|
|
 September 09, 2010, 11:46:04 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Recently, I have discussed numerically consecutive frames of the Zapruder film that show considerable movements of arms without the expected motion blurs. I attributed these discrepancies to tampering with the film. The defenders of the Zapruder film responded in an unexpected manner. Instead of hearing far-fetched excuses for the contents of the film, they launched shrill attacks that escalated into obnoxious tirades. These tactics show that the defenders of the film fear an understanding motion blurs. I warn the shrills that the following rewording my earlier arguments may cause motion sickness. Z-224 shows a spectator on the north peristyle with his arm raised sixty degrees from the apparent position of that arm on Z-223. These frames portend that the arm rotated through an angle of sixty degrees in one-eighteenth of a second without producing the expected motion blur.  By contrast the clapping hands of a spectator on the north infield grass that moved a few inches as opposed to a couple of feet show motion blurs on Z-223 and Z-224. The absence of motion blurs of the arm on Z-223 and Z-224 required that the arm accelerated after exposure of Z-223, reached a maximum angular speed and decelerated to near rest prior to exposure of Z-224. I contend that these motions in the 1/36 second between exposures are humanly impossible and constitute proof of tampering with the Zapruder film. Similar problems arise from the positions of Toni Foster's arm on numerically consecutive frames.  Z-317 shows the forearm of Toni Foster resting horizontally across her mid section while Z-318 shows the arm with practically the same shape and size as on Z-317 yet rotated by approximately thirty degrees. The absence of a motion blur demanded that the forearm accelerated from rotational rest, reached a maximum angular speed then decelerated to rotational rest during the 1/36 second interval between the two exposures. These humanly impossible motions expose the images of Toni Foster on Z-317 and Z-318 as not chronologically ordered.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 12:29:09 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1374
|
Poor Herbert, what a thread title, I see its YOU who is running scared. Whats the matter, you afraid to confront your obvious errors in the other thread so you start a new one so you can hide away? Why such a chicken? In any case, you can't seem to accurately identify the sources of blur in the Zapruder film, so how in the world can you discuss them with any intelligence? Since you can't identify them and you can't uncouple them you are still just farting into a headwind. Recently, I have discussed numerically consecutive frames of the Zapruder film that show considerable movements of arms without the expected motion blurs. I attributed these discrepancies to tampering with the film. The defenders of the Zapruder film responded in an unexpected manner. Instead of hearing far-fetched excuses for the contents of the film, they launched shrill attacks that escalated into obnoxious tirades. These tactics show that the defenders of the film fear an understanding motion blurs. I warn the shrills that the following rewording my earlier arguments may cause motion sickness. Z-224 shows a spectator on the north peristyle with his arm raised sixty degrees from the apparent position of that arm on Z-223. These frames portend that the arm rotated through an angle of sixty degrees in one-eighteenth of a second without producing the expected motion blur. By contrast the clapping hands of a spectator on the north infield grass that moved a few inches as opposed to a couple of feet show motion blurs on Z-223 and Z-224. The absence of motion blurs of the arm on Z-223 and Z-224 required that the arm accelerated after exposure of Z-223, reached a maximum angular speed and decelerated to near rest prior to exposure of Z-224. I contend that these motions in the 1/36 second between exposures are humanly impossible and constitute proof of tampering with the Zapruder film. Similar problems arise from the positions of Toni Foster's arm on numerically consecutive frames. Z-317 shows the forearm of Toni Foster resting horizontally across her mid section while Z-318 shows the arm with practically the same shape and size as on Z-317 yet rotated by approximately thirty degrees. The absence of a motion blur demanded that the forearm accelerated from rotational rest, reached a maximum angular speed then decelerated to rotational rest during the 1/36 second interval between the two exposures. These humanly impossible motions expose the images of Toni Foster on Z-317 and Z-318 as not chronologically ordered.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 03:09:33 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 623
|
The first is set at .06 sec between frames, which should equate to approx 18FPS. The second has a longer gap to show the amount of motion between succeeding frames. Just examples for anyone interested. chris  
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 04:01:10 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1374
|
Thanks Chris... The first is set at .06 sec between frames, which should equate to approx 18FPS. The second has a longer gap to show the amount of motion between succeeding frames. Just examples for anyone interested. chris
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 01:01:15 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
The first is set at .06 sec between frames, which should equate to approx 18FPS. The second has a longer gap to show the amount of motion between succeeding frames. Just examples for anyone interested. chris Thanks for the videos. I note that the arm accelerated downward as it gained speed and produced a stronger motion blur on frame three.  The surrounding frames show that the arm primarily rotated about the elbow when near maximum speed. On the next cycle, frame nine captured the stronger motion blur.  Knowing the exposure time of the camera would enable comparing these frames with those of Zapruder. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 05:36:45 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Hey Craig, I'm curious...
Have you ever ran into any claim of photo/video fakery that held up to scrutiny?
I'm guessing not, so I'll ask another question...
Have you ever seen any photo/video evidence that supported conspiracy in another, more indirect fashion? For example, evidence that objects were manipulated from one photo to another. Or that photos supposedly taken in succession were actually some time apart. Something like that.
Thanks
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 05:46:52 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1374
|
Hey Craig, I'm curious...
Have you ever ran into any claim of photo/video fakery that held up to scrutiny?
I'm guessing not, so I'll ask another question...
Have you ever seen any photo/video evidence that supported conspiracy in another, more indirect fashion? For example, evidence that objects were manipulated from one photo to another. Or that photos supposedly taken in succession were actually some time apart. Something like that.
Thanks
Sure I've seen photos that were altered and the claims to that effect were correct. Have I seen any photo evidence in the JFK case with claims alteration to be correct? Nope. Does not mean that that there is none, I've just not seen it.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 06:11:48 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Hey Craig, I'm curious...
Have you ever ran into any claim of photo/video fakery that held up to scrutiny?
I'm guessing not, so I'll ask another question...
Have you ever seen any photo/video evidence that supported conspiracy in another, more indirect fashion? For example, evidence that objects were manipulated from one photo to another. Or that photos supposedly taken in succession were actually some time apart. Something like that.
Thanks
Sure I've seen photos that were altered and the claims to that effect were correct. Have I seen any photo evidence in the JFK case with claims alteration to be correct? Nope. Does not mean that that there is none, I've just not seen it. Thanks for your reply. I enjoy reading your posts. How much is your disinfo agent salary anyway? Ha! Kidding. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 06:12:58 PM by Rob Stewart »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2010, 06:48:35 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1374
|
It's 4 cents a word but the feds are really slow payers... Hey Craig, I'm curious...
Have you ever ran into any claim of photo/video fakery that held up to scrutiny?
I'm guessing not, so I'll ask another question...
Have you ever seen any photo/video evidence that supported conspiracy in another, more indirect fashion? For example, evidence that objects were manipulated from one photo to another. Or that photos supposedly taken in succession were actually some time apart. Something like that.
Thanks
Sure I've seen photos that were altered and the claims to that effect were correct. Have I seen any photo evidence in the JFK case with claims alteration to be correct? Nope. Does not mean that that there is none, I've just not seen it. Thanks for your reply. I enjoy reading your posts. How much is your disinfo agent salary anyway? Ha! Kidding.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
