Bill Miller Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Jan...Miller is way out of his element here. Ignore him. Kodachrome has nothing to do with it. Copying was likelydone on copy film and exposure compensation made to mimic Kodachrome. Burning the edge markings which say Kodachrome is the simplest part of the fraud. Jack Jack, if you could do what you claim could be done, then you would have done it long ago so to prove your point. I find it first 'amusing' and then 'pathetic' that someone who thinks that on the Zfilm that girls turn into boys - who cannot understand why the parking meters look so tall against people - someone who thinks two people were added to the pedestal in Moorman's photo despite them being seen there in Mary's photo not 35 minutes following the shooting, etc., etc., ... would somehow think he knows more than the lab experts, some the inventors of the very film type in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Compare the south curb as NORMALLY FILMED with the same frame AS FRAMED BY ZAPRUDER.In Zapruder, Jean and Mary are standing TILTED, not vertical. Jack Jack, All the people in the frame are tilted the same as the vertical structures of the limo. Thats what happens when the camera is not being held level. Ooooopps! I forgot that I am supposed to be way over my head ... sorry. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 3, 2008 Author Share Posted May 3, 2008 This man is standing where Newman stood. Should he appear in Zapruder frames?Unfortunately I do not know his height. Jack Jack, This is the only frame/frames I have of someone in front of the car. I believe this to be a little past the 313 spot. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) David - how far ahead (time and/or distance) of JFK's limo was the "lead car" you mention?[...] I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street) as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. -and- Millers: "I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film." I have no idea what the xxxxx is insinuating. Next, I suspect he'll be dragging out a hotblock, glue and a razor blade, insisting he's got the craft down pat..... or perhaps he's under the same illusion the extant film was created between 8mm to 8mm optical film printing systems (which do not exist, btw). At one time Roland Zavada was under the same illusion, till I set him straight.... As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! Edited May 3, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 3, 2008 Author Share Posted May 3, 2008 David - how far ahead (time and/or distance) of JFK's limo was the "lead car" you mention?Chris - apologies, I wasn't terribly clear because I was essentially thinking aloud about how the process of alteration might have worked technically. I'm sure you are all several steps ahead of me. I was thinking about how travelling mattes might have been used to manipulate the image in the final Zapruder frames, and what kind of knock-on problems (eg the unnatural orientation of individual figures) such alteration might have caused. This tape (clearly based in part on the Costello research) shows how one of the clear orientation problems (the eyeline of the woman in red) might have been caused by separation of foreground and background and then putting them back together out of their natural timeline, ie out of sync (c2:20): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DLqjqTbIPU Jack - that's an intriguing suggestion. Shiny cars are notoriously reflective, and as such are the bane of directors & cameraman's lives because they're forever showing "stuff" you want to hide. So running with this for a moment, does that mean that the position of the Presidential limo would have to have been dropped lower in frame, whilst the background grass & spectators (separated by a travelling matte) has been blown up to fill more of the frame? Is that the suggestion at the technical level? Jan, This animation might give you a better idea, at least visually, of how ridiculous the Zframe centering is. It is the previous frame I posted for Jack, superimposed with Zframe 313. Sprocket holes line up, and frame size is the same, approx. Both shot with B/H 414 at the telephoto setting. Only my opinion of course, but I believe it speaks volumes. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Compare the south curb as NORMALLY FILMED with the same frame AS FRAMED BY ZAPRUDER.In Zapruder, Jean and Mary are standing TILTED, not vertical. Jack Jack, All the people in the frame are tilted the same as the vertical structures of the limo. Thats what happens when the camera is not being held level. Ooooopps! I forgot that I am supposed to be way over my head ... sorry. Bill Better call in Lamson and Thompson for help. Maybe Larry Peters also. Try to keep your head above water. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 3, 2008 Author Share Posted May 3, 2008 David - how far ahead (time and/or distance) of JFK's limo was the "lead car" you mention?[...] I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street) as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. -and- Millers: "I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film." I have no idea what the xxxxx is insinuating. Next, I suspect he'll be dragging out a hotblock, glue and a razor blade, insisting he's got the craft down pat..... or perhaps he's under the same illusion the extant film was created between 8mm to 8mm optical film printing systems (which do not exist, btw). At one time Roland Zavada was under the same illusion, till I set him straight.... As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! David, Interesting you should bring that 8mm to 35mm conversion process up. February 25: LIFE photo lab assistant chief Herbert Orth brought the original film to a meeting of Commission staff, FBI and Secret Service, and projected it several times. He volunteered to make 35mm transparencies, and by April produced three sets of 159 slides: for the FBI, Secret Service and the Commission, of frames 171 through 334. In the 1966 Life magazine photos, the ones with the sprocket holes, my guess is these were made from those 35mm transparencies. They already had them back in 1964 created by Life's lab assistant Orth. Why use anything else. How did I reach that conclusion. Frame 230 which they ran on the cover when scaled to fit my frames leaves mine a bit narrower. If I widen mine to fit, the aspect ratio becomes 1:37 to 1. What's the aspect ratio of 35mm film.? You got it, 1:37:1 Then size those to fit the MPI frames and the relationship between sprocket hole/frame content is a match. Your expertise and input is always appreciated, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 (edited) David - how far ahead (time and/or distance) of JFK's limo was the "lead car" you mention?[...] I suspect 10 seconds, at least.... sufficent time and unexposed film remain running at 18.3fps... (notice when Zapruder picked up limo, it was well past the turn onto Elm Street) as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. -and- Millers: "I bet you didn't find anything showing David Healy altering Kodachrome II film." I have no idea what the xxxxx is insinuating. Next, I suspect he'll be dragging out a hotblock, glue and a razor blade, insisting he's got the craft down pat..... or perhaps he's under the same illusion the extant film was created between 8mm to 8mm optical film printing systems (which do not exist, btw). At one time Roland Zavada was under the same illusion, till I set him straight.... As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! David, Interesting you should bring that 8mm to 35mm conversion process up. February 25: LIFE photo lab assistant chief Herbert Orth brought the original film to a meeting of Commission staff, FBI and Secret Service, and projected it several times. He volunteered to make 35mm transparencies, and by April produced three sets of 159 slides: for the FBI, Secret Service and the Commission, of frames 171 through 334. In the 1966 Life magazine photos, the ones with the sprocket holes, my guess is these were made from those 35mm transparencies. They already had them back in 1964 created by Life's lab assistant Orth. Why use anything else. How did I reach that conclusion. Frame 230 which they ran on the cover when scaled to fit my frames leaves mine a bit narrower. If I widen mine to fit, the aspect ratio becomes 1:37 to 1. What's the aspect ratio of 35mm film.? You got it, 1:37:1 Then size those to fit the MPI frames and the relationship between sprocket hole/frame content is a match. Your expertise and input is always appreciated, chris Isn't film amazing? Also of interest, we now have to take for granted (at least some do) the last time the in-camera original Zapruder Film was laced up in a projector. That was during the Garrison fiasco in NO..... not provable, other than taking the FBI's word for it..... I doubt, seriously doubt this historical "original" piece of celluloid ran in the courtroom that day... perhaps one of the four, excuse me, one of the three Jamieson optical prints.... certainly not the in-camera original. Now, if that is accurate, then the last known (alleged known) time the in-camera original was laced up in a projector, was during a WC gathering in Washington D.C., late Feb 1964.... and finally, before that, Nov 22nd at KODAK and Jamison Dallas labs.... Edited May 4, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 4, 2008 Author Share Posted May 4, 2008 But, to film a car at 10 mph down Elm, and not keep it close to center frame is mind boggling. Hey Chris - I did an amateur 'study' with this in mind in Jan of 2004. Not sure where all of it went, but what I was going for was the idea of reshooting the film through the same camera - with the idea of starting with a larger action area projected. - hence the ghosts that do not appear to make sense, allowing Kennedy to trail along your bottom and almost off the frame, etc. Holding center some 15' above Kennedy's head is just amazing. It would be interesting to do an animation, keeping Kennedy in center, and see what the result would look like. - lee Lee, I do have segments shot at a wider angle setting with the B/H 414. If I follow you correctly, I could try enlarging it to match the telephoto setting and go from there. Will need some guidance from you. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 But, to film a car at 10 mph down Elm, and not keep it close to center frame is mind boggling. Hey Chris - I did an amateur 'study' with this in mind in Jan of 2004. Not sure where all of it went, but what I was going for was the idea of reshooting the film through the same camera - with the idea of starting with a larger action area projected. - hence the ghosts that do not appear to make sense, allowing Kennedy to trail along your bottom and almost off the frame, etc. Holding center some 15' above Kennedy's head is just amazing. It would be interesting to do an animation, keeping Kennedy in center, and see what the result would look like. - lee Lee, I do have segments shot at a wider angle setting with the B/H 414. If I follow you correctly, I could try enlarging it to match the telephoto setting and go from there. Will need some guidance from you. chris Hey Chris - anything I can do to help - absolutely. I think you will find that there are quite a few people willing to support you. Fantastic work. Count me in as a great admirer. You're doing God's work... Found a few more pieces of that study...it's not relevant - just something interesting to consider. I look forward to the telephoto setting. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. I find it funny that nowhere in the Hoax book did you mention that position. As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! Zavada disagrees with you ... Groden disagrees with you ... the many experts that Mack has met and worked with have not agreed with you .... maybe you can just tell us what experts agree with you on your data concerning Kodachrome II Film? How about at least telling the forum where the data can be found in support of what you just said??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Better call in Lamson and Thompson for help. Maybe Larry Peters also. Try to keep your head above water. Jack How about some factual data in support of your claim ... you and Healy both will make claims as if based on fact, but you have not any data to support what you say. I want to share what another researcher said to me about the foolishness some of you bring to the topic .... "Poor Jack White, he thinks Bill Newman should be visible in the Z film, yet he has no idea how tall or short the man is. Bill is alive and well " " " " and he's even listed in the telephone book where he lives within about 50 miles of Jack. A real researcher would ask Bill for his height and then test people of various heights in Newman's position. But of course no real researchers support the alteration theory. Then there's Chris Davidson, who selects from among a few hundred frames just two frames that happen to show similar views and then claims similar views cannot possibly happen. Circular logic at its most ridiculous. Then Chris compares his own test film with Zapruder's and finds they don't match; what he actually found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection." Is it any wonder that the tabloids won't even touch the claims found from the alteration crowd. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Better call in Lamson and Thompson for help. Maybe Larry Peters also. Try to keep your head above water. Jack How about some factual data in support of your claim ... you and Healy both will make claims as if based on fact, but you have not any data to support what you say. I want to share what another researcher said to me about the foolishness some of you bring to the topic .... "Poor Jack White, he thinks Bill Newman should be visible in the Z film, yet he has no idea how tall or short the man is. Bill is alive and well " " " " and he's even listed in the telephone book where he lives within about 50 miles of Jack. A real researcher would ask Bill for his height and then test people of various heights in Newman's position. But of course no real researchers support the alteration theory. Then there's Chris Davidson, who selects from among a few hundred frames just two frames that happen to show similar views and then claims similar views cannot possibly happen. Circular logic at its most ridiculous. Then Chris compares his own test film with Zapruder's and finds they don't match; what he actually found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection." Is it any wonder that the tabloids won't even touch the claims found from the alteration crowd. Bill Miller I know how tall Bill Newman is. Why do you say I don't? He is not a tall person, probably no taller than 5'9". I have talked to him on several occasions, and I'd say he's about five inches shorter than I am. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing. I find it funny that nowhere in the Hoax book did you mention that position. As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too! Zavada disagrees with you ... Groden disagrees with you ... the many experts that Mack has met and worked with have not agreed with you .... maybe you can just tell us what experts agree with you on your data concerning Kodachrome II Film? How about at least telling the forum where the data can be found in support of what you just said??? Miller does not understand the technical aspects of film copying. Disregarding Technicolor, which is/was a three-color filter separation process, many movies were filmed in Kodachrome. COPYING PROCESSES were developed whereby PERFECT DUPLICATES COULD BE MADE FROM ORIGINALS. If this were not so, the motion picture industry would have been in trouble. When done by experts, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH MAKING EXACT DUPLICATES FROM KODACHROME ORIGINALS. Miller does not understand low-contrast copy film. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 (edited) Also of interest, we now have to take for granted (at least some do) the last time the in-camera original Zapruder Film was laced up in a projector. That was during the Garrison fiasco in NO..... not provable, other than taking the FBI's word for it..... I doubt, seriously doubt this historical "original" piece of celluloid ran in the courtroom that day... perhaps one of the four, excuse me, one of the three Jamieson optical prints.... certainly not the in-camera original. Now, if that is accurate, then the last known (alleged known) time the in-camera original was laced up in a projector, was during a WC gathering in Washington D.C., late Feb 1964.... and finally, before that, Nov 22nd at KODAK and Jamison Dallas labs.... David,Are you even aware that you contradict the things you have said in the past. You have posted, and truthfully so, that with each generation copy print from the original comes a loss of clarity. The original film will be sharp and the colors correct for the type of film being used. But with multi-generation copies comes a noticeable loss of clarity and color shifting. I have never seen you address these processes that would allegedly cause an expert to not spot the differences. Groden, a well known conspiracy supporter, has said that the film he examined and studied was in his opinion the camera original. Zavada, who invented the type of film being discussed has also validated the Zapruder film as being the camera original. So is it your position that an expert in Kodachrome II film would not first know the difference between an original film and a copy print? Is it your position that you know more than the experts do concerning Kodachrome II film?? Below is two alike film frames ... I think that even someone with the slightest understanding of this type of film could spot some of these changes. Bill Miller Edited May 4, 2008 by Bill Miller 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