|
|
 April 23, 2011, 03:12:26 AM
|
Jr. Member
Posts: 60
After all... We are not Communists.
|
It has been said that nobody was behind the fence during the attack. It has also been said that the smoke seen on the GK is exhaust or steam.
I demonstrated multiple people on the overpass who saw smoke which coincided with the attack.
This is not a point that an assassin fired. This is a point that SOMEONE was there.
Holland, Dodd, Murphy, and ilk, all described a puff of smoke.All unanimously describe it as smoke, steam or exhaust. None describe a massive cloud, or a lasting smoke. Merely a 'puff' as if off that of a cigarette.
Immediately following the shooting, Holland and ilk made their way around the overpass, to behind the fence in the parking lot. A 'sea of cars'. When they got to the spot where they saw the smoke, they found numerous tracks. Described, as hundreds. It can be noted, that it rained, and as Bill Brown pointed out, the parking lot was unpaved. Naturally foot prints were everywhere. However, the description of this spot where the smoke was seen was indicated to be isolated. As if someone was walking back and forth along the fence-line. Several cigarette butts were discovered in this particular spot. Mud was discovered to have been scraped off on the bumper of a car parked very near the fence, as well as on the wooden planks within the fence itself.
Moorman took her infamous photo fractions of a second after Kennedy was hit (this is the consensus). In the photo, a figure, as if only the top of an individuals head can be seen in the exact spot Holland and ilk saw the smoke. This figure is not imaginative. It takes to crayons or cinematic interpretation to identify. It is proportionately accurate to an individual directly behind the fence, whether they are rather short a tad over 5 feet) or they are crouching/ducking. This image has yet to be replicated.
The ultimate point here, is that all indications point to SOMEONE being in that particular spot. I would like to ask the members of this board whether this is the case or not.
My contention is that whoever this person was, may have been smoking, and was behind the fence. I think there is more than enough reason to conclude this.
The steam pipe is not in the correct area to cause the possible puff of smoke. Car exhaust is not ruled out, but considering the uniformity of the motorcade, and the coinciding of the puff WITH the shooting (not after as many claim), seem to rule this out.
This spot has a possible image in the Moorman photo.
This spot had hundreds of footprints after the shooting.
This spot had several cigarette butts strewn about.
This spot had mud on the bumpers of a car parked right up to the fence.
This spot had mud on the fence itself.
There was someone there during the attack.
-------------------------
-------------------------
After all... We are not Communists.
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 11:10:24 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2355
Germany
|
But it is MY point that alteration to the zfilm would be detectable. What is your point in showing something that is easily detectable? I don't get it.
Wouldn't you want to prove your point by demonstrating something that is difficult, or impossible, to detect?
demonstrate how you detect that this is a fake. 
-------------------------
-------------------------
"ich bin ein Berliner" As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 11:30:38 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
demonstrate how you detect that this is a fake.
I can't demonstrate in and of itself that it is a fake. Obviously it does not match the same frame of the actual zapruder film but that is not a valid way to detect that it has been altered, as I assume you would correctly point out. If you had simply asked I would readily agree that a still frame can be altered in such a way that most people would be unable to detect it. I would even say that one could be altered such that it would be extremely difficult or even impossible for an expert to detect it using sophisticated tools. But this is a STILL with relatively minor alterations. My statement refers to the MOTION PICTURE FILM known as the zapruder film and altering it in such a way that it is undetectable. Motion has always been the centerpiece of my assertion that it could not have been altered undetectably to the extent that most CT proponents of alteration claim.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 11:55:30 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
No. You are not playing on a level field. You digitally manipulated the frame. In 1963 someone trying to alter the film would have had to do it by hand. Its not even close to a fair representation of the methods they had back in 1963.
If you crazy alterationist CTs are going to go down this road, at least be honest about it. Otherwise don't waste my time or insult my intelligence.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 12:00:57 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Slightly related, there was an article about how to tell that someone was creating a hoax by altering a digital photo. The altered photo shows Sarah Palin's daughter giving the middle finger to a little boy. By examining the individual pixels he could tell that she was actually holding up two fingers and a hoaxster electronically airbrushed out the index finger. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login  teehee 
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 12:02:33 AM by Garret Maki »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 12:05:37 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
No. You are not playing on a level field. You digitally manipulated the frame. In 1963 someone trying to alter the film would have had to do it by hand. Its not even close to a fair representation of the methods they had back in 1963.
If you crazy alterationist CTs are going to go down this road, at least be honest about it. Otherwise don't waste my time or insult my intelligence.
I agree, but it is even more significant that it is just a still that is being altered, not motion. Motion makes it a LOT more difficult.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 01:52:31 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 753
|
No. You are not playing on a level field. You digitally manipulated the frame. In 1963 someone trying to alter the film would have had to do it by hand. Its not even close to a fair representation of the methods they had back in 1963.
If you crazy alterationist CTs are going to go down this road, at least be honest about it. Otherwise don't waste my time or insult my intelligence.
Geoff You're right the example above is pointless, it was done with digital technology and only one frame, the sky's the limit using this technology even for an amateur, but in 1963 optical compositing and image manipulation was very hands on, requiring real artistic skills and each altered layer would degrade the picture exponentially, which drastically alters the original grain, and easily exposes any alteration. Here's an example from 1977. Using a massive special effects crew with the best talent in Hollywood. The ugly smear here is an attempt to simply paint out some wheels, what CTer's expect from the altered Zapruder/Muchmore/Nix films is simply naive and is still not possible today.  By 1980 optical compositing still was not digital and if anyone thinks that they cut and pasted the limo and crowd using this technology are dreamin!  These people need to accept that the Zapruder Film is what it is, and the same goes for the Back Yard Photo's. Do conspiracy theorist's think that the government/CIA/FBI had some top secret extensive photo laboratory using techniques that could only be "alien" in origin, which nicely tie into the faked Moon photo's?  JohnM
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 10:20:35 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2355
Germany
|
No. You are not playing on a level field. You digitally manipulated the frame. In 1963 someone trying to alter the film would have had to do it by hand. Its not even close to a fair representation of the methods they had back in 1963.
If you crazy alterationist CTs are going to go down this road, at least be honest about it. Otherwise don't waste my time or insult my intelligence.
I did it "by hand", just digitally. I used layers in a program that supports transparency and feathering, that is all you need. ever seen how animators work, ever heard of cel and animation stand, feathering is no invention of the digital age. think about it. "in motion" would just take more talent, but it can be done, it is just a bit more time consuming. People who claim my faked image is detectable still have to furnish proof that it was altered, claiming that it looks fake etc does not count. Factual demonstration that proof the alteration. "STar Wars" does not count either *lol*
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 10:36:28 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 753
|
I did it "by hand", just digitally.
I used layers in a program that supports transparency and feathering, that is all you need.
ever seen how animators work, ever heard of cel and animation stand, feathering is no invention of the digital age.
think about it.
"in motion" would just take more talent, but it can be done, it is just a bit more time consuming.
People who claim my faked image is detectable still have to furnish proof that it was altered, claiming that it looks fake etc does not count. Factual demonstration that proof the alteration.
"STar Wars" does not count either *lol*
Gerda This is very interesting, how much of the Zapruder film do you think is faked? How did they get all the film(Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder are in perfect co-ordination) and independent photo's to match each other? How did they paint perfect motion blur? When they combined images on an animation stand how did they eliminate the additional grain? How did they create the ghost images in the sprocket area? How did they make hundreds of frames of photorealistic animation in days, and where, who do you think had the expertise in 1963? Do you even understand any of this? JohnM
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 11:23:55 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2355
Germany
|
Gerda
This is very interesting, how much of the Zapruder film do you think is faked?
How did they get all the film(Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder are in perfect co-ordination) and independent photo's to match each other?
How did they paint perfect motion blur?
When they combined images on an animation stand how did they eliminate the additional grain?
How did they create the ghost images in the sprocket area?
How did they make hundreds of frames of photorealistic animation in days, and where, who do you think had the expertise in 1963?
Do you even understand any of this?
JohnM
If there is anything faked then it probably is the headwound. I don't believe in traveling matte or anything of that magnitude. Just minor changes in regards to the haedwound and probably some grass flying up or a hit on the asphalt. It just takes a bit of retouching or a faked scratchmark, dirt etc which hides something like an impact on the curb etc. If faked, then on a low level. If faked what would they want to hide: impacts or wounds mostly, does not take much to retouch it and get away with it imo.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 11:39:06 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2139
|
If there is anything faked then it probably is the headwound. I don't believe in traveling matte or anything of that magnitude. Just minor changes in regards to the haedwound and probably some grass flying up or a hit on the asphalt. It just takes a bit of retouching or a faked scratchmark, dirt etc which hides something like an impact on the curb etc.
If faked, then on a low level. If faked what would they want to hide: impacts or wounds mostly, does not take much to retouch it and get away with it imo.
Exactly  Muchmore didn't show many frames beyond the head shot, so attention to the head wound only. Nix was filming at a greater distance away, and again shows no real detail past the head shot. That leaves just Zapruder. Ever notice the appearance of Kennedy's hair on the back of his head just after the head shot?  It looks to be "brushed in" to me....unnatural, and in the clearer frames it just looks kind of "fluffed" out...like it has static cling or static electricity to it. Looks fake to me. All the blurred frames past the head shot would require nothing. Just the clearer ones. And I also agree with Gerda...impacts that would only require minimal work like scratches, dust, etc. to conceal on the sharper frames.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 11:57:19 AM by Rick Needham »
|
-------------------------
But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people- John F. Kennedy
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2012, 05:02:42 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
If there is anything faked then it probably is the headwound. I don't believe in traveling matte or anything of that magnitude. Just minor changes in regards to the haedwound and probably some grass flying up or a hit on the asphalt. It just takes a bit of retouching or a faked scratchmark, dirt etc which hides something like an impact on the curb etc.
If faked, then on a low level. If faked what would they want to hide: impacts or wounds mostly, does not take much to retouch it and get away with it imo.
If you had just said that to me earlier I would have agreed with you. I agree that it is possible the head wound and especially the spray direction COULD have been faked. I don't think it was but on the narrow topic of whether or no it is (or might be) possible I would readily stipulate. I am referring to stuff like the speed or location of the limo was changed, that people were added, removed or repositioned. The key with the head wound, and especially the spray is that it appears and disappears very rapidly, so that to fake it one would not have perfectly track weave and camera shake. the spray itself essentially appears in one frame, and then is gone, so faking it would be very similar to altering a single frame, or maybe just a few frames. I still don't believe it happened for a lot of other reasons, but that level of alteration MAY be possible as far as I know.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 305
|
Meaning that the Zapruder film is, without a doubt, altered?
I would assume that any prudent researchers would have also noticed, that not unlike those frames of the film in the Z210 range, there is another frame of the film past Z313 in which the sprocket holes are also missing.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
