Bill Miller

Q. Do you mean Cuban? - lee The yellow boxed area showing the south shelters outside wall in post #20 is not a shooter/spotter. Those same lights and shadows referenced in the Nix film can still be seen at that location in the Bell film after the limo has left the Plaza. The view of that area can be seen from photos like Bezters, Willis and Moorman's. I have attached a view from Moorman's and all that is seen is shadows from the tree foliage hitting the shelter wall. Bill The top of a tree can be seen just over the wall in Moorman's photograph. In a good print there is a spacing of the foliage in the top of the tree, thus the red box outlining this area in post #24 showing a poorer quality print cannot be a spotter/shooter.

I believe Doorman passed over this area from above the scene and no one was at the location of the boxes, thus the movement was from something else, such as the illusion of movement caused by the camera lens moving or by the wind that was blowing at the time. Bill

Thanks for the example, Shanet. Your response was exactly what you were talking about. You somehow managed to get off six lines and a row of smilies that did just what you were complaining about .... and you did it without addressing the fact that you misunderstood what Blair had said about Groden being right. Great response! Bill

Shanet, you may wish to get a different interpreter to help you understand what Blair has said besides listening to Jack. Blair offered a few things that would allow him to copy flat art or photography and as Groden stated, 'it doesn't apply to film duping'. Then Groden explained, "And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source ..... However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying." Now unless I have misunderstood something, Blair upon hearing what Groden had to say had realized some things that would make what he described not be enough to create an altered Zapruder film. Blair is free to correct me if I am wrong. Robert Groden speaks about the system Blair mentioned: "This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping. Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image. In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used). And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

I think Mike replied because he saw through your intentions. What puzzles some of us is that you have heard the things Zavada has said, you've heard the things Groden has said, you have seen the Kodak information posted, you have even seen the science involved in checking films for authenticity and how experts have validated the Zapruder films authenticity, and you have seen the faulty alteration claims made by Jack White and you've gone as far as to say after all this ... that you have not seen any proof of film alteration. So there is no reason that I can see why you haven't moved on. Take some time off and study the other evidence of the case ... there is plenty of material to learn about. Bill

Ed, I think it would have been smart for Jimmy to first have checked to see if that white spot was on the camera original so to know if Groden was right when he said it may have been an artifact that occurred during the copying stage. I also do not think a flash from a gun would be that large from so far away (maybe from a cannon) and Thompson was correct about the timing problem for that being a gun shot. Bill

Jack ... I think I would read what Blair said again for he agreed with Groden. It is the things in part that Groden has said that I have presented here. I will repeat what Groden said about the mistake Blair said that he now agrees with if you are so stroked-out that you cannot find it. I do not know any longer if you purposely misstate the facts or that your mental state no longer allows you to rationalize what is being said ... either way you not qualified to intelligently discuss the subject if you cannot follow and understand what has been said. Pay close attention to "This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping" and "Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image." What Groden said that Blair agrees with ... "Indoor film is balanced for lights that have a color temperature of 3200K, Outdoor film is balanced for 5600K. Indoor lights are yellowish and outdoor lights are bluish. This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping. Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image. In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used). And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

Boy, Jim ... for the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone would assualt your research, unless it is for the types of boners you pulled below ... ... now don't you think that you brought some of those assualts onto yourself. Bill

Blair, I found it odd that your remarks above was in opposition of Groden, Lamson, and the information I had gotten from Kodak (not to mention a couple of other sources that I had been in contact with who I believe to be unbiased to the JFK assassination). I felt that you were possibly telling what you thought to be true, but perhaps was missing something ... so I took the liberty to ask Groden to read your statement and tell me if you were correct. This is Robert's reply below ........................ "Indoor film is balanced for lights that have a color temperature of 3200K, Outdoor film is balanced for 5600K. Indoor lights are yellowish and outdoor lights are bluish. This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping. Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image. In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used). And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying." Just so you know, I appreciated your response for it was the first I had seen that actually attempted to address the specifics that was being discussed and that was all I was asking for. Thanks, Bill

Blair, let me get this straight .... have you just stated that the process that you described would allow the needed alterations to be done to the Zapruder Kodachrome 8MM film and it would not be detected through the scientific methods of today that I have presented to this forum? Bill

Jack, it is not me that your beef is with for I have only relayed what the experts have said. And I'm willing to bet that those same experts pass more knowledge through their stools than you have in your whole body when it comes to what to look for to validate a film being an original or not. Also, you may think that your slides are perfect by your standards of checking them which is nothing more than an old man looking at them with his naked eye, but you made no mention that they were ever tested by an expert through scietific methods and that's what at least one of us has been talking about throughout this thread. In fact, I would bet that through high magnification and other scientific processes that an expert could easily detect your forgeries. Bill Miller

Nick, the backyard photos were the only images that I recall feeling that something was wrong with them. Bill

Blair, you stated some things that are contradiction to what the experts have said. Can you tell me what source of information you have based your opinion on? You said, "Film LOSES generations the more times its copied BUT if its been ROTO'D, a soft focus, long exposure or any number of tricks can replicate an entirely new image with its own grain onto the new neg. soft focus being the worst way, low light/long exposure being the best to preserve quality." The type of film that Zapruder used was made for outdoor light. Any replication would take artifical light and filters to give the appearence of outdoor light exposure. Filters reduce the sharpness. Can you address that for me? Thanks, Bill

Jack's beef is with Kodak and the Experts in Photography and film .... I only delivered their message. I also expect you do be satisfied with Jack's simple minded responses because you know even less than he does. Besides that ... you have your "Baghdad Bob Healy" reputation to live up to.

You are correct about the spelling error .... in my rush to get the information posted I spelled Kodak as the word sounds and didn't catch it. And as I have said throughout this matter ... I am not a Photography Expert. As I have repeatedly said ... I know how to solicit Photography Experts for the facts and have done so before sharing the information they provided me with this forum. I realize that you have years on you, but that is little excuse for misstating the facts, so please make at least a small attempt to keep the things I have said straight ... for it won't salvage the bone headed allegations you have consistently made concerning Zfilm alteration, but it will at least make it seem that you still have a few witts left upstairs. Jack, your reply shows exactly what the Photography Experts have said about your lack of knowledge about these issues. The magnified images Kodak provided applies to any and all film, that would include the Zapruder film. Groden and Zavada have viewed the Zapruder film and seen these things and applied the scientific validation requirements to what they saw. As you know, I do not have access to the camera original so to make prints from the film and display them on this forum and your attempt to make that appear as if that means something in your favor is asinine. I have presented to this forum the methods for scientifically investigating the film so people will know that there is more to the alleged forging process than just making 8 x 10s and altering them as you suggested. So far you have not even let on like you understand any of these things concerning the basic principals involved in investigating a piece of film, but if you think you do, then make an appointment and go view the original film under magnification and report back whether or not the things Groden and Zavada have said are true or not. You have that obligation and responsibility. Kodak answered your question when it said the following: "A 2.5X enlargement of a negative shows no apparent graininess. At 20X, some graininess shows. When a segement of the negative is inspected at 60X, the individual silver grains start to become distinguishable. With 400X magnification, the discrete grains are easily seen." Now what part of the above did you do at any time and what part do you not agree with Kodak about? If the truth be known, you've held some retouched prints and viewed them with the naked eye which has nothing to do with the more scientific methods that have been discussed here. What you purpose is nothing more than saying that you have seen sheets of paper that have been handled and not saw any fingerprints on them, while not going a step further and utilizing the more scientific methods for investigating the matter properly. You don't live far from the Plaza, so why not stop down there and discuss this stuff with Groden, or do you find it more appeasing not to know more than you do now! Bill Miller

Shanet, your statement above is what makes you the 'poster boy' for the alteration cult. I have only one question for you ... do you 'oooooh and aaaaah' in amazement when you see a match lit? Jack's only good for making assertions and he gets them all screwed up at times. One could bet that if Jack could produce any evidence to the cnotrary - he would. Instead he makes the claim - pretends that what the experts say is noise and not worthy of his rebuttal - an expects that to be good enough for everyone.

Jack, lets get something straight. I am not a defending the owners of the film, instead I am defending the laws of physics, the rules of mathematics, and data offered by Kodac and the experts I have spoken to. I am defending those experts who have actually examined the Zapruder film original and applied these proven sciences in order to be able to authenticate it. Groden was right when he told me "Jack White doesn't know this stuff because he is not a photo or film expert." As a matter of fact, I heard that same thing from sereval of the sources I went to for information. They recognize your work in the dark room, but even I took photography in school and processed photos from negatives in a dark room, but I had never learned at that time the in-depth aspects of film that these guys have brought to my attention. And just so you know, I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this until you and your cult followers at least acknowledge some of these basic principals concerning film and its graininess and granularity existence. I had put up a link to a Kodac site where they showed actual magnification of emulsion grain and dyes and I assume it was too much trouble for you to link onto the website and see the images. Below are two of the images they (Kodac)provided on their web page. I will also share the text Kodac provided. "Motion picture films consist of silver halide crystals dispersed in gelatin (the emulsion) which is coated in thin layers on a support (the film base). T'he exposure and development of these crystals forms the photographic image, which is, at some stage, made up of discrete particles of silver. In color processes, where the silver is removed after development the dyes form dye clouds centered on the sites of the developed silver crystals. The crystals vary in size, shape, and sensitivity, and generally are randomly distributed within the emulsion. Within an area of uniform exposure, some of the crystals will be made developable by exposure; others will not. The location of these crystals is also random. Development usually does not change the position of a grain, so the image of a uniformly exposed area is the result of a random distribution either of opaque silver particles (black- and-white film) or dye clouds (color film), separated by transparent gelatin (Figures 21 and 22). Figure 21 Figure 22 Grains of silver halide are randomly distributed in the emulsion when it is made. This photomicrograph of a raw emulsion shows silver halide crystals. Silver is developed or clouds of dye formed at the sites occupied by the exposed silver halide. Contrary to widely held opinion, there is little migration or physical joining of individual grains. Compare the distribution of silver particles in this photomicrograph with the undeveloped silver halide in Figure 21. Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size. At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23). Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size. At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23). Figure 23 a: A 2.5X enlargement of a negative shows no apparent graininess. b: At 20X, some graininess shows. c: When a segement of the negative is inspected at 60X, the individual silver grains strt to become distinguishable. d: With 400X magnification, the discrete grains are easily seen. Note that surface grains are in focus while grains deeper in the emulsion are out of focus. The apparent "clumping" of silver grains is actually caused by overlap of grains at different depths when viewed in two-dimensional projection. e: The makeup of individual grains takes different forms. This filamentary silver, enlarged by an electron microscope, appears as a single opaque grain at low magnification. Randomness is a necessary condition for the phenomenon. If the particles were arranged in a regu;ar pattern like the halftone dot pattem used in graphic arts, no sensation of graininess would be created. When a halftone is viewed at a magnification sufficient for the dots to be distinguished, the eye notices the pattern and does not group dots into new patterns. Even though the dot pattern can be seen, the eye does not perceive graininess because the pattern is regular, not random (Figure 24). At lower magnifications-at which the dots can no longer be resolved-the awareness of pattern ceases, and the image areas appear uniform." As far as you agreeing with Healy ... he isn't a photo or film expert either. By the way, Jack ... did you agree with Healy when he posted on this forum that after seeing all the claims in "TGZFH" that he had not seen any proof of Zapruder film alteration either. Strike that question for you wouldn't give a straight forward honest answer anyhow. Let me ask this question instead, Do you agree that an altered film would be showing at least a thrid genmeration image as David said and would you not agree that a real Photo Expert would be able to see the signs of such? If it wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be amusing, but I have to point out that someone like myself can solicit actual Photo experts and pass along information obtained from the actual people who know the most about the science of film, especially Kodachrome film, and not once have you rebutted with a single photo expert or an alternative Kodac site that has said anything contrary to what I have posted. The dot illustration was to show the blurring that would take place when enlarging an image. That rule applies to the grains on the film as much as to the image itself. I believe that you know this stuff, but because you have so much invested in all those ridiculous claims you have made ... you have too much of a motive for not admitting that you were wrong. Bill Miller

David you spelled separating wrong by two letters. I guess we can add that to your list of other handicaps. Truly worked in the TSBD - so what? That doesn't tell us if he had people lined in front of him who prevented him from actually getting a good view of the street. The reference to the witnesses saying JFK's ear flew off and the President standing up in his seat is relevant because Bill Newman was right on the Elm Street curb and he made some erred observations himself. I would have thought you to be sharp enough to see the connection. Bill

David, what I have stated here is simple physics that applies to any film. If you cannot understand the basics, then why would you need to see Zapruder film examples. These are mathematical principals that we learned in elementary school when dealing with ratios. Also, the altered 8mm film would actually be a third generation film, since the original is first and the 35mm copy is the second generation. Third generation film has a quite noticeable look that is different from original film......IF seen by an experienced observer. I look forward to your first ever sensible and logical response. Great, even better! What do we know about the appearence of 4th generation images compared as to what to expect out of a 1st generation image? You just offered up a problem that Groden mentioned early on and that is an expert can tell the difference between a multigeneration film image and an original film image. Bill Miller

I assume you are referring to my remark that you are a class act ... this time I agree with you. Actually, I had asked and someone told me where to find the movie and BTW, they had it on film and disc ... as usual you are wrong. Yet you have not addressed the evidence presented to you concerning the grain and dye transfers. Let me just ask you one question and have you actually address it with fact ... The grain size of 35mm film is very small compared to the overall image. What this means is that copying an 8mm film to 35mm does not add a significant amount of grain. HOWEVER, blowing up 8mm film to 35mm, altering the 35mm, then reducing it to a new 8mm film would be detectable because the grain size of 8mm film is much larger compared to the overall image. In other words, your altered copy would have twice the amount of visible grain as the original film. Any competent observer would note that the "new" image would be far grainier in appearance than an original film. Plus, copied film images are not as sharp as original images. The slightly softer, less-distinct result would also be noticeable, especially with 8mm film. Also, the altered 8mm film would actually be a third generation film, since the original is first and the 35mm copy is the second generation. Third generation film has a quite noticeable look that is different from original film......IF seen by an experienced observer. I look forward to your first ever sensible and logical response. Bill Miller

Actally, David ... I consider eye witness testimony all the time, especially if it can substantiated by independent witnesses and/or film. The problem I have and I will repeat for a dyslexic like yourself ... over 200 witnesses watched the morotcade pass by the TSBD and Truly is the only one that I know of that claimed to have witnesses the limo come within an inch of the north curb. Maybe Truly was like Superman and could see through such things as a line of people between he and the curb, but I really doubt it. Hey ... one witness said he saw the President stand up in the car during the shooting ... maybe you might want to make that a new piece of evidence for film alteration. Another witnessed observation was that JFK's ear look like it flew off and this too was the only witness who made such a statement. Yet even CT's supporters who saw the President's body have not said that Kennedy was missing an ear, of course you might purpose that JFK had three ears so to avoid the point being made. Me, I'll just write it off as someone's interpretation that was subject to error because of a set of circumstances. Bill

David, I think that a reasonable person would first look to see why Roy Truly is the only assassination witness who made such a statement. I would note where he was standing and if there were a line of people between he and the motorcade so to get an idea as to whether he really had a good view or not. I would then compare his statement to the assassination films that recorded the turn. Then I would have to wonder if all the other witnesses were just blind to this event and the films all wrong, or had Truly merely stated how something looked from the angle and view he had to the scene, which allows him room for error considering the obstructions between he and the street and it also would explain why no one else claimed to have seen what he stated. But like I said ... that is what a reasonable person would consider - that doesn't include you. Bill Miller

David, What about the camera original ... it has been studied by experts, so what's the beef. Do you think that you can add anything to what these experts know? Aren't you the guy who is pissing all over himself about the problems with film tranfers concerning the grain and dye issues because he cannot grasp their relevance. Are you the same knowledgable genuis who tried to tell me that "enlarge" and Blow-up" when talking about Photography is two different things ... want me to post the definitions again? You have shown repeatedly that you are not qualified to even discuss the issues against film alteration and yet you think that you should be allowed to examine the camera original ... what an asinine idea that would be. Who gives a damned about where the Nix film is in relation to the Zapruder film already being scientifically studied by experts and validated by several key points based on the sound laws of physics. You try and debate logic with illogical responses and it makes you look like an idiot who couldn't pour piss out of his boot even if the directions were written on the heel. See, there you go again. Despite my posting overwhelmingly for there being a conspiracy in the murder of JFK, you once again wrongly refer to me as a lone nutter. Like the 'Baghdad Bob' that you are, you only spout propaganda instead of dealing with the principals I spoke of that was nothing more than passing along what the experts are saying. Your modus operandi is to attempt to defer attention away from your inability to debate the main issues by making stupid unfounded remarks and what's even a bigger joke is that you must think it somehow fools people, but I can tell you that it doesn't. Bill Miller

Now I am really lost for the head exploded with the limo at a crawling speed and it didn't accelerate until after the head had already started going backwards. The rear motion of the head starts at Z315 ... two frames following the impact. The Nix film shows the cycles gaining on the limo as it advances forward at a very steady slow rate and the head can already be seen moving backwards before any speed changes took place. Bill

LET'S TALK ABOUT STAND-IN STOOGES SEEING HOW YOU BROUGHT IT UP! Jack, just who is Zavada supposed to play to? Is he to play to the stooge who thought Moorman and Hill were in the street? How about the stooge that claimed Toni Foster was 7' feet tall because he was too out of his realm to not know how things would look from an elevated view? Or maybe Zavada should play to the stooge that wasn't even sharp enough to see Moorman's black shoes. I know ... maybe Zavada should play to the stooge that couldn't see the gap in all the other Moorman photos or was that the stooge that lied about it only being present in Thompson's drum scan ... you can decide on that option. How about him playing to the stooge that cannot grasp the relevancy of the grain and dye transfer issues. While Zavada is telling you about them, you can stop him and say "What about Moorman wearing those white tennis shoes!" Your remarks are so illogical that it is embarrassing for me to even think I should respond to it. Try to keep in mind that you jokers are the ones who made polka dots and Mary Poppin's relevant. Only someone who has lost their mind would suggest that on one hand Zavada may be able to tell you that the film is genuine, but cannot tell you if the images are real. It seems that if the film is genuine, then the images being genuine go hand in hand.