Robin Unger Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 Bronson frames, and a small movie made from the frames below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 They do show the true horizon, and mostly on all of the photos near a centre line of the lens. Some of the far horizon is lost in mist but recovered with gamma shifts. Otherwise there are numerous lines that if one understands the shifts caused by lens shape and tilt that form horizontals and verticals like lamp posts and fence and structures that are not peripheral at all. One way or the other, the frame and Bonds line up. It helps that they line up in an area that forms the near centre of most of the Bonds. Whatever, this has little to do with the finding that Bond and M42 lines up. The lines may diverge at the periphery, but they do so predictably,and however one may try to verbally fudge around that, N23-Z313 is about 4 frames before M24. With all respect...bullcrap. The horizon IS localized and unusable. MM and Bond are NOT on the same exact LOS and have differing subject to camera distances. You are using low res images in an attempt to create an exact alignment. You are using verticals at the edge of a frame as vertical rotational anchors. You are simply waving your hands. I really could care less what frame matches what frame, what I do care about is that your methods pass the smell test, and in this case they do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) They do show the true horizon, and mostly on all of the photos near a centre line of the lens. Some of the far horizon is lost in mist but recovered with gamma shifts. Otherwise there are numerous lines that if one understands the shifts caused by lens shape and tilt that form horizontals and verticals like lamp posts and fence and structures that are not peripheral at all. One way or the other, the frame and Bonds line up. It helps that they line up in an area that forms the near centre of most of the Bonds. Whatever, this has little to do with the finding that Bond and M42 lines up. The lines may diverge at the periphery, but they do so predictably,and however one may try to verbally fudge around that, N23-Z313 is about 4 frames before M24. What Craig is saying is correct and may be a hard and bitter pill to swallow for some. I can't reach Gary Mack at the moment for astand-ins were placed in all the photographer locations in DP for the Discovery Channel special, but I have stood at the reflection pool wall with Groden with excellent images so to replicate the views and Bond was at least 10 to 20 feet to the side of Muchmore ... I now regret that we didn't measure the distance. A good example of how a slight angle of difference occurrs in an image is to compare the knoll in Moorman's photo to that of Muchmore's. Muchmore is looking over Moorman's left shoulder by being slightly to the right of her and the difference is quite noticeable IMO. The difference a few degrees can make can be seen below. Bill Miller Edited January 14, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 29, 2006 Author Share Posted December 29, 2006 What Craig says is not correct. Taking the effort to compare features closer and further on the ground, structures and the fence within the frame and the corresponding area on Bond will show anyone for themselves that they line up ie same LOS. I'm not going to play word games with something so empirical. The location given for M on Dons map is wrong. If one takes the 23-313 location as marked correctly then 42 is not over this spot. Fprtunately this is not something anyone has to take my word for. Irrespective of these definite statements by various people, light travels in straight lines. The photos are there, the frames are there, the way to check is there. See for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 29, 2006 Author Share Posted December 29, 2006 For non-members. this link http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/M42.jpg is to a large size comparison of the middle area of Bond photo that corresponds with the area of Muchmore frame 42 link posted by Don in headwound topic. As can be seen, diverse items at different depth line up in the same way on both images. Comparing this to the accepted headshot location on Don's DPmap (link at his post) one sees that a line from the corner of the fence goes through the heashot location in a straight line to Bonds photo location, which can be confirmed as correct by lining up other item on the bond such as Zapruders pedestal and the lamp post. You can find the bond photos here: (depending on bandwidth allocation) http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html or here http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/ image (small) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 What Craig says is not correct. Taking the effort to compare features closer and further on the ground, structures and the fence within the frame and the corresponding area on Bond will show anyone for themselves that they line up ie same LOS. I'm not going to play word games with something so empirical. The location given for M on Dons map is wrong. If one takes the 23-313 location as marked correctly then 42 is not over this spot. Fprtunately this is not something anyone has to take my word for. Irrespective of these definite statements by various people, light travels in straight lines. The photos are there, the frames are there, the way to check is there. See for yourself. Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT! Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) Edited for correction Edited December 29, 2006 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT! Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless. I don't think John purposely created the small sized images and I since discovered that the thickness of one of his gree nlines allowed a little play for frame alignment that I am sure he didn't do on purpose. I advise that people use thin lines when doing overlays so to reduce the chance of alignment error. (An enlarged version can be seen below) When the corner shade line of the fence and the edge of the concrete wall are spaced evenly, then the Hudson tree shifts showing that these images were taken at different angles to the knoll. Note how John's green line shifts over the corner of the fence between the two images. This could not be noticed when seen in the small images. Bill Miller Edited January 14, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT! Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless. I don't think John purposely created the small sized images and I since discovered that the thickness of one of his gree nlines allowed a little play for frame alignment that I am sure he didn't do on purpose. I advise that people use thin lines when doing overlays so to reduce the chance of alignment error. (An enlarged version can be seen below) When the corner shade line of the fence and the edge of the concrete wall are spaced evenly, then the Hudson tree shifts showing that these images were taken at different angles to the knoll. Note how John's green line shifts over the corner of the fence between the two images. This could not be noticed when seen in the small images. Bill Miller I don't either Bill, but the fact of the matter is that the images in question are simply not suitable for the job. Anyone care to venture a guess how much a pixel is worth in inches at the bottom step in MM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT! Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless. I don't think John purposely created the small sized images and I since discovered that the thickness of one of his gree nlines allowed a little play for frame alignment that I am sure he didn't do on purpose. I advise that people use thin lines when doing overlays so to reduce the chance of alignment error. (An enlarged version can be seen below) When the corner shade line of the fence and the edge of the concrete wall are spaced evenly, then the Hudson tree shifts showing that these images were taken at different angles to the knoll. Note how John's green line shifts over the corner of the fence between the two images. This could not be noticed when seen in the small images. Bill Miller dgh:everything is worthless when the Lamson comes to the plate, perhaps he can do a little work here, show us ALL how competent he is with 1st generation imagery, eh Craig? Where have I seen the 'line thickness' argument before.... LMAO.... Groden show up with a few images for us? Or is everyone (excluding yourself and Lamson) working with **inferior** DP imagery, eh? Edited December 29, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT! Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless. I don't think John purposely created the small sized images and I since discovered that the thickness of one of his gree nlines allowed a little play for frame alignment that I am sure he didn't do on purpose. I advise that people use thin lines when doing overlays so to reduce the chance of alignment error. (An enlarged version can be seen below) When the corner shade line of the fence and the edge of the concrete wall are spaced evenly, then the Hudson tree shifts showing that these images were taken at different angles to the knoll. Note how John's green line shifts over the corner of the fence between the two images. This could not be noticed when seen in the small images. Bill Miller dgh:everything is worthless when the Lamson comes to the plate, perhaps he can do a little work here, show us ALL how competent he is with 1st generation imagery, eh Craig? Where have I seen the 'line thickness' argument before.... LMAO.... Groden show up with a few images for us? Or is everyone (excluding yourself and Lamson) working with **inferior** DP imagery, eh? What first generation images Healy? You have the frames from the original film then post away.....until then take a hike. Edited December 29, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 What first generation images Healy? You have the frames from the original film then post away.....until then take a hike. Just when I thought Healy finally wised up when his past arguments fell apart, mostly by his own doing, he shows that the art of trolling is not dead. It looks like daddy gave him the day off to play with his er' ... lets say ... putter on the Education Forum. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 What first generation images Healy? You have the frames from the original film then post away.....until then take a hike. Just when I thought Healy finally wised up when his past arguments fell apart, mostly by his own doing, he shows that the art of trolling is not dead. It looks like daddy gave him the day off to play with his er' ... lets say ... putter on the Education Forum. Bill Miller dgh: Wised up, to YOU????? ROFLMFAO! Nothing, nor argument has fallen apart Miller, you still experiencing some Christmas CHEER, perhaps? -- its taken 4 years for you Lone Nutters to get around to comparison DP film studies.....and what happens when a little bit of physics come into play (as displayed here and in another 'current ' thread, you run like stuck banshees -- "the line is too thick" -- roflmao. You ever find a physicist to counter HOAX, YET, 4 years and counting? Or are we in for more of your **rank amateur** opinion? Give Lamson a job, it appears resting on his laurels is makes him anxious.... catalog photog's are NOT busy this time of year, have Groden find some images so the Craigster can play, all he does is yakety-yak, no beef -- Where the hell is the BEEF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) What first generation images Healy? You have the frames from the original film then post away.....until then take a hike. Just when I thought Healy finally wised up when his past arguments fell apart, mostly by his own doing, he shows that the art of trolling is not dead. It looks like daddy gave him the day off to play with his er' ... lets say ... putter on the Education Forum. Bill Miller dgh: Wised up, to YOU????? ROFLMFAO! Nothing, nor argument has fallen apart Miller, you still experiencing some Christmas CHEER, perhaps? -- its taken 4 years for you Lone Nutters to get around to comparison DP film studies.....and what happens when a little bit of physics come into play (as displayed here and in another 'current ' thread, you run like stuck banshees -- "the line is too thick" -- roflmao. You ever find a physicist to counter HOAX, YET, 4 years and counting? Or are we in for more of your **rank amateur** opinion? Give Lamson a job, it appears resting on his laurels is makes him anxious.... catalog photog's are NOT busy this time of year, have Groden find some images so the Craigster can play, all he does is yakety-yak, no beef -- Where the hell is the BEEF? xxxxx away there davie.... and dang, if I'm not busy, then why have I spent the last few days cranking out final files, and why are all three bays of my studio full...hum.....maybe its a bit of projection on your part? What no cowboy videos this time of year? No down and dirty training films? No real estate 360's to shoot? Crank in your line davie.... Edited December 29, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) You ever find a physicist to counter HOAX, YET, 4 years and counting? Or are we in for more of your **rank amateur** opinion? I don't believe that you clowns ever got anyone to peer review your claims which is what reputable scientist do. Besides, why do we need to seek out other physicist when some optical printer jerk-off who participated in that book is now on record as saying he has never seen any proof of alteration and that even a 1st genreation copy made from an original will show fuzziness even in the better frames? It is obvious why you never post any examples or care to discuss the specifics pertaining to the subject matter because when you do - your own words come back to bite you in the ass. You thought you were being cute when responding to someone else about the signs of even 1st generation copies, while unwittingly destroying your own position. In the end you had said just what Groden had said so long ago, but you were too stupid to realize what you had done - now live with it! Your position was so flawed all along that you have now done what Jack did when he claimed in one area of that book that Moorman was in the street when she took her photo, only to also have said Altgens 6 (showing Moorman and Hill in the grass above the curb) is genuine. Bill Miller Edited December 29, 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