the lamppost.

Jack

TO FORUM ADMINISTRATORS...I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GARBLING UP OF

MESSAGES LIKE THIS. FORUM SOFTWARE "LUMPS TOGETHER" TEXT AND IMAGES

INTO A MESS IF POSTED WITHIN TEN MINUTES OF EACH OTHER, MAKING IT

DIFFICULT TO TELL WHICH TEXT GOES WITH WHICH IMAGE IN RESPONSE TO

WHICH POSTING. THIS IS RIDICULOUS! A REPLY TO MILLER AND A DIFFERENT

REPLY TO DOLVA ARE MIXED TOGETHER!

Edited July 12, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

THE IMAGES ARE SCALED CORRECTLY, USING TWO FIXED LOCATIONS.

Your inabilty to see your errors is why your reputation has gone to the dogs. The two photos are not scaled correctly and my previous example showed this. I might also add that the replica photo was not shot at the same camera height as Zapruder's, which would also effect how the two images match up. The test photo also needed to be tilted because the camera was not being held at the same angle as Zapruder's camera.

Bill Miller

Edited July 12, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Geraghty]

Just to throw my two cents in as a layman.

The scaling looks off to me as the heads of both lamposts are different sizes and start and end at different points.

John

[Bill Miller]

Just to throw my two cents in as a layman.

The scaling looks off to me as the heads of both lamposts are different sizes and start and end at different points.

John

John, you are correct in your observation.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

These guys think they ARE ONTO SOMETHING because they

disagree with my use of the top sidewalk and bottom curb

as a scale. I chose those BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST

WIDELY SEPARATED, thus likely to be most accurate.

They mistakenly believe that I did not try several other

scales, such as the attached, which shows the same problem

with Main Street.

Jack

[Jack White]

These guys think they ARE ONTO SOMETHING because they

disagree with my use of the top sidewalk and bottom curb

as a scale. I chose those BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST

WIDELY SEPARATED, thus likely to be most accurate.

They mistakenly believe that I did not try several other

scales, such as the attached, which shows the same problem

with Main Street.

Jack

Here is another scaling I tried, but abandoned it because

of possible parallax problems. These guys would have you

think I just fell off the turnip truck.

Another lie which they rely on:

Blakey's ambush of me with the arcane word PHOTOGRAMMETRY

which is used to smear me. Before that day, 99.9 percent of

the populace had never heard of that word. I had worked all my

life in photography and had never known of it...but I also

DID IT EVERY DAY. It is a fancy way of saying MEASURING

PHOTOGRAPHS. There IS NO SUCH SCIENCE. I recently

googled this: UNIVERSITY COURSES DEGREES PHOTOGRAMMETRY

and found that not a single university offered a course in

photogrammetry, much less a degree. I found one mention, that

it was used by the military to analyze AERIAL PHOTOS. So much

for that baloney.

Jack

[Brendan Slattery]

These guys think they ARE ONTO SOMETHING because they

disagree with my use of the top sidewalk and bottom curb

as a scale. I chose those BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST

WIDELY SEPARATED, thus likely to be most accurate.

They mistakenly believe that I did not try several other

scales, such as the attached, which shows the same problem

with Main Street.

Jack

Here is another scaling I tried, but abandoned it because

of possible parallax problems. These guys would have you

think I just fell off the turnip truck.

Another lie which they rely on:

Blakey's ambush of me with the arcane word PHOTOGRAMMETRY

which is used to smear me. Before that day, 99.9 percent of

the populace had never heard of that word. I had worked all my

life in photography and had never known of it...but I also

DID IT EVERY DAY. It is a fancy way of saying MEASURING

PHOTOGRAPHS. There IS NO SUCH SCIENCE. I recently

googled this: UNIVERSITY COURSES DEGREES PHOTOGRAMMETRY

and found that not a single university offered a course in

photogrammetry, much less a degree. I found one mention, that

it was used by the military to analyze AERIAL PHOTOS. So much

for that baloney.

Jack

Nobody ever said it was a science. It's a technique used in several different scientific fields. And yes, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Blakey: 1

White: 0

[Jack White]

These guys think they ARE ONTO SOMETHING because they

disagree with my use of the top sidewalk and bottom curb

as a scale. I chose those BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST

WIDELY SEPARATED, thus likely to be most accurate.

They mistakenly believe that I did not try several other

scales, such as the attached, which shows the same problem

with Main Street.

Jack

Here is another scaling I tried, but abandoned it because

of possible parallax problems. These guys would have you

think I just fell off the turnip truck.

Another lie which they rely on:

Blakey's ambush of me with the arcane word PHOTOGRAMMETRY

which is used to smear me. Before that day, 99.9 percent of

the populace had never heard of that word. I had worked all my

life in photography and had never known of it...but I also

DID IT EVERY DAY. It is a fancy way of saying MEASURING

PHOTOGRAPHS. There IS NO SUCH SCIENCE. I recently

googled this: UNIVERSITY COURSES DEGREES PHOTOGRAMMETRY

and found that not a single university offered a course in

photogrammetry, much less a degree. I found one mention, that

it was used by the military to analyze AERIAL PHOTOS. So much

for that baloney.

Jack

Nobody ever said it was a science. It's a technique used in several different scientific fields. And yes, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Blakey: 1

White: 0

Oddly (maybe not) virtually all google choices refered to Jack White and HSCA.

It was difficult to even find a definition or even mentions of it being used in

any scientific fields, as mr know-nothing claims. Most uses referred to NASA or

the military or aerial photos. It is a little used terminology which means

"taking measurements on a photo" and is not some technical specialty.

I know that it is taught at places like MIT, but even there, I could not find it

mentioned, because I googled "MIT photogrammetry" and found no mention.

Basically, it is a non-issue....just like ONCOLOGY, which most people do not

know means the study of cancer.

Jack

[Bob Goodman]

The art and science of Photogrammetry that I am passingly familiar with is a Profession that, I thought, was licensed in some states. As a Professional Land Surveyor, I have worked with these guys. What I do is set marks at specific control locations and draw a plan to scale showing the exact location of these marks. Aerial photograph's are taken with several of the marks in view. The photogrammetrist takes the plan I make and incorporates the compiled (usually) photos together to produce a plan, to scale, that shows features and relief. A certified photogrammetrist can also compute contours to show the differences in elevation on the plan he makes. As I recall they wear steroscopic glasses and look at 2 photos at the same time somehow to produce a 3d effect. I believe they use my survey plan to develop the scale for the photos they take. Over large areas of land, proposed to be developed, it's sometimes cheaper to just "fly it" then to send personel into thicky overgrown areas for extended periods of time to gather information. THis is not to say it's use is confined to large areas of land, it's not. Although accurate enough for some basic design work and for some estimated costs for grading or other earthworks that is about their limit of accuracy. But without being correctly incorporated into an accurate, professionally done modern survey, all scale factors are just guesswork. That doesn't mean that guesswork isn't right. Some guesses are better then others, you just can't prove it though...that's the trouble with guesswork. Eventually when people guess long enough, they seek out a professional. Aerial photos are no different then ground level photos. The principles of Photogrammetry can be used fairly accurately with both.

[Craig Lamson]

These guys think they ARE ONTO SOMETHING because they

disagree with my use of the top sidewalk and bottom curb

as a scale. I chose those BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST

WIDELY SEPARATED, thus likely to be most accurate.

They mistakenly believe that I did not try several other

scales, such as the attached, which shows the same problem

with Main Street.

Jack

Here is another scaling I tried, but abandoned it because

of possible parallax problems. These guys would have you

think I just fell off the turnip truck.

Another lie which they rely on:

Blakey's ambush of me with the arcane word PHOTOGRAMMETRY

which is used to smear me. Before that day, 99.9 percent of

the populace had never heard of that word. I had worked all my

life in photography and had never known of it...but I also

DID IT EVERY DAY. It is a fancy way of saying MEASURING

PHOTOGRAPHS. There IS NO SUCH SCIENCE. I recently

googled this: UNIVERSITY COURSES DEGREES PHOTOGRAMMETRY

and found that not a single university offered a course in

photogrammetry, much less a degree. I found one mention, that

it was used by the military to analyze AERIAL PHOTOS. So much

for that baloney.

Jack

Nobody ever said it was a science. It's a technique used in several different scientific fields. And yes, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Blakey: 1

White: 0

Oddly (maybe not) virtually all google choices refered to Jack White and HSCA.

It was difficult to even find a definition or even mentions of it being used in

any scientific fields, as mr know-nothing claims. Most uses referred to NASA or

the military or aerial photos. It is a little used terminology which means

"taking measurements on a photo" and is not some technical specialty.

I know that it is taught at places like MIT, but even there, I could not find it

mentioned, because I googled "MIT photogrammetry" and found no mention.

Basically, it is a non-issue....just like ONCOLOGY, which most people do not

know means the study of cancer.

Jack

Non Issue..yea right! ROFLMAO! Thanks for showing us all what a crasppy researcher you are...ROFLMAO!

I'm not sure these folks think its little used terminology or that its not some technical specialty...

http://cipa.icomos.org/

http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/papers/goeteborg/97s023.pdf

http://www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch/research...cad/dapcad.html

http://www.archpho.al-wie.de/

Learning photogrammetry:

http://www.plan.aau.dk/~jh/ldip.htm

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/354000810...ce&n=283155

http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/OEEPE/tour/theory.htm

http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/subjects/451-447.html (I LOVE this one..U of Melborne..Costella's haunt! LOL!)

http://www.pct.edu/catalog/courses/for122.shtml

http://www.ge.ucl.ac.uk/courses/msc_taught..._remote_sensing

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/cee/courses/cee405.html

http://www.citadel.edu/registrar/eq.shtml

http://fortlewis.edu/cmsdocs/course_catalo...rse_catalog.pdf

http://www.evc.edu/mse/course_desc.asp?sub...ng%20Technology

http://www.esri.com/industries/university/...s/cayugacc.html

http://www.esri.com/industries/university/...s/cayugacc.html

http://www.ferris.edu/survey-engineering-degree.htm

http://www.eng.ohio-state.edu/academic/deg...ograms/GEOM.php

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/virtdept...oto/rsphoto.htm

...and on and on and on...

Photogrammetry Cameras:

http://maya.csuhayward.edu/archaeoplanet/A...o94/Bronica.htm

http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/Roll...ogrammetry.html

[Jack White]

The art and science of Photogrammetry that I am passingly familiar with is a Profession that, I thought, was licensed in some states. As a Professional Land Surveyor, I have worked with these guys. What I do is set marks at specific control locations and draw a plan to scale showing the exact location of these marks. Aerial photograph's are taken with several of the marks in view. The photogrammetrist takes the plan I make and incorporates the compiled (usually) photos together to produce a plan, to scale, that shows features and relief. A certified photogrammetrist can also compute contours to show the differences in elevation on the plan he makes. As I recall they wear steroscopic glasses and look at 2 photos at the same time somehow to produce a 3d effect. I believe they use my survey plan to develop the scale for the photos they take. Over large areas of land, proposed to be developed, it's sometimes cheaper to just "fly it" then to send personel into thicky overgrown areas for extended periods of time to gather information. THis is not to say it's use is confined to large areas of land, it's not. Although accurate enough for some basic design work and for some estimated costs for grading or other earthworks that is about their limit of accuracy. But without being correctly incorporated into an accurate, professionally done modern survey, all scale factors are just guesswork. That doesn't mean that guesswork isn't right. Some guesses are better then others, you just can't prove it though...that's the trouble with guesswork. Eventually when people guess long enough, they seek out a professional. Aerial photos are no different then ground level photos. The principles of Photogrammetry can be used fairly accurately with both.

Thanks, Bob. Are you the Bob Goodman who resides in Dallas

that I have met several times?

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Lyndal Shaneyfelt took photos from the Zpedestal to replicate

Zapruder frames.

So to keep things straight .... Shaneyfelt was not trying to replicate Zapruder frames, but to photograph a man standing between the alleged snipers nest and the curb near where Tague stood. Please read ...

(Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt)

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 31 is a photograph taken from in front of the school book depository building looking down toward the Triple Underpass, showing in the center area of the picture two men in white shirts standing along the south curb of Main Street at the point where the mark on the curb was found.

Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32 is a photograph made from under the Triple Under-pass looking past the point where the mark on the curb was located towards the Texas School Book Depository Building, which relates this area to the rest of the assassination site.

There is a marker that has been set up on the curb with an arrow pointing down, that is directly over the area where the mark is located on the south curb of Main Street.

The photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, is a photograph made from the location of Mr. Abraham Zapruder who made motion pictures of the assassination on November 22, and this photograph was made ha ring a man who can be seen standing in the center of the picture, placed in the center of Elm Street, along a straight line between the mark on the curb and the assassination window in the Texas School Book Depository Building, the sixth floor.

The man is standing in that direct straight line between the assassination window and the mark on the curb, and the photograph then shows where the President in the Presidential limousine, would have been on Elm Street as related to the Zapruder films if a bullet going from the sixth floor window to the mark on the curb went directly over the President's head.

Mr. Redlich.

Are you able to tell us the frame in Zapruder's sequence which would correspond to the position of the man standing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; this would correspond to frame No. 410 in the Zapruder films. Of course, this, as stated, is based on the assumption that a bullet going from the window to the mark on the curbing went directly over the President's head. It would have occurred at approximately frame 410.

In relating this to other previously determined facts regarding the Zapruder films, this would be 97 frames after the frame 313, which is the frame of the Zapruder films that shows the shot that struck the President in the head. At 18.3 frames per second, this 97 frames would represent a lapse of time of 5.3 seconds between the shot to the President's head at frame 313, and any shot that would have occurred at frame 410, if such did occur.

Mr. Redlich.

Now, with further reference to the relationship of this location to the Zapruder films, the Commission previously requested that the Bureau, advise us as to when Special Agent Hill of the Secret Service reached the Presidential car. Can you tell us now the results of that investigation?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I examined the Zapruder film and determined that Agent Hill first places his hand on the Presidential car at frame 343. This is approximately 1.6 seconds after the President is hit in .the head at frame 313.

Special Agent Hill placed one foot on the bumper of the car at frame 368, which is approximately 3 seconds after frame 313. Agent Hill had both feet on the car at frame 381, which is approximately 3.7 seconds after frame 313.

Mr. Redlich.

Going back now to frame 410 on .the Zapruder film, which is the frame that would correspond to the location of a man appearing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, can you tell us the location of Special Agent Hill and Mrs. Kennedy at frame 410?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

At frame 410 in the Zapruder films, Mrs. Kennedy has returned to the seat beside the President .after having climbed out on the back deck or the trunk lid, and Secret Service Agent Hill is in the process of climbing from the bumper into the back seat of the car and is about midway from the back bumper to the President, crawling across the trunk lid.

Mr. REDLICH. IS it correct to say, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that at frame 410 the principal target on the back of the Presidential limousine would have been Special Agent Hill and not any of the other occupants of the rear seat of the car?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

I do not have an opinion on that, except my recollection of the frame, as I recall it, the Connallys are down in the car, and the President is down in the car to a point where he may not be visible from the sixth floor

In comparing CE33 with frame 413, I find numerous differences,

many of which are difficult to explain.

It's not CE33, but rather "Shaneyfelt Exhibit 33".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0253a.htm

The most apparent is the width of Main Street and the placement

of the centerstripe.

Debunkers, on your mark, get set...

Jack

It is the camera height that changed between Elm Street images and that is what has effected the way the street matches up between photographs.

Bill Miller