Jack White Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I spent a couple of hours comparing the slide to a movie frame. I hope that you find this study useful as I did. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I spent a couple of hours comparing the slide to a movie frame.I hope that you find this study useful as I did. Jack As with ALL of the photographic evidence, there are items demonstrated which, when compared with other photo's/movies, are worthwhile. Of those items in these two photo's which are worth the time and effort, on should pay attention to the fact that at least Mr. Bronson could stand up straight and thus his photo's as well as his movie frames demonstrate the proper grade of Elm St. in relationship to items which run directly vertical such as the structures and even people standing. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg Now! If one could only resolve exactly how it was that Mr. Zapruder managed to film persons standing vertically, while the street grade of Elm St. runs UPHILL, as opposed to downhill, then there just may be an interesting answer therein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Brendan. This post of yours was not warranted, it only served to try and de-rail Jacks thread. If you have nothing of value to add to the thread then don't bother posting. I am so sick of this CRAP. And yet you let White slide with his joker crap and LEMMING with his post on this thread...double standard there Robin? Perhaps SOMEDAY White will post a photo thread that is WORTH discussing, provided he EVER LEARNS the basics of photography.....but his track record is zero so I'm not holding my breath... Edited August 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Brendan. This post of yours was not warranted, it only served to try and de-rail Jacks thread. If you have nothing of value to add to the thread then don't bother posting. I am so sick of this CRAP. And yet you let White slide with his joker crap and LEMMING with his post on this thread...double standard there Robin? Perhaps SOMEDAY White will post a photo thread that is WORTH discussing, provided he EVER LEARNS the basics of photography.....but his track record is zero so I'm not holding my breath... Bullcrap LEMMING! I offer the disinfecting light of FACT to the nonsense photography FANTASY threads posted on this forum by the likes of White. That you and others cant DEAL with fact is not my problem. I mean why let facts get in the way of another nutjob JFK fantasy.... I see you broke YOUR WORD, such as it is, in just a few days there LEMMING! Not going to read my posts eh? LOL! I'm not suprised you can't keep your word. Walk over that ct cliff now like a good little nutjob lemming... Edited August 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Brendan. This post of yours was not warranted, it only served to try and de-rail Jacks thread. If you have nothing of value to add to the thread then don't bother posting. I am so sick of this CRAP. Jack derails his own threads with his amateur photo skills. How can I "de-value" something that held no value to begin with? My .gif was funny and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Right children, bed time. Is anybody going to either support, or debunk Mr White's claims? or do you all just want to go on playing my dicks bigger than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Not one to speak.....you condemn but almost never offer any evidence, reference or enlightenment......and I think those on the Forum can see when a response is to a stupid distracting post or was the original stupid distracting post - only meant to disrupt. Those of you who do this on the Forum we know all too well. Please allow me to try and add some clarity to all this ... I am rather puzzled as to why Jack would post on the Bronson film in light of his poor ability to interpret photos. Did the limo advance east between the two images (Bronson slide Vs Bronson film) - the answer is "yes' ... that is what happens when a man takes a photo of a moving car and then lowers it to then start filming with his movie camera. As far as Zapruder and Sitzman being too short and the other differences mentioned - thats all Jack's making. Trying to look for definition in such a poor degraded film capture can only lead to incorrect interpretations. Should BS reply to such nonsense - maybe not, but in all fairness to BS ... no one complains when it is Jack doing the same thing. And as far as Craig's role in all of this .... Craig doesn't come off as a historian of the JFK assassination so much, but rather he is an expert in lighting when it comes to photography. His answers may not offer enough of a conspiratorial explanation for some peoples liking here, but regardless of what one wishes to believe ....... they will be hard pressed to find another expert to disagree with the points Craig makes regarding these matters. Bill Miller Edited August 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Well, I, for one, appreciate Jack's images. I almost always learn something by looking at them. When one looks at his Bronson comparison, for example, one can see that there were a number of people besides Toni Foster running toward Kennedy at the time of the head shot. These people were as close or closer to the limousine as the occupants of LBJ's car, and had a MUCH better view, and yet the FBI and WC made no effort to identify them or interview them. WHY is that? I honestly don't understand the open and recurrent hostility directed towards Jack by BS. If he believes Jack is wrong about a lot of stuff, he should voice his disagreement. "Well, Jack, this will come as no surprise, but I disagree--to me the anomalies are easily explainable." What would be the harm in that? Why the flame wars? Why the mocking? It's not as if Jack ever accused BS of being someone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 When one looks at his Bronson comparison, for example, one can see that there were a number of people besides Toni Foster running toward Kennedy at the time of the head shot. These people were as close or closer to the limousine as the occupants of LBJ's car, and had a MUCH better view, and yet the FBI and WC made no effort to identify them or interview them. WHY is that? It could be that the government knew who was riding in the follow-up cars, but had not a clue who the people were seen walking behind Toni Foster. Many witneses were found through reports taken, newpaper and TV interviews done of them and so forth. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 When one looks at his Bronson comparison, for example, one can see that there were a number of people besides Toni Foster running toward Kennedy at the time of the head shot. These people were as close or closer to the limousine as the occupants of LBJ's car, and had a MUCH better view, and yet the FBI and WC made no effort to identify them or interview them. WHY is that? It could be that the government knew who was riding in the follow-up cars, but had not a clue who the people were seen walking behind Toni Foster. Many witneses were found through reports taken, newpaper and TV interviews done of them and so forth. Bill Miller In one of his earliest Warren Commission memos, Arlen Specter placed a priority on identifying and interviewing as many eyewitnesses as possible. He failed to follow through on this. Only two by-standers in the Bronson slide were ever interviewed by the WC--Abraham Zapruder (because they needed his testimony to verify the history of the film) and Jean Hill (because Mark Lane was bringing lots of attention to her statements). Almost everyone else was ignored. I've spent a lot of time researching the WC, and Specter in particular, and it 's mighty clear they had no real interest in figuring out what happened. They were prosecutors, by and large, and felt they had a winning case against Oswald, and spent almost all their energy shoring up the evidence against Oswald and fighting off speculation in the press. Neither Altgens nor Tague were called, for example, until AFTER the press had written articles asking why they hadn't been called. Even worse, it turned out that Specter had completed his chapter before anyone from the WC had even spoken to Jackie Kennedy, and almost two months before they interviewed Zapruder, Altgens, Hudson, and the Willises. Conclusion: it was a show trial with the verdict written in stone many months before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Not one to speak.....you condemn but almost never offer any evidence, reference or enlightenment......and I think those on the Forum can see when a response is to a stupid distracting post or was the original stupid distracting post - only meant to disrupt. Those of you who do this on the Forum we know all too well. Please allow me to try and add some clarity to all this ... I am rather puzzled as to why Jack would post on the Bronson film in light of his poor ability to interpret photos. Did the limo advance east between the two images (Bronson slide Vs Bronson film) - the answer is "yes' ... that is what happens when a man takes a photo of a moving car and then lowers it to then start filming with his movie camera. As far as Zapruder and Sitzman being too short and the other differences mentioned - thats all Jack's making. Trying to look for definition in such a poor degraded film capture can only lead to incorrect interpretations. Should BS reply to such nonsense - maybe not, but in all fairness to BS ... no one complains when it is Jack doing the same thing. And as far as Craig's role in all of this .... Craig doesn't come off as a historian of the JFK assassination so much, but rather he is an expert in lighting when it comes to photography. His answers may not offer enough of a conspiratorial explanation for some peoples liking here, but regardless of what one wishes to believe ....... they will be hard pressed to find another expert to disagree with the points Craig makes regarding these matters. Bill Miller Hi Bill, Could you provide us with a quality screen capture? It might make the details Jack has pointed out easier for us to identify. If you don't want to, or are unable to, that's ok. Thank you, Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Even if one doesn't agree with Jack, I find his unique way of looking at something in a way most would not consider is interesting and has often brought good results. Interesting remarks, Peter. I have never heard before where using poor degraded images to make errered observations as something "unique". I would love to hear of some of the "good results" that have come from such a practice. Bill Miller Hi Bill,Could you provide us with a quality screen capture? It might make the details Jack has pointed out easier for us to identify. If you don't want to, or are unable to, that's ok. Thank you, Chuck Chuck, I am sorry ... but I do not have such resources with me. Possibly Robin will see this thread and do a film capture of one of the better Bronson film frames. The one being used by Jack is after the head shot and several seconds after Bronson took his photograph. In Jack's capture I can barely make out people that are easily seen in a good quality print of the same. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Is the man below in the Bronson frame, the same man, who is later seen in the white pants and dark sports jacket standing behind the Hunt figure in the Cancellare photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 Not one to speak.....you condemn but almost never offer any evidence, reference or enlightenment......and I think those on the Forum can see when a response is to a stupid distracting post or was the original stupid distracting post - only meant to disrupt. Those of you who do this on the Forum we know all too well. Please allow me to try and add some clarity to all this ... I am rather puzzled as to why Jack would post on the Bronson film in light of his poor ability to interpret photos. Did the limo advance east between the two images (Bronson slide Vs Bronson film) - the answer is "yes' ... that is what happens when a man takes a photo of a moving car and then lowers it to then start filming with his movie camera. As far as Zapruder and Sitzman being too short and the other differences mentioned - thats all Jack's making. Trying to look for definition in such a poor degraded film capture can only lead to incorrect interpretations. Should BS reply to such nonsense - maybe not, but in all fairness to BS ... no one complains when it is Jack doing the same thing. And as far as Craig's role in all of this .... Craig doesn't come off as a historian of the JFK assassination so much, but rather he is an expert in lighting when it comes to photography. His answers may not offer enough of a conspiratorial explanation for some peoples liking here, but regardless of what one wishes to believe ....... they will be hard pressed to find another expert to disagree with the points Craig makes regarding these matters. Bill Miller Hi Bill, Could you provide us with a quality screen capture? It might make the details Jack has pointed out easier for us to identify. If you don't want to, or are unable to, that's ok. Thank you, Chuck The screen capture was from Robin. Chris Davidson is sending me some more of slightly better quality, which I will analyze. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: Not one to speak.....you condemn but almost never offer any evidence, reference or enlightenment......and I think those on the Forum can see when a response is to a stupid distracting post or was the original stupid distracting post - only meant to disrupt. Those of you who do this on the Forum we know all too well. Please allow me to try and add some clarity to all this ... dgh: clarity? sounds like you're running interference for the clowns.... lmao! I am rather puzzled as to why Jack would post on the Bronson film in light of his poor ability to interpret photos. Did the limo advance east between the two images (Bronson slide Vs Bronson film) - the answer is "yes' ... that is what happens when a man takes a photo of a moving car and then lowers it to then start filming with his movie camera. As far as Zapruder and Sitzman being too short and the other differences mentioned - thats all Jack's making. dgh: YOU can't hang a positive ID on Zapruder/Sitzman standing on that DP pedestal, yet it's Jack's fault for saying their too short? roflmao! Trying to look for definition in such a poor degraded film capture can only lead to incorrect interpretations. Should BS reply to such nonsense - maybe not, but in all fairness to BS ... no one complains when it is Jack doing the same thing. dgh: AGAIN you can't hang a positive ID on Zapruder/Sitzman standing on that DP pedestal -- can Slattery positively ID to our satisfaction whose standing on the pedestal? Your grasping at straws champ! And as far as Craig's role in all of this .... Craig doesn't come off as a historian of the JFK assassination so much, but rather he is an expert in lighting when it comes to photography. dgh: Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL His answers may not offer enough of a conspiratorial explanation for some peoples liking here, but regardless of what one wishes to believe ....... they will be hard pressed to find another expert to disagree with the points Craig makes regarding these matters. dgh:01 bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings.... Bill Miller Edited August 18, 2006 by David G. Healy 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