Miles Scull Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 I see it only in ONE frame; in the other frames it appears to be "a leaf"; and besides, those frames are misnumbered.Jack Jack, somewhere back on the forum (maybe Miles can help for a change, there was a four frame gif that I posted showing Hudson turning his head with the movement of the car. So whether the frames are 1 - 4 or 16 - 20 - or 100 - 104 ... its not their numbers that was an issue here, but whether the person's head is seen in more than one frame. Bill Zapruder actually shows the peak of Hudson "Baseball" type cap turning left & then dropping sharply. Watching it again now it's even more obvious than before. Alan, thx for reviving this gif. Not quite clear on your interesting point. Could you post some individual frames in this sequence & perhaps indicate how you see the "cap turning," as you put it. Cheers Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 very simple solution, make the original 35mm slides (Life magazine) of the alledged, in-camera, Z-film available to researchers... The first result of such a gesture would be that of, YOU Bill Miller falling back into the crowd and simply FADING away towards a new alias...... we can't have that though, can we? Might interrupt your career path climb at the 6th Floor Museum, eh? Help us out here GaryM...... We're not fooled, BM! So, Maestro, the music, up another 10db... there's a Lone Nutter thinking he knows the Z-film.... time to dance..... And who would you recommend that those slides be turned over to for inspection, David??? You - Duncan - who??? The first thing would be to study the camera original as you always say ... slides are mere copies, so it seems odd that you would now want to study copies. (Is this more double-talk on your part) Then you would submit this researchers qualifications and the reasons you have come up with as to why the Zapruder camera original has come into question, but don't let it be someone who is on record saying that they have seen no proof of alteration or you won't get far. LOL!!! You of course, Wild Bill... Then you could do something magnamous, for instance, act like the CT you profess to be and turn the Z-film 35mm slides to real researchers (unlike yourself of course) .... then we could do some KodacolorII film gamma testing together, I could actually show you how to use a densitometer, maybe even show you what the emulsion side of film actually looks like .... show you how real film analysts work.... You game there Red Ryder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) You of course, Wild Bill... Then you could do something magnamous, for instance, act like the CT you profess to be and turn the Z-film 35mm slides to real researchers (unlike yourself of course) .... then we could do some KodacolorII film gamma testing together, I could actually show you how to use a densitometer, maybe even show you what the emulsion side of film actually looks like .... show you how real film analysts work....You game there Red Ryder? So if someone turns over slides to you, then they are considered CTs in your mind .... how interesting. I have a question, why don't you write out your qualifications and detail why someone should allow you to have access to these historical images and then maybe we can get started in the right direction. You see, I don't think that these items will be made available to just any disgruntled lunatic. So let us first see just how sincere you are why you are the man for the job. You see, I'm all for your demonstration on how a real researcher/analyst works because so far you have kept your alleged ability a secret from these forums. Maybe if you can even post some of your preliminary work on alike film images so to show us what you are capable of doing would be a good start. I look forward to seeing what you have done so far ... I mean you have done some preliminary work on this stuff so to at least demonstrate what you can do and how that will apply to the actual images that you are requesting access to - right? And by the way ... what are you again - a CTs or a LNr ... better yet, what were you when you said that you have 'seen no proof of alteration'?? Bill Miller Edited May 29, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 You of course, Wild Bill... Then you could do something magnamous, for instance, act like the CT you profess to be and turn the Z-film 35mm slides to real researchers (unlike yourself of course) .... then we could do some KodacolorII film gamma testing together, I could actually show you how to use a densitometer, maybe even show you what the emulsion side of film actually looks like .... show you how real film analysts work....You game there Red Ryder? You do know which film stock Zapruder used - right??? It might not look good if you requested to see the wrong type of film for the type of test you are wanting to do. I would also like to point out that you have been going on about this stuff for as long as I can remember, so could you please post the letter you sent out requesting access to the slides for testing. It will be good to see when they refused you access .... or even if you were ever serious enough to even make the request in the first place. I look forward to your detailed response! Bill Miller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodacolor_(still_photography) negative film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome positive film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 You of course, Wild Bill... Then you could do something magnamous, for instance, act like the CT you profess to be and turn the Z-film 35mm slides to real researchers (unlike yourself of course) .... then we could do some KodacolorII film gamma testing together, I could actually show you how to use a densitometer, maybe even show you what the emulsion side of film actually looks like .... show you how real film analysts work....You game there Red Ryder? So if someone turns over slides to you, then they are considered CTs in your mind .... how interesting. I have a question, why don't you write out your qualifications and detail why someone should allow you to have access to these historical images and then maybe we can get started in the right direction. You see, I don't think that these items will be made available to just any disgruntled lunatic. So let us first see just how sincere you are why you are the man for the job. You see, I'm all for your demonstration on how a real researcher/analyst works because so far you have kept your alleged ability a secret from these forums. Maybe if you can even post some of your preliminary work on alike film images so to show us what you are capable of doing would be a good start. I look forward to seeing what you have done so far ... I mean you have done some preliminary work on this stuff so to at least demonstrate what you can do and how that will apply to the actual images that you are requesting access to - right? And by the way ... what are you again - a CTs or a LNr ... better yet, what were you when you said that you have 'seen no proof of alteration'?? Bill Miller Tax paying Americans OWN the Z-film son.... have no doubt about that. So nothing is turned over to me per se, just consider me the best steward for the job... Even GaryM and/or Dr. Josiah Thompson can look over my shoulder... The research commuity needs a 35mm dupe set of the LIFE Magazine 4x5's Z-film frame trannie series... Dr. Thompson knows the set. I'll supervise the making of the dupe set from the originals, where-ever the 6th Floor suggests. Monaco Labs, San Francisco comes to mind (my old stomping grounds). As an added plus Monaco is familiar with the Z-film, correct? The research community gets the 35mm (copy) set, the 4x5's stay with the 6th floor museum -- simple as that! You can stop hiding behind your abover nonsense and simply poo-poo the offer, or get off your backside and get your middle-man job completed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 You of course, Wild Bill... Then you could do something magnamous, for instance, act like the CT you profess to be and turn the Z-film 35mm slides to real researchers (unlike yourself of course) .... then we could do some KodacolorII film gamma testing together, I could actually show you how to use a densitometer, maybe even show you what the emulsion side of film actually looks like .... show you how real film analysts work....You game there Red Ryder? So if someone turns over slides to you, then they are considered CTs in your mind .... how interesting. I have a question, why don't you write out your qualifications and detail why someone should allow you to have access to these historical images and then maybe we can get started in the right direction. You see, I don't think that these items will be made available to just any disgruntled lunatic. So let us first see just how sincere you are why you are the man for the job. You see, I'm all for your demonstration on how a real researcher/analyst works because so far you have kept your alleged ability a secret from these forums. Maybe if you can even post some of your preliminary work on alike film images so to show us what you are capable of doing would be a good start. I look forward to seeing what you have done so far ... I mean you have done some preliminary work on this stuff so to at least demonstrate what you can do and how that will apply to the actual images that you are requesting access to - right? And by the way ... what are you again - a CTs or a LNr ... better yet, what were you when you said that you have 'seen no proof of alteration'?? Bill Miller Slow down there son.... Tax paying Americans OWN the Z-film.... have no doubt about that. So nothing is turned over to me per se, just consider me the best steward for the job... Even GaryM and/or Dr. Josiah Thompson can look over my shoulder... The research community needs a 35mm dupe set of the LIFE Magazine 4x5's Z-film frame trannie series... Dr. Thompson knows the set. I'll supervise the making of a dupe set fromTHOSE and ONLY those originals, wherever the 6th Floor suggests. Though Monaco Labs in San Francisco comes to mind (my old stomping grounds). As an added plus Monaco is familiar with the Z-film, correct? The research community gets at **least** a 35mm (copy) set, the 4x5's stay with the 6th floor museum -- simple as that! You can stop hiding behind your above nonsense and simply poo-poo the offer, or get off your backside and get your all-round flunky middle-man job completed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) Slow down there son.... Tax paying Americans OWN the Z-film.... have no doubt about that. So nothing is turned over to me per se, just consider me the best steward for the job... Even GaryM and/or Dr. Josiah Thompson can look over my shoulder...The research community needs a 35mm dupe set of the LIFE Magazine 4x5's Z-film frame trannie series... Dr. Thompson knows the set. I'll supervise the making of a dupe set fromTHOSE and ONLY those originals, wherever the 6th Floor suggests. Though Monaco Labs in San Francisco comes to mind (my old stomping grounds). As an added plus Monaco is familiar with the Z-film, correct? The research community gets at **least** a 35mm (copy) set, the 4x5's stay with the 6th floor museum -- simple as that! You can stop hiding behind your above nonsense and simply poo-poo the offer, or get off your backside and get your all-round flunky middle-man job completed... To start with ... I am not your son. In the past you have complained that nothing but the original film would do ... now you wish to see copies. Can you explain the flip-flop??? The remainder of your ramblings sound like you are attempting to merely get a set of slides. I will ask again ... please show your request to Life Magazine to allow you to examine and/or run test on their slides. I am thinking that you have never made such a request, but here is your chance to show me wrong and to show others that you are just not another pretty face. Bill Miller Edited May 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Alan, thx for reviving this gif. Not quite clear on your interesting point. Could you post some individual frames in this sequence & perhaps indicate how you see the "cap turning," as you put it. Cheers Miles Hi Miles, I did try but, when I reviewed my efforts to highlight it for you they pailed in comparison to the looping crop of Chris's stabilized Z gif that I reposted above. Did you try saving it to your desktop & enlarging it a little in your image previewer? It's the peak of the cap/hat, that suggests the movement & it juts out to the left of the cap itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I just wanted to mention something about Zavada & his thoughts on the films authenticity. According to Doug Horne & DSL, Zavada himself actually requested to cut into one frame of the Zfilm & have it tested in a spectrometer. In other words, the man was very obviously, not fully satisfied with the visual inspection alone, he wanted a scientific one to be 100% sure. He didn't get it but the point is, it's what he wanted. From memory, it was more about kelvin than gamma, something that cannot be checked by eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) Alan, 2 frames looping. Hat stabilized chris Edited May 30, 2008 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Alan,2 frames looping. Hat stabilized chris Thank you Chris, maybe Miles can see the movement in the 18 frame gif now that you have revealed the shape of the cap so clearly? My apologies for the OT nature of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 On 5/3/2008 at 1:36 PM, David G. Healy said: how about... we're told Zapruder rolled film a bit to early to cover the limo procession onto and down Elm Street. -- Its been suggested he stopped filming (not Zapruder testimony) the sequence [a false start if you will] only to restart filming when the Limo entered onto Elm Street (again not Zapruder testimony)... So here's the what IF: suppose Zapruder did NOT stop filming, suppose while filming this "initial" sequence, performing his left to right pan down Elm Street sequence he slowed his pan letting the lead car exit frame right, he then continued (not stopping filming) the pan down Elm Street with the leading edge (right side of the frame) of the frame just behind the lead car which is now out of the frame... He only needs about 8 seconds of a clear Elm Street left to right pan.... What would that leave film compositor with? How about a completely clear, left to right pan down Elm Street.... In short, everything needed to alter the original in-camera original Zapruder film... more than enough to convince the Warren Comission members and staff re shots from the rear AND of course, the SBT! (note: the ONLY audience of Z-film consequence) Is that what happened? Hell, who knows... but tell you what, this scenario goes a long way explaining why we might have a newly Zapruder film composite Elm Street downhill sequence running what appears to be on-the-level and even on a slightly up hill track... Think Hollywood.... "here's the footage, do your magic and above all, make it work! Ya got the most efficient film compositors in the world, Academy Award winning technology, Academy Award winning facilities, unlimimited dollars in the budget and you have 70 days (more than enough time), so get'er it done" also: panning film cameras too fast has serious blur consequences.... books have been written on the very subject, formulas created... professional cinematographers are well aware of the artifacts created by panning too fast This is an interesting angle on Zfilm alteration; an angle that have missed until reading David's post. I would not have bumped the thread but the board is slow right now and I have a question regarding something about which I am curious and have not been able to find an answer. How do posts like this end up with crossed-out text. Mr. Healy, did you edit-in or create the post with the crossed-out text? Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 On 6/3/2018 at 2:36 PM, Michael Clark said: This is an interesting angle on Zfilm alteration; an angle that have missed until reading David's post. I would not have bumped the thread but the board is slow right now and I have a question regarding something about which I am curious and have not been able to find an answer. How do posts like this end up with crossed-out text. Mr. Healy, did you edit-in or create the post with the crossed-out text? Cheers, Michael Nope, wasn't I. Although I'm not the least bit surprised. It's been 10 years to boot. If I recall correctly, this was around the 5/2008 time Rollie Zavada had agreed to debate the merits of film alteration. Right here on the Ed Forum... He was, then he wasn't Rollie was. Then Gary Mack's and Josiah Thompsons' Gang of 8 was all over that like stink on do-do. What a cluster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 DH - I'm fairly sure that Chris and I (mostly Chris) worked thru the corner and found Zapruder did not stop filming at all... and that the arbitrary numbering of frame 133 simply adds 33 frames to what should have been frame #100. Add that to the Myers fallacy about the film speed of Towner and you have a perfect fit... On 6/3/2018 at 2:36 PM, Michael Clark said: He only needs about 8 seconds of a clear Elm Street left to right pan.... I assume you mean to use as a matte... yes? I believe we should also agree that the alteration was done in phases... the original and 4 films are created, not 3... 0184 cannot simply disappear or be skipped over... I theorize this is the split film which was sent to Rowley The trail of THAT film ends with Rowley, yet the film itself simply vanishes... THIS is the film which I see is sent to HAWKEYEWORKS for the first round of alteration ... and shows up in Dino's hands by 10pm Saturday night... A different 16mm film is delivered Sunday night to Homer McMahan. The copies are replaced and we must decide if the information about the FBI getting a film Friday night is accurate... According to Sorrels, he gets 2 films from Zap, sends one to Rowley and gives the other to the FBI - LEAVING HIM WITH NOTHING... The SS lets Zapruder keep both the Original and 1st gen best copy... Does that sound right to you? Phillips on the other hand tells us a different story - and this is where the extra copy comes into existence. If neither one of the 2 Sorrels copies goes to Rowley (2 films), AND Zapruder has the Original and a best copy (2 films) the "third print is forwarded" has to be the 5th film... The film we know today is the same film from which Homer makes his briefing boards... The NPIC notes match the Homer briefing boards and calls into question the 16 v 18 fps problem.... as well as how LIFE determines the frames for shots 1 & 2... A continuous film predominantly shot at 48fps would give the conspirators the greatest leeway to alter as needed in the short term with the HEALY process employed when more time was available - if we feel that was even necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now