Party's Over Continued

[Chris Davidson]

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,

Supplied by Jack White

[Chris Davidson]

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.

Chuck,

I couldn't agree with you more.

In fact, I believe most photographer's try to shoot with object's level to the horizon.

Yet both the Bell and Nix films have to be angled about 5 degrees, (one clockwise, the other counterclockwise) to level that pergola against the horizon.

Coincidence?

chris

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem.

My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH

COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem.

I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is

not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

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?

Thank you Chris,

first off, I didn't mean to de-rail your thread onto the Bronson photo, I never really talk about the Bronson photo, I just wanted to give my opinion on it & I still believe that the differences in it can be explained in two words........ "Amatuer photography" but I could be wrong.

Thanks again for the Bronson photos but the crop from Robin's page I posted previously is of superior quality, why don't you try to get a blow-up of DCM from what you posted & compare it.

Jack says what I posted are inferior to his copy of the original & he then refers me to items that are inferior to what I posted.

Like I said zoom in on DCM & compare them, if you have a better blow-up of him or any of the spectators further from the camera please post them.

Okay Wiegman.

He stops filming the Hesters & runs down the knoll to the Newman's, that's the first thing I realised, there is no footage of the run down back to the street.

Marcel Dehaeseleer has a very interesting essay on the film, please make sure to read Gary Mack's comments at the end, the exposed film runs for 36secs yes but there are breaks in the original film & the one on Groden's "Assn' Films" has been edited.

http://www.copweb.be/Dave%20Wiegman%20film.htm

Regards,

Alan

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem.

My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH

COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem.

I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is

not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Why $2000 bucks?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120

$35.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515

$47.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028

$42.25

Many more here:

http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1

[Shanet Clark]

Good thread.

Convincing evidence of tampering.

Moorman, Bell and Nix are mutually impossible.

[Chris Davidson]

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?

Thank you Chris,

first off, I didn't mean to de-rail your thread onto the Bronson photo, I never really talk about the Bronson photo, I just wanted to give my opinion on it & I still believe that the differences in it can be explained in two words........ "Amatuer photography" but I could be wrong.

Thanks again for the Bronson photos but the crop from Robin's page I posted previously is of superior quality, why don't you try to get a blow-up of DCM from what you posted & compare it.

Jack says what I posted are inferior to his copy of the original & he then refers me to items that are inferior to what I posted.

Like I said zoom in on DCM & compare them, if you have a better blow-up of him or any of the spectators further from the camera please post them.

Okay Wiegman.

He stops filming the Hesters & runs down the knoll to the Newman's, that's the first thing I realised, there is no footage of the run down back to the street.

Marcel Dehaeseleer has a very interesting essay on the film, please make sure to read Gary Mack's comments at the end, the exposed film runs for 36secs yes but there are breaks in the original film & the one on Groden's "Assn' Films" has been edited.

http://www.copweb.be/Dave%20Wiegman%20film.htm

Regards,

Alan

"Pictures Of The Pain" by Richard B. Trask - page 373

"The Wiegman film sequence of the activity around the shooting scene lasts approximately 36½ seconds.

It is filmed in real time without any breaks in the sequence."

Gary Mack's email response to me on this topic:

Chris,

Trask's 36.5 second timing refers to the first sequence Wiegman shot, from turning the corner onto Elm until the last frame of Hester inside the colonnade.

His second sequence showed the Newmans, and his third shows the approaching motorcade and Cheryl McKinnon dropping to the grass. Some say she stood once, then dropped a second time, btw.

Gary Mack

The only time frame I know of the Wiegman film is 36.5 seconds in it's entirety.

I have 33.5 seconds of it, and that includes the Newman and McKinnon sequence.

I also have about 2 to 2.5 seconds of what isn't in my 33.5 second clip. A total of approx. 36 seconds.

At the 24 second mark, the Newman's are being filmed.

At the 31 second mark, McKinnon is on film.

If there is additional footage, I'd like to see it.

chris

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem.

My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH

COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem.

I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is

not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Why $2000 bucks?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120

$35.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515

$47.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028

$42.25

Many more here:

http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1

I don't want someone's cast-off Mac. When I upgrade it will be the Imac2400, listed for $1995.

Would you buy a used Brownie to do your photo shoots?

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem. My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem. I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Jack,

I'm not familiar with Macs, but are you sure it's the OS? I think it would be your browser, not the OS.

I used Netscape 7 for a number of years quite happily. Lately, though, I couldn't log on to online banking, news sites wouldn't work right... and I couldn't upload attachments here anymore (I would just get the "Initializing Attachments" symbol continuously).

I changed to Firefox (which is very similar to my beloved Netscape) and have had no problems anymore.

What browser & version do you currently run? You could download a newer version, or local libraries normally have computer magazines that have software CDs on the cover.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem.

My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH

COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem.

I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is

not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Why $2000 bucks?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120

$35.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515

$47.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028

$42.25

Many more here:

http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1

I don't want someone's cast-off Mac. When I upgrade it will be the Imac2400, listed for $1995.

Would you buy a used Brownie to do your photo shoots?

Jack

I've purchased a great part of my lighting and photo gear used, including a used Imac, which BTW works fine with OS X and makes a great web browsing and light image processing computer.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem.

My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH

COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem.

I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is

not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Why $2000 bucks?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120

$35.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515

$47.00

http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028

$42.25

Many more here:

http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1

I don't want someone's cast-off Mac. When I upgrade it will be the Imac2400, listed for $1995.

Would you buy a used Brownie to do your photo shoots?

Jack

Try this:

http://www.icab.de/dl.php

[Alan Healy]

Chris, Gary is mistaken.

Trask viewed a similar copy to what we have & he mistakenly thought it was one long sequence without any breaks.

He is like everyone else we make mistakes.

Gary just told you that the first sequence lasts for 36 secs right?

Incorrect.

There is just no way there is 12 seconds of footage missing from the time Wiegman turned the camera on to the point he finished filming the Hesters. No way.

Go back & look at Trask P374, The third sentence reads;

In a blurry pan to the left Wiegman picks up the Newman family....

Incorrect.

He stops filming at that point, even Gary agrees with that.

The first sequence does not last for 36secs.

Trask was talking about the entire clip as one long run of film, that's what he says & he never mentions Wiegman stopping filming.

Trask actually refers to Gary's & Richard Spaque's work on the timing sequence, so could it be that they too once thought that it was one long unbroken run of film & that's what Trask picked up on?

Alan

Edited February 17, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Jack White]

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem. My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem. I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Jack,

I'm not familiar with Macs, but are you sure it's the OS? I think it would be your browser, not the OS.

I used Netscape 7 for a number of years quite happily. Lately, though, I couldn't log on to online banking, news sites wouldn't work right... and I couldn't upload attachments here anymore (I would just get the "Initializing Attachments" symbol continuously).

I changed to Firefox (which is very similar to my beloved Netscape) and have had no problems anymore.

What browser & version do you currently run? You could download a newer version, or local libraries normally have computer magazines that have software CDs on the cover.

I use MSIE 5 to access the forum, which worked fine till the upgrade. For email

I use Netscape.

When I complained to the forum, I was told only Mac OSX was supported.

It is that way with many newer programs...for instance Flash and Real Player.

Jack

[Alan Healy]

Gary has confirmed that it was a mistake on his part & he apologise for the confusion.

The first part of the Wiegman film can still be used as an unbroken timing reference but not the whole movie, Wiegman stopped filming at least twice to save valuable footage.

They did not have many feet of film in those cameras, this also explains why Bell & Bronson stopped filming when the limo goes out of sight(unless of course........they were edited too), these days we would keep filming in case we miss something, a few seconds of filming time is nothing to us, every second counted back in them days.

Trask's thoughts on the unbroken Wiegman footage were wrong.

I would bet that he too has changed his mind on this since he wrote those words.

Chris, can I ask you why you need a timing sequence, was there something in particular you need time stamped?

Alan

[Chris Davidson]

Gary has confirmed that it was a mistake on his part & he apologise for the confusion.

The first part of the Wiegman film can still be used as an unbroken timing reference but not the whole movie, Wiegman stopped filming at least twice to save valuable footage.

They did not have many feet of film in those cameras, this also explains why Bell & Bronson stopped filming when the limo goes out of sight(unless of course........they were edited too), these days we would keep filming in case we miss something, a few seconds of filming time is nothing to us, every second counted back in them days.

Trask's thoughts on the unbroken Wiegman footage were wrong.

I would bet that he too has changed his mind on this since he wrote those words.

Chris, can I ask you why you need a timing sequence, was there something in particular you need time stamped?

Alan

Alan,

Gary also sent an email to me, conveying his apology.

Now back to Wiegman:

At a little more than 13 seconds into the Groden version, there is a film splice.(Frame Provided)

Until that splice, they sync well. Agreed

The version that was broadcast on 11-22-63 on T.V. shows approx. 36.5 seconds. (Quality lacking).

I previously supplied a stabilizied version of Bell, in which Wiegman is filming the Hesters.(Supplied). Along with Wiegman's footage of the Hester's.

I was told that what I showed are two different points in time, separated by a few seconds.

Mr.Hester pushes off Mrs.Hester once and only once, and it is quite clear to see his arm extend in both movies.

I call that syncing.

I was hoping someone would explain how it doesn't.

Once again:

How can Wiegman's footage of the Hester's be stabilized, when in the Bell movie, Wiegman drops his camera down to his chest? Where's the camera movement reflected in Wiegman's footage of the Hesters.

Wiegman in a later interview says he planted his feet, took the camera off his chest and filmed the Hesters. (supplied .mp3)

chris

Edited February 17, 2007 by Chris Davidson