Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder film alteration expertise examples


Recommended Posts

all the posturing isn't getting Miller's film/photo qualifications posted. I could care less whether he, Miller or Thompson, Meagher, Weisberg believe that JFK was murder via a conspiracy. Frankly I find it a supreme insult that Miller's name is grouped with those esteem investigators -- What's your excuse for that, Carroll?

My expertise has been in the interpretation of the images on the films and photos. As far as being a researcher .. I will weigh the amount of data in my post against yours any day. Here is an example of your research ability ... you will tell this forum that you have Fielding on your side, while an actual letter from Fielding says just the opposite of your position. Need I say more.

I get these sorts of messages from posting members and lurkers all the time ...

1)"Bill,

I like to keep an open mind about things, as I figure I don't have all the answers. However, I honestly find the "massive film alteration" school of thought to be a bit of a stretch...

Obviously, Mr. Healey has not seen your work over on Lancer... To call you a "Lone Nutter" is beyond laughable -- it is utterly preposterous."

2)"I think you have nearly kicked that poor Healy & White tag team to bits."

3)"I'm almost getting to where I can't stand to read these posts any more. The abject stupidity of these photo alteration groupies is overwhelming me. Anyway, just a note to commend you on keeping the fight alive for rational logic."

4)"i wasn't pointing at you, its just healy gets in there and quotes a four page post to reply "you are stupid " etc etc...

your answers are intellegent, its the others that seem to piss me off the most."

How about some Healy positions on his research ... 'I have not sen any proof of alteration' ... 'I believe the Zapruder film is altered'. Yes, David ... that is a fine contribution on your part.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

all the posturing isn't getting Miller's film/photo qualifications posted. I could care less whether he, Miller or Thompson, Meagher, Weisberg believe that JFK was murder via a conspiracy. Frankly I find it a supreme insult that Miller's name is grouped with those esteem investigators -- What's your excuse for that, Carroll?

My expertise has been in the interpretation of the images on the films and photos. As far as being a researcher .. I will weigh the amount of data in my post against yours any day. Here is an example of your research ability ... you will tell this forum that you have Fielding on your side, while an actual letter from Fielding says just the opposite of your position. Need I say more.

I get these sorts of messages from posting members and lurkers all the time ...

1)"Bill,

I like to keep an open mind about things, as I figure I don't have all the answers. However, I honestly find the "massive film alteration" school of thought to be a bit of a stretch...

Obviously, Mr. Healey has not seen your work over on Lancer... To call you a "Lone Nutter" is beyond laughable -- it is utterly preposterous."

2)"I think you have nearly kicked that poor Healy & White tag team to bits."

3)"I'm almost getting to where I can't stand to read these posts any more. The abject stupidity of these photo alteration groupies is overwhelming me. Anyway, just a note to commend you on keeping the fight alive for rational logic."

4)"i wasn't pointing at you, its just healy gets in there and quotes a four page post to reply "you are stupid " etc etc...

your answers are intellegent, its the others that seem to piss me off the most."

How about some Healy positions on his research ... 'I have not sen any proof of alteration' ... 'I believe the Zapruder film is altered'. Yes, David ... that is a fine contribution on your part.

Bill

My position is in HOAX, read it someday! And we just keep on atick'n... so, all the dodging and weaving isn't adding ANY credibility to your film/photo expertise question, Bill. Your supporters not withstanding, what praytell do they know about film/photo alteration? I suspect the same as you, NOTHING!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as they say: yee who squeals the loudest has something to hide..... now, your film/photo qualifications are?

I certainly agree with that, David. I think you post about as much as I do and if we was to put all the data in total that you bring to your responses - that they wouldn't fill the space on the label of a packet of 'Sweet n' Low'. You do know that just because you copy the previous message with your response - that it doesn't really mean that YOU have said anything. Maybe you'll like the personal message I got from a lurker that I never see post here ...

a wink and a nod, May 26 2006, 01:35 PM

Experienced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 84

Member No.: 3373

Joined: 22-August 05

hey bill,

i wasn't pointing at you, its just """" and healy get in there and quote a four page post to reply "you are stupid " etc etc...

your answers are intellegent, its the others that seem to piss me off the most.

I also guess that because I cite experts like Fielding, Zavada, and Groden ... maybe I should post their credentials and then we can all compare them to yours.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:

as they say: yee who squeals the loudest has something to hide..... now, your film/photo qualifications are?

I certainly agree with that, David. I think you post about as much as I do and if we was to put all the data in total that you bring to your responses - that they wouldn't fill the space on the label of a packet of 'Sweet n' Low'. You do know that just because you copy the previous message with your response - that it doesn't really mean that YOU have said anything. Maybe you'll like the personal message I got from a lurker that I never see post here ...

dgh: yeah, and I get personal messages all the time... LMAO

a wink and a nod, May 26 2006, 01:35 PM

Experienced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 84

Member No.: 3373

Joined: 22-August 05

hey bill,

i wasn't pointing at you, its just """" and healy get in there and quote a four page post to reply "you are stupid " etc etc...

your answers are intellegent, its the others that seem to piss me off the most.

I also guess that because I cite experts like Fielding, Zavada, and Groden ... maybe I should post their credentials and then we can all compare them to yours.

Bill

dgh: not Fielding's, not Zavada's and certainly not Groden's (debatable), qualifications, Bill --I know their past experience, they know mine, Y O U R S! Bill. Nobody knows YOURS, that IS the problem.

Post all the "personal" messages you choose-- won't change the point!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: not Fielding's, not Zavada's and certainly not Groden's (debatable), qualifications, Bill --I know their past experience, they know mine,Y O U R S! Bill. Nobody knows YOURS, that IS the problem.

Everyone knows my qualifications in at least one area, David ... after all, I have made a Jackass out of each one of you boneheads that particpated in the writing of "Hoax". post-1084-1168219166_thumb.gif

Bill Miller

PS; Any new computer generated composits to offer lately? Here is one I did ...

post-1084-1168219030_thumb.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last part of your question was answered in your post when you stated that the head of Oswald wasn't looking right in the clip overlays I presented. I recall that the clip I did showed how one Backyard picture was obviously taken somewhat closer to the subject than the other for the body had grown in size considerably, while the heads between the two photos remained the same size.

I have also examined and compared these two pictures. Your explanation doesn't make any sense. The body's are closer in size than the heads - the heads are what are in drastic divergence. By tilting CE 133A 3 degrees the angle of the stairway support posts can be made to be very similar in angle - and the pictures can be resized so that the posts can be made very similar in length. By making the posts basically the same length and angle in both photos - the camera is artificially placed in approximately the same location. The difference in the position of the heel of Oswald's boot closest to the post in both photos is not significant enough to cause the huge discrepancies in the portrayal of Oswald's overall shape and form. Considering that CE 133C didn't make it's real appearance until the mid-seventies - it doesn't take a genius to see that these images are completely contrived - and that CE 133C was intended to correct certain mistakes made in the originals regarding Oswald's overall size and height.

post-908-1168553923_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last part of your question was answered in your post when you stated that the head of Oswald wasn't looking right in the clip overlays I presented. I recall that the clip I did showed how one Backyard picture was obviously taken somewhat closer to the subject than the other for the body had grown in size considerably, while the heads between the two photos remained the same size.

I have also examined and compared these two pictures. Your explanation doesn't make any sense. The body's are closer in size than the heads - the heads are what are in drastic divergence. By tilting CE 133A 3 degrees the angle of the stairway support posts can be made to be very similar in angle - and the pictures can be resized so that the posts can be made very similar in length. By making the posts basically the same length and angle in both photos - the camera is artificially placed in approximately the same location. The difference in the position of the heel of Oswald's boot closest to the post in both photos is not significant enough to cause the huge discrepancies in the portrayal of Oswald's overall shape and form. Considering that CE 133C didn't make it's real appearance until the mid-seventies - it doesn't take a genius to see that these images are completely contrived - and that CE 133C was intended to correct certain mistakes made in the originals regarding Oswald's overall size and height.

I cannot speak for those two images without first doing a transparency computer generated overlay. The two backtard photos I did was one of those against one that showed the camera closer to the body. I believe it to be the example that was mentioned in this thread.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: not Fielding's, not Zavada's and certainly not Groden's (debatable), qualifications, Bill --I know their past experience, they know mine,Y O U R S! Bill. Nobody knows YOURS, that IS the problem.

Everyone knows my qualifications in at least one area, David ... after all, I have made a Jackass out of each one of you boneheads that particpated in the writing of "Hoax". post-1084-1168219166_thumb.gif

Bill Miller

PS; Any new computer generated composits to offer lately? Here is one I did ...

post-1084-1168219030_thumb.jpg

Who are you kidding, LMAO! You haven't entered the arena, Bill. But don't let your lack of understanding regarding the art form and your amateurishness diminsh your enthusiasm...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are you kidding, LMAO! You haven't entered the arena, Bill. But don't let your lack of understanding regarding the art form and your amateurishness diminsh your enthusiasm...

What arena is that, David ... The David Healy arena where you say that you have no proof the Zfilm is altered or the David Healy arena where you said that you believe the Zfilm is altered or the David Healy 180 degree turnaround arena where he contradicts himself once again?

DGH:

Post #8

Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

DGH:

post #19

“I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;hl=alteration

DGH:

post #5

“Remember champ, I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered, can you prove otherwise?”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: not Fielding's, not Zavada's and certainly not Groden's (debatable), qualifications, Bill --I know their past experience, they know mine,Y O U R S! Bill. Nobody knows YOURS, that IS the problem.

Everyone knows my qualifications in at least one area, David ... after all, I have made a Jackass out of each one of you boneheads that particpated in the writing of "Hoax". post-1084-1168219166_thumb.gif

Bill Miller

PS; Any new computer generated composits to offer lately? Here is one I did ...

post-1084-1168219030_thumb.jpg

Who are you kidding, LMAO! You haven't entered the arena, Bill. But don't let your lack of understanding regarding the art form and your amateurishness diminsh your enthusiasm...

To the contrary, David. I must compliment "Miller" on his computer EXPERTISE. I was

confused about how he had achived his "COMPOSIT" as he called it, for NO SUCH COMPUTER

Z FRAME EXISTS. Here he has been telling us for years how difficult it would be to be to

FAKE ZAPRUDER IMAGES, and now he has presented us a perfect example of HOW EASY

IT IS FOR AN AMATEUR TO MAKE A FAKE PHOTO.

I spent more than an hour trying to figure how he did it, collecting all the relevant frames

he used. Of course the Franzens and Ginandtonicman are from frame 369, and others are

from nearby frames. He has completely changed the Franzen and Ginman group to something

which cannot be extracted from the raw frames with any program I have. He added the

limo and Jackie from another frame. He changed up the rollbar and roses. He added Clint

Hill from another frame. He added the unseen side of the limo from a much earlier frame,

and had to alter perspective to do so. The rear wheel of the limo is not seen in frame 369.

The relationship of the limo to the curb is different. He has removed the texture of the grass

and changed its color. Then he made the whole image seamlessly undetectable. You would

think he is employed by George Lucas at Industrial Light and Magic.

Yes, David..."Miller" is quite an expert. He has created a composite "Zframe" which does

not exist to demonstrate his expertise. I cannot duplicate this expertise with any computer

program I have. I challenge you, Dolva, and Agbat to match what "Miller" has done. In

fact, his work is so expert that I suspect that "someone else" did it to SHOW HOW EASY

IT IS TO CREATE A FAKE ZAPRUDER FRAME.

David, John and Frank are computer experts. I hope they will show us how easy it was

to do this image. I can't do it; I doubt that "Miller" can either.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the contrary, David. I must compliment "Miller" on his computer EXPERTISE. I was

confused about how he had achived his "COMPOSIT" as he called it, for NO SUCH COMPUTER

Z FRAME EXISTS. Here he has been telling us for years how difficult it would be to be to

FAKE ZAPRUDER IMAGES, and now he has presented us a perfect example of HOW EASY

IT IS FOR AN AMATEUR TO MAKE A FAKE PHOTO.

Jack, what else could one expect from 'Baghdad Bob David Healy'. Because you took the time to actually study what I did and David did not - I wouldn't expect a good-nite kiss from him anytime soon if I were you. All kidding aside, while I don't agree with your most of your interpretations, your willingness to at least study the evidence puts you a class above Healy's purpose for being here.

The composite was created by me for Robert Groden a couple of years or so ago. Robert just wanted an image showing Jackie on the back of the car that he could display at his stand, but he also wanted the people to appear sharp, as well. That meant using two frames and taking the best images from both to make one clear image from them. While to the naked eye the image looks good - it has flaws if put under scrutiny. The changes showing retouching can be seen under high magnification. One example of this might be that there might be some differences in the contenuity of the blurring within the same frame because each individual frame is different in this area.

I am fairly certain, if my memory is correct, that I made this composite from only two frames and that they were consecutive frames. I remember that it had something to do with the limo being fairly sharp in one frame, while the people outside of the car were blurred and visa-versa in the other frame. Try not to forget that the software for me to do this composite WAS NOT available in the immediate years that followed the assassination. As Groden, Mack, and others have pointed out so many times - any manipulations of the Zapruder film would have needed to be done the old fashion way and that is what puts things into a more accurate perspective when dealing with the possibility of what could and could not have been in 1963/1964.

Yes, David..."Miller" is quite an expert. He has created a composite "Zframe" which does

not exist to demonstrate his expertise. I cannot duplicate this expertise with any computer

program I have. I challenge you, Dolva, and Agbat to match what "Miller" has done. In

fact, his work is so expert that I suspect that "someone else" did it to SHOW HOW EASY

IT IS TO CREATE A FAKE ZAPRUDER FRAME.

David, John and Frank are computer experts. I hope they will show us how easy it was

to do this image. I can't do it; I doubt that "Miller" can either.

Jack

Jack, why would you imply that it looks to be an expertly done composite as if someone besides me had created it ... when in the first paragraph you had said, "he has presented us a perfect example of HOW EASY IT IS FOR AN AMATEUR TO MAKE A FAKE PHOTO". Are these not contradictory remarks?

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White' wrote:

quote name='David G. Healy' post='88700' date='Jan 12 2007, 12:36 AM'

Who are you kidding, LMAO! You haven't entered the arena, Bill. But don't let your lack of understanding regarding the art form and your amateurishness diminsh your enthusiasm...

To the contrary, David. I must compliment "Miller" on his computer EXPERTISE. I was

confused about how he had achived his "COMPOSIT" as he called it, for NO SUCH COMPUTER

Z FRAME EXISTS. Here he has been telling us for years how difficult it would be to be to

FAKE ZAPRUDER IMAGES, and now he has presented us a perfect example of HOW EASY

IT IS FOR AN AMATEUR TO MAKE A FAKE PHOTO.

dgh: Hello Jack... In today's world, a one arm paper-hanger with minimum skills using Photoshop can alter Z- frames in about 3 minutes [that's on a bad day]

I spent more than an hour trying to figure how he did it, collecting all the relevant frames

he used. Of course the Franzens and Ginandtonicman are from frame 369, and others are

from nearby frames. He has completely changed the Franzen and Ginman group to something

which cannot be extracted from the raw frames with any program I have.

dgh: it's called the clone tool in Photoshop, which of course was NOT around in 1963-64 :rolleyes:

He added the limo and Jackie from another frame. He changed up the rollbar and roses. He added Clint

Hill from another frame. He added the unseen side of the limo from a much earlier frame,

and had to alter perspective to do so. The rear wheel of the limo is not seen in frame 369.

The relationship of the limo to the curb is different. He has removed the texture of the grass

and changed its color. Then he made the whole image seamlessly undetectable. You would

think he is employed by George Lucas at Industrial Light and Magic.

Yes, David..."Miller" is quite an expert. He has created a composite "Zframe" which does

not exist to demonstrate his expertise.

dgh: everything Miller's learned I've taught him -- all the way from Bhagdad, yet - he's better, better be getting better, of course he was an empty suit when he started :)

I cannot duplicate this expertise with any computer

program I have. I challenge you, Dolva, and Agbat to match what "Miller" has done. In

fact, his work is so expert that I suspect that "someone else" did it to SHOW HOW EASY

IT IS TO CREATE A FAKE ZAPRUDER FRAME.

dgh:as I said, today anyone, ANYONE with software programs such as Photoshop, Painter, one can build a *composite* Z-frame in very short order.... evidently even Groden can.... Now, if Miller can enlighten us as to how it was done circa. 1964, utilizing a optical film printer then, we'll be onto something... He can feel free to utilize Groden.

David, John and Frank are computer experts. I hope they will show us how easy it was

to do this image. I can't do it; I doubt that "Miller" can either.

dgh: Bill Miller hasn't a clue about the subject matter, Jack. I'd like Bob Groden to entertain us for awhile .... perhaps he Groden is throwing his hat into the ring?

Jack

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: Hello Jack... In today's world, a one arm paper-hanger with minimum skills using Photoshop can alter Z- frames in about 3 minutes [that's on a bad day]

David, as I recall - Craig has pointed out numerous times that your composite example was a laughing stock and that its flaws were noticeable. And whether you know it or not ... it was "YOU" who created such an image with Photoshop a long time ago in an effort to support your position at that time. The question never was or ever has been as to whether anyone can alter an image. An idiot with a permenent marker can alter an image by simply drawing on it. The point that has been driven home to you is that it could not have been done without detection when scrutinized. Your continually trolling this forum by purposely stating the record improperly is something that I am surprised that John Simkin has not called you on .. perhaps he will in the future if you continue to do it.

dgh: it's called the clone tool in Photoshop, which of course was NOT around in 1963-64 :rolleyes:

Which again makes me wonder why you used it in making your composite example.

dgh: everything Miller's learned I've taught him -- all the way from Bhagdad, yet - he's better, better be getting better, of course he was an empty suit when he started :)

David, is this statement above in contradiction with the following statement you've made pertaining to the very composite that Jack was talking about? You said, "Who are you kidding, LMAO! You haven't entered the arena, Bill. But don't let your lack of understanding regarding the art form and your amateurishness diminsh your enthusiasm... "

dgh:as I said, today anyone, ANYONE with software programs such as Photoshop, Painter, one can build a *composite* Z-frame in very short order.... evidently even Groden can.... Now, if Miller can enlighten us as to how it was done circa. 1964, utilizing a optical film printer then, we'll be onto something... He can feel free to utilize Groden.

I can cite the same material that you have done as to how it could be done, David. What needs to be done is "YOU" tell us how it could have been done with an optical printer to hold up to scrutiny so to have been undetected?

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...