Where is that train in the window?

[Chris Davidson]

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

Chris, you may need to get use to Jack's way of double talking because one day he will say one thing and then the next time he will unknowingly contradict himself.

The reason for the train looking so large in one camera compared to another is a type of foreshortening effect even though that is probably not the correct term to use. The camera lens magnifies the more distant objects and this is why in the Nix film for instance ... the train looks to be parked right behind the fence despite it actually being across the RR yard.

Bill Miller

I used film footage from Hughes(train/windows) taken behind the pergola. I believe he also used a Bell/Howell camera, not sure what model.

Part1 is Nix early segment superimposed over Nix later segment.

Part2 is Hughes over Nix early.

Part3 is Hughes over Nix later.

No resizing of frames, registered the best I could.

http://70.95.198.200:4944/JFK/

Hope it helps

chris

[Jack White]

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

Chris, you may need to get use to Jack's way of double talking because one day he will say one thing and then the next time he will unknowingly contradict himself.

The reason for the train looking so large in one camera compared to another is a type of foreshortening effect even though that is probably not the correct term to use. The camera lens magnifies the more distant objects and this is why in the Nix film for instance ... the train looks to be parked right behind the fence despite it actually being across the RR yard.

Bill Miller

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth."

Bill Miller

[John Kennedy White]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth."

Bill Miller

Bill:

I've used this zoom-compression technique often to emphasize details... But, I think this particular case is a slight over-exposure of the first image, blasting out anything behind the pergola.

[Jack White]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth."

Bill Miller

What "Miller" describes is known as SFX or special effects. But he is ignorant

of such things. No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have

the background zoom. As David Healy can instruct, Hitchcock frequently used

REAR PROJECTION SCREEN backgrounds to achieve such effects. Alternately,

they can be produced with matte insertions. Nowadays such effects are done

with greenscreen backgrounds and computers. "Miller" needs to understand

photography before he instructs senile researchers.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Jack, I am not going to argue with a senile old man. Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth."

Bill Miller

What "Miller" describes is known as SFX or special effects. But he is ignorant

of such things. No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have

the background zoom. As David Healy can instruct, Hitchcock frequently used

REAR PROJECTION SCREEN backgrounds to achieve such effects. Alternately,

they can be produced with matte insertions. Nowadays such effects are done

with greenscreen backgrounds and computers. "Miller" needs to understand

photography before he instructs senile researchers.

Jack

Actually ANY lens can stay focused on the foreground while zooming in tighter on the background.....

[Bill Miller]

Actually ANY lens can stay focused on the foreground while zooming in tighter on the background.....

Craig, don't try and educate Jack for he knows it all. When I read Jack's nutty response to Groden today - Robert about blew a gasket. Jack can say what he wishes ... the things I said were things that Robert Groden told me and Robert has forgotten more than Jack will ever know when it comes to photography. Jack has spent so much time with his alteration game that he has forgotten most of what he once knew about the basics concerning camera lenses and what they do.

Bill Miller

Edited August 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Jack all of this is simply blatant misinformation. That it comes from someone who is held as a "photo expert" by many on this forum and elsewhere is highly amusing. It also speaks volumes about the lack of photographic knowlege of your supporters. Truly amazing!

Lets take a look at your misinformation (or should that be DISinformation?)

"According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image."

This is only partially true and then in only one specfic instance. A lens will only crop an image, over a lens of a different focal length ONLY if the two lense are used from the exact same camera to subject distance. Period. Change the camera to subject distance between lenses and your above statement does not apply.

"Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope."

Totally untrue. The size relationship between objects in the foreground and the background is dependant on both the focal length of the lens and the distance from the camera to the foreground subject and the distance from the camera to the background subject. The size between the foreground and background will not always enlarge nor reduce equally. The foreshortening effect of a telephoto lens is a prime example.

"It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography."

Actually Miller has it right. It is YOU who is providing the misinformation. And it seems it is YOU who is pretending to know photography.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Actually Miller has it right. It is YOU who is providing the misinformation. And it seems it is YOU who is pretending to know photography.

Below is an example of what Jack said cannot be done. Just swap the building for the train car seen in the Nix film and you have your proof that it looks closer than it really is because of the camera lens and not because a conspirator failed to alter the photo to get past Jack's eagle eye.

Bill Miller

Edited August 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Len Colby]

Jack White message # 1: If Bond could see the train through the windows,

why couldn't Willis?

Jack White message # 17: It was NOT a train, but rather three Pullman cars on a siding (see movie EXECUTIVE ACTION).

Though parked, I think the Nix film shows them moving.

Chris message # 18: Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Jack White message # 21: A "train" has a locomotive. It can still be a "train" with the locomotive

disconnected, as these three Pullman cars, but it cannot go anywhere

until reattached to a choo-choo, can it? Splitting hairs over word definitions

is not research, is it? It is like a train without a locomotive. Contribute

something positive, or hop the next freight out of town. But make sure

a locomotive is attached.

No comment is really necessary but Jack I'll add that you are right normally "splitting hairs over word definitions is not research" but the person who initiated the hair splitting was you not Chris. Also this is yet another example of you being guilty of what you so complain about others doing a personal attack, obviously consistency is not one of your hobgoblins!

Len

[Bill Miller]

"It was NOT a train, but rather three Pullman cars"

"It can still be a "train" with the locomotive disconnected"

The above two statements of Jack's is mere double-talk. He did the exact same thing in some of his alteration claims while his cheerleaders looked on in silence. Below is one such example. Jack spent considerable time telling us how Moorman and Hill were standing in the street as the President's car approached. Jack used film captures from the Muchmore film and also the Bronson slide, yet he said the following about Altgens photographs in the 'Hoax' book that Healy tells people they should read. Take note where Moorman and Hill's shadows are seen passing over the curb which is what the Zupruder film shows ....

To this day Jack still tells his readers that Hill and Moorman were standing in the street and to this day Jack has not admitted that his claiming that Altgens 6, which he claims to be genuine, totally debunks Jack's Zfilm alteration claim. The same can be said about Healy saying the other day that after seing Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' article that he wasn't sure where Moorman was. So which is the true statement - Zapruder film altered to show Hill and Moorman in the grass or the Altgens 6 photo is genuine which shows Hill and Moorman were not in the street ?????

Bill Miller

Edited August 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Jack, I am not going to argue with a senile old man. Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth."

Bill Miller

Hitchcock used a filming technique called a dolly zoom to achieve

the "vertigo effect":

"The dolly zoom is an unsettling in-camera special effect that appears to undermine normal visual perception in film.

The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout. In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective distortion, the most directly noticeable feature being that the background appears to change size relative to the subject.

As the human visual system uses both size and perspective cues to judge the relative sizes of objects, seeing a perspective change without a size change is a highly unsettling effect, and the emotional impact of this effect is greater than the description above can suggest. The visual appearance for the viewer is that either the background suddenly grows in size and detail overwhelming the foreground; or the foreground becomes immense and dominates its previous setting. Which of these two apparent effects predominates depends on which way the dolly zoom occurs.

The effect was invented by Irmin Roberts, a Paramount second-unit cameraman, and was famously used by Alfred Hitchcock in his film Vertigo, although it appeared earlier at the climax to his film Spellbound."

Nobody in Dealey Plaza used the "dolly zoom".

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

"Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY

MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything

more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of

an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars

or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends

to know photography.

Jack

Jack, I am not going to argue with a senile old man. Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth."

Bill Miller

Hitchcock used a filming technique called a dolly zoom to achieve

the "vertigo effect":

"The dolly zoom is an unsettling in-camera special effect that appears to undermine normal visual perception in film.

The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout. In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective distortion, the most directly noticeable feature being that the background appears to change size relative to the subject.

As the human visual system uses both size and perspective cues to judge the relative sizes of objects, seeing a perspective change without a size change is a highly unsettling effect, and the emotional impact of this effect is greater than the description above can suggest. The visual appearance for the viewer is that either the background suddenly grows in size and detail overwhelming the foreground; or the foreground becomes immense and dominates its previous setting. Which of these two apparent effects predominates depends on which way the dolly zoom occurs.

The effect was invented by Irmin Roberts, a Paramount second-unit cameraman, and was famously used by Alfred Hitchcock in his film Vertigo, although it appeared earlier at the climax to his film Spellbound."

Nobody in Dealey Plaza used the "dolly zoom".

Jack

Thank you for confirming for all of us that you were full of crap when you said..

" No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have

the background zoom."

Now try dealing with the rest of your mistakes detailed in post 29.

[Christopher T. George]

Here is a photo of the tracks showing closest possible train locations.....

See page 350 of "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask. The picture on page 350 was taken the afternoon of the assassination and the RR car is still sitting where it was during the shooting.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Bill and Peter. You chaps have the advantage over me in knowing that the railyard actually does (or at least did then in 1963) extend behind the Pergola. I still have to wonder though if what Jack things is a train actually is -- that is, would it appear that big and that tall, given that the rail tracks are some distance of yards behind the Pergola and the shot of the Pergola is taken somewhat from below the rail tracks and the Pergola not level with them.

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

A "train" has a locomotive. It can still be a "train" with the locomotive

disconnected, as these three Pullman cars, but it cannot go anywhere

until reattached to a choo-choo, can it? Splitting hairs over word definitions

is not research, is it? It is like a train without a locomotive. Contribute

something positive, or hop the next freight out of town. But make sure

a locomotive is attached.

Jack

Hi Jack

Fair enough, Jack. I find your photographic queries interesting and I simply wish to question you in a polite manner, I hope, compared to the dismissive posts of your opponents, in an attempt to get to the truth and to see if you may be on to something. Okay?

Chris

[Robert Howard]

Here is a photo of the tracks showing closest possible train locations.....

See page 350 of "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask. The picture on page 350 was taken the afternoon of the assassination and the RR car is still sitting where it was during the shooting.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Bill and Peter. You chaps have the advantage over me in knowing that the railyard actually does (or at least did then in 1963) extend behind the Pergola. I still have to wonder though if what Jack things is a train actually is -- that is, would it appear that big and that tall, given that the rail tracks are some distance of yards behind the Pergola and the shot of the Pergola is taken somewhat from below the rail tracks and the Pergola not level with them.

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

A "train" has a locomotive. It can still be a "train" with the locomotive

disconnected, as these three Pullman cars, but it cannot go anywhere

until reattached to a choo-choo, can it? Splitting hairs over word definitions

is not research, is it? It is like a train without a locomotive. Contribute

something positive, or hop the next freight out of town. But make sure

a locomotive is attached.

Jack

Hi Jack

Fair enough, Jack. I find your photographic queries interesting and I simply wish to question you in a polite manner, I hope, compared to the dismissive posts of your opponents, in an attempt to get to the truth and to see if you may be on to something. Okay?

Chris

I guess the attack dog manner of the posts on this thread, is a glimpse of the current cultural Lowest-Common-Denominator approach to communications, where it isn't enough to ostensibly 'refute' someone's information, but call them every name under the sun and do everything except insult their lineage. You do yourselves a great dis-service, and I can assure you that you may have won the battle, but lost the war, in the sense that most people read your posts and come away with the conclusion that for all your cleverness all of you really come off as being very obnoxious. Congratulations

Even if Jack is mistaken there's no reason to stoop to the level that you do, the only analogy I can make to how you communicate is that it fit's in rather well with what is passing for civilized debate about profoundly important issues on television news, like the War in Iraq et certera, and that gentleman is NOT a compliment, but an indication of what is wrong with America, if youre too busy hurling insults at your 'opponent' rather than resolution or arriving at a consensus, then you have gridlock. It is a waste of Forum Members time and an unsult to Forum members, intended or not.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Robert Howard