lux wrote:Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.
CryptoAnarchist wrote:lux wrote:Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.
good point...but not entirely accurate. The cameraman didn't move, but the actual lens moved from side to side. Not enough to make any difference? Do an experiment: go outside and look at something about 15 feet away against something 30-45 feet away and just move your head from side to side. There is a definite perspective change.
lux wrote:CryptoAnarchist wrote:lux wrote:Neither does the sign, the trees, the bystanders or any other stationary object. Why should they move against the background? They would only appear to move against he background if the camera position moved but it doesn't -- it only pans left to right from the same position.
good point...but not entirely accurate. The cameraman didn't move, but the actual lens moved from side to side. Not enough to make any difference? Do an experiment: go outside and look at something about 15 feet away against something 30-45 feet away and just move your head from side to side. There is a definite perspective change.
Sorry, but a camera lens and a head with 2 eyes (and thus stereo, 3D vision) are not directly analogous. Panning a motion picture camera alone won't cause foreground objects to appear to move appreciably in relation to the background unless, perhaps, an extreme wide-angle lens is being used which is not the case here.
You also sort of skipped over the fact that none of the other stationary object (the sign, etc) appear to move either (nor should they).
I'm not saying the film wasn't altered. There's plenty of evidence for that. It's just that the unmoving lamp pole isn't part of it.
CryptoAnarchist wrote:
Let me clarify: Do the experiment I said earlier with one eye shut. Your one eye will see the foreground object move against the background object as you move your head from side to side. That's really only a few inches that your eye moves but it makes the closer object move much more in relation to the background. Now figure in that a camera being held by someone would make a wider arc and thus an even bigger perspective change.
lux wrote:CryptoAnarchist wrote:
Let me clarify: Do the experiment I said earlier with one eye shut. Your one eye will see the foreground object move against the background object as you move your head from side to side. That's really only a few inches that your eye moves but it makes the closer object move much more in relation to the background. Now figure in that a camera being held by someone would make a wider arc and thus an even bigger perspective change.
Let me put it this way:
According to your logic ALL the stationary objects in the clip, the trees, the people, the sign -- everything, must be fake because they don't move in relation to the background. Let me re-iterate: ALL the stationary objects. Repeat: ALL OF THEM are fake according to your eyeball experiment logic. Correct?
If not them then please explain why you are picking out the lamppost alone as being fake.
reel.deal wrote:no doubt about it...
Connelly & his wife still get violently thrown outta their seats into the footwells - 'emergency stop'.
what the Zapruder film depicts is that the cavalcade is a cutout spliced approx 3 seconds ahead of the background.
the JFK limo is simply 'motion' animated to disguise the 2 seconds dead-stop for the hit to occur, its as plain as day.reel.deal wrote:Zapruder Fakery: Frame Deletions & Reassignment
The DEFINITIVE Zapruder composite breakdown...
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNsrGgyoIgoJFK FRAMED
WHERE'S JACKIE & JOHN THEN ?
DUNNO ! ...THEY SHOULD BE HERE... ANY MINUTE !!!
Terence.drew wrote:the driver of the limo, William Greer, shot Kennedy
reel.deal wrote:Terence.drew wrote:the driver of the limo, William Greer, shot Kennedy
...dont buy it. ...the 'pistol' is the front passenger spooks' shiny slicked-back brylcream hair...
Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests