Party's Over Continued

[Robin Unger]

Dopes.....Incompetent Boobs.....Boobs......Jokers.....Alteration Nonsense? Is this really necessary?

Bill...please, you're killing me!

I am no expert on graphics, but, it seems to me that film from two different elevations, "much higher elevated" is how you described that difference, would not register in a manner which appears to be, as far as I can determine, virtually identical.

The concept that film shot from different elevations and from different locations could possibly be aligned in this manner seems

to be flawed reasoning.

Could you describe for me how this synchronous imaging was accomplished from two very separate locations?

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane

whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home.

Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't.

I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image.

Bill Miller

I understand your concern about artifacts and their interpretation.

I also see where you are concerned about the quality of the images used.

I still do not understand how two different perspectives produced images which, for all intents, can merge almost flawlessly.

This is not, I believe, a product of artifacts or quality of images.

I still do not understand how film, shot from different locations, produce images which are seemingly shot from nearly identical locations.

It must be something I am incapable of understanding as I truly wish I could understand what seems to me to be an impossibility.

Chuck,

Bill makes it sound like I'm trying to somehow fool others while posting blurry photos.

I post what I discover.

If other's don't have access to this material, by all means, ask me if I can post something with a better frame for comparison.

The frame I used for the Bell/Wiegman comparison is the same one I used to show the 3 people on the stairs to the pergola.

Is it blurry, sure it is.

By the way, this is Groden's version I'm using. As I have asked before, if others have better material, please post it.

Here is another comparison with a better frame.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Great work, Chris...it is amazing that Bell and Moorman REGISTER PRECISELY

although not shot from the same place! Give us your opinion on this.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack, the images in Bell and Moorman DO NOT "register precisely" and it is your inability to see these things that makes your work suffer.

The doorway widths to the shelter DO NOT match

The corners of the south end of the concrete wall DO NOT match

The foliage outline of the tree over the south end of the concret wall DOES NOT match

The distance from the edge of the outer shelter wall to the doorway DOES NOT match

The distance from the inside edge of the shelter doorway to the colonnade windows DO NOT match

The same sunspots on the south outside shelter wall are seen in both the Moorman and Bell image. The sunspots merely shift to the left and upward because of the angle change that each photographer had to the shelter. Chris used a gradual fade in process which hid these shift changes because the eye doesn't pick them up when offered in such small increments.

Bill

Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Michael Crane]

To me it appears in the gif that Chris made on the first page that one set of windows seem to be more "square" in appearance,then change into smaller "rectangle" shape`s.

Just my .02

[Chris Davidson]

To me it appears in the gif that Chris made on the first page that one set of windows seem to be more "square" in appearance,then change into smaller "rectangle" shape`s.

Just my .02

Michael,

The Couch/Moorman comparison may be a little closer.

chris

Edited February 14, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

To me it appears in the gif that Chris made on the first page that one set of windows seem to be more "square" in appearance,then change into smaller "rectangle" shape`s.

Just my .02

Michael,

The Couch/Moorman comparison may be a little closer.

chris

This animation is Moorman/Couch.

Malcolm Couch is sitting in a car, in the street, closer to the pergola than Moorman, when he films.

You judge where his line of sight is in relation to Moorman.

Anything wrong?

chris

[Alan Healy]

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Hi Chris,

with respect, the Bell frame you posted was extreemly blurred above the wall, I have captured a sharper frame showing the same scene within a second of the one you posted & all we can see is part of what people have come to conclude as a white car in the parking lot.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7867/bellcropgx3.png

This is very similar to people seeing Sitzman's "legs" in frames of the blurred Wiegman film, although in that case, it's much harder to get a sharp look at anything.

Imo I think it's important that people keep looking at the photographic evidence for possible signs of tampering but sometimes, or rather in most cases, there are other more plausible explainations for why things look different from film to film.

Now this is only my opinion & I'm entitled to it, despite me having no formal training in photography but, I would never use the Bronson film to get a good description of who or what was going on on the pedestal, why?

Because it is extreemly poor quality in that regard & cannot pick out fine details in the distance.

I am not surprised the figures on the pedestal in that film look terrible, to me it would be much more suspicious if they looked sharp & detailed.

Yes I do realise how bad they look & I appreciate people studying it but I personally don't think it's signs of alteration.

The Bronson film is not that great when it comes to detail, to me, it's that simple.

I hope one day in the near future Robert Groden will produce a true DVD quality compilation of his film & photo collection, I think his DVD's are extreemly valuable as a resource but things have moved on from VHS. I think we need something better anyway & I pray he has plans to do this for the benefit of all of us.

Alan

[Jack White]

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Hi Chris,

with respect, the Bell frame you posted was extreemly blurred above the wall, I have captured a sharper frame showing the same scene within a second of the one you posted & all we can see is part of what people have come to conclude as a white car in the parking lot.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7867/bellcropgx3.png

This is very similar to people seeing Sitzman's "legs" in frames of the blurred Wiegman film, although in that case, it's much harder to get a sharp look at anything.

Imo I think it's important that people keep looking at the photographic evidence for possible signs of tampering but sometimes, or rather in most cases, there are other more plausible explainations for why things look different from film to film.

Now this is only my opinion & I'm entitled to it, despite me having no formal training in photography but, I would never use the Bronson film to get a good description of who or what was going on on the pedestal, why?

Because it is extreemly poor quality in that regard & cannot pick out fine details in the distance.

I am not surprised the figures on the pedestal in that film look terrible, to me it would be much more suspicious if they looked sharp & detailed.

Yes I do realise how bad they look & I appreciate people studying it but I personally don't think it's signs of alteration.

The Bronson film is not that great when it comes to detail, to me, it's that simple.

I hope one day in the near future Robert Groden will produce a true DVD quality compilation of his film & photo collection, I think his DVD's are extreemly valuable as a resource but things have moved on from VHS. I think we need something better anyway & I pray he has plans to do this for the benefit of all of us.

Alan

Alan...you are wrong about Bronson. I copied the "ORIGINAL" slide and the detail is exceptionally good.

The Bronson FILM, however, is less good because it is only 8mm.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Hi Chris,

with respect, the Bell frame you posted was extreemly blurred above the wall, I have captured a sharper frame showing the same scene within a second of the one you posted & all we can see is part of what people have come to conclude as a white car in the parking lot.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7867/bellcropgx3.png

This is very similar to people seeing Sitzman's "legs" in frames of the blurred Wiegman film, although in that case, it's much harder to get a sharp look at anything.

Imo I think it's important that people keep looking at the photographic evidence for possible signs of tampering but sometimes, or rather in most cases, there are other more plausible explainations for why things look different from film to film.

Now this is only my opinion & I'm entitled to it, despite me having no formal training in photography but, I would never use the Bronson film to get a good description of who or what was going on on the pedestal, why?

Because it is extreemly poor quality in that regard & cannot pick out fine details in the distance.

I am not surprised the figures on the pedestal in that film look terrible, to me it would be much more suspicious if they looked sharp & detailed.

Yes I do realise how bad they look & I appreciate people studying it but I personally don't think it's signs of alteration.

The Bronson film is not that great when it comes to detail, to me, it's that simple.

I hope one day in the near future Robert Groden will produce a true DVD quality compilation of his film & photo collection, I think his DVD's are extreemly valuable as a resource but things have moved on from VHS. I think we need something better anyway & I pray he has plans to do this for the benefit of all of us.

Alan

Alan...you are wrong about Bronson. I copied the "ORIGINAL" slide and the detail is exceptionally good.

The Bronson FILM, however, is less good because it is only 8mm.

Jack

Jack,

to be honest I was just going from memory, (I lost all my collection of old threads & photos last year but I did remember you had the best blow-up of the pedestal from Bronson, for some reason I remembered it as a frame from the film, sorry about that) I was however referring to that good blow-up of yours though yes.

Could you remind me how good the detail is on the Hester's or anyone of the spectators on the side-walk please?

Alan

[Jack White]

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Hi Chris,

with respect, the Bell frame you posted was extreemly blurred above the wall, I have captured a sharper frame showing the same scene within a second of the one you posted & all we can see is part of what people have come to conclude as a white car in the parking lot.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7867/bellcropgx3.png

This is very similar to people seeing Sitzman's "legs" in frames of the blurred Wiegman film, although in that case, it's much harder to get a sharp look at anything.

Imo I think it's important that people keep looking at the photographic evidence for possible signs of tampering but sometimes, or rather in most cases, there are other more plausible explainations for why things look different from film to film.

Now this is only my opinion & I'm entitled to it, despite me having no formal training in photography but, I would never use the Bronson film to get a good description of who or what was going on on the pedestal, why?

Because it is extreemly poor quality in that regard & cannot pick out fine details in the distance.

I am not surprised the figures on the pedestal in that film look terrible, to me it would be much more suspicious if they looked sharp & detailed.

Yes I do realise how bad they look & I appreciate people studying it but I personally don't think it's signs of alteration.

The Bronson film is not that great when it comes to detail, to me, it's that simple.

I hope one day in the near future Robert Groden will produce a true DVD quality compilation of his film & photo collection, I think his DVD's are extreemly valuable as a resource but things have moved on from VHS. I think we need something better anyway & I pray he has plans to do this for the benefit of all of us.

Alan

Alan...you are wrong about Bronson. I copied the "ORIGINAL" slide and the detail is exceptionally good.

The Bronson FILM, however, is less good because it is only 8mm.

Jack

Jack,

to be honest I was just going from memory, (I lost all my collection of old threads & photos last year but I did remember you had the best blow-up of the pedestal from Bronson, for some reason I remembered it as a frame from the film, sorry about that) I was however referring to that good blow-up of yours though yes.

Could you remind me how good the detail is on the Hester's or anyone of the spectators on the side-walk please?

Alan

A few days ago Chris posted one of my good Bronson slide copies, but I forget which thread.

Maybe Chris will repost it for you.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

Jack,

sorry, are you still unable to post photos here?

I hope that changes for us asap.

I found the best enlargement of DCM I could as an example, I would guess the source of this crop was your copy.

.

There is not one piece of detail on the entire figure.

He has no nose, a pointed stick for a hand & no feet....

How much more of him would we lose if he was back up near the pergola?

Sorry I don't have a better example to hand, I'll check my email incase you sent me something but please try Imageshack & link to any photos you like.

Have you ever tried it Jack or is there a reason you don't use these host sites?

Alan

Upload photos free @

http://imageshack.us/

[Alan Healy]

Here's the full crop from Robin's page re-posted on Imageshack(no I don't work for them, just trying to save Robin some bandwidth)

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/69/bronsondcmun1.jpg

I am pretty sure Chris never posted anything of this quality Jack.

If you'd like to email me some examples of other spectators for comparison I'll gladly upload them.

Alan

[Jack White]

Here's the full crop from Robin's page re-posted on Imageshack(no I don't work for them, just trying to save Robin some bandwidth)

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/69/bronsondcmun1.jpg

I am pretty sure Chris never posted anything of this quality Jack.

If you'd like to email me some examples of other spectators for comparison I'll gladly upload them.

Alan

All Bronson slide copies are from copies I shot about 1980 from the "original".

The ones you posted are very POOR copies of my copies. I believe that

the Bronson slide is among the tampered photos, and therefore unreliable.

I posted many of them here before the new software created an inability for me

for me to post images anymore unless I buy a new computer.

I am not interested in posting them in a multiple-step process. I do not have

time to fool with extraneous stuff. I am too busy doing other things.

Jack

[Chris Davidson]

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Hi Chris,

with respect, the Bell frame you posted was extreemly blurred above the wall, I have captured a sharper frame showing the same scene within a second of the one you posted & all we can see is part of what people have come to conclude as a white car in the parking lot.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7867/bellcropgx3.png

This is very similar to people seeing Sitzman's "legs" in frames of the blurred Wiegman film, although in that case, it's much harder to get a sharp look at anything.

Imo I think it's important that people keep looking at the photographic evidence for possible signs of tampering but sometimes, or rather in most cases, there are other more plausible explainations for why things look different from film to film.

Now this is only my opinion & I'm entitled to it, despite me having no formal training in photography but, I would never use the Bronson film to get a good description of who or what was going on on the pedestal, why?

Because it is extreemly poor quality in that regard & cannot pick out fine details in the distance.

I am not surprised the figures on the pedestal in that film look terrible, to me it would be much more suspicious if they looked sharp & detailed.

Yes I do realise how bad they look & I appreciate people studying it but I personally don't think it's signs of alteration.

The Bronson film is not that great when it comes to detail, to me, it's that simple.

I hope one day in the near future Robert Groden will produce a true DVD quality compilation of his film & photo collection, I think his DVD's are extreemly valuable as a resource but things have moved on from VHS. I think we need something better anyway & I pray he has plans to do this for the benefit of all of us.

Alan

Alan...you are wrong about Bronson. I copied the "ORIGINAL" slide and the detail is exceptionally good.

The Bronson FILM, however, is less good because it is only 8mm.

Jack

Jack,

to be honest I was just going from memory, (I lost all my collection of old threads & photos last year but I did remember you had the best blow-up of the pedestal from Bronson, for some reason I remembered it as a frame from the film, sorry about that) I was however referring to that good blow-up of yours though yes.

Could you remind me how good the detail is on the Hester's or anyone of the spectators on the side-walk please?

Alan

A few days ago Chris posted one of my good Bronson slide copies, but I forget which thread.

Maybe Chris will repost it for you.

Jack

Alan,

Here's one from Jack and one from me.

chris

P.S.

In Trask's book "POTP" page 373

Wiegman film is 36.5 seconds long. It is filmed in real time WITHOUT any breaks in the sequence.

What does one consider a break in the sequence?

[Chuck Robbins]

Jack,

I had the same problem as you re: uploading files. I reloaded windows and that fixed my problem.

Perhaps you might try the same thing? It may be a corrupt file preventing the upload.

[Chuck Robbins]

Looking at the building in the background it appears that the film was exposed at an awkward angle.

What could have caused a person to hold their camera at such an angle?

The true pitch (steepness of angle) of Elm street is lost in this film.

In other words, I'm questioning whether the resultant optical illusion was a desired effect.

If you have the ability to do so, such as with photoshop, you can adjust the tilt by degrees until the

building is level. Then you will be able to see for yourself the actual pitch of Elm street.

In case you're not sure why I bring this up, it is because the pitch of Elm Street relates directly to the

angle(s) of any bullet wound entry.