Bill Miller

Mark K., I think I would reconsider that position because it's like saying that because Sir Isaac Newton called someone a name or used a harsh tone in his writings that you should then not take his theory of gravitation seriously. It's not like craig and I are telling you our opinion as to what color God's eyes are ... we are telling you basic laws of physics that happen to apply to Photography. You can take them to a buddist priest if you like and have him whisper them into your ear and they won't be any more valid or any less true than when we said them. The information being offered to you is for your benefit, not mine ... I've already researched it. Bill

Busted. Jack didn't enter this thread until post #11. You referred to the "film alteration cult" in post #2. You are correct, Mark S. ... I did mention the term 'alteration cult' after posting about the fundamentals concerning film grains. I personally viewed my latter reply to Jack as a direct response to a particular alteration claim where he first came out calling people idiots over something that he was dead wrong about. In that particular exchange there was no need to discuss film grains because Moorman and Hill's black shoes were visible when seen in a good print, thus I considered film fundementals a separate matter from poorly thought out photo interpretations. However, I do see how you made the connection. Bill

Bernice, I won't apologize for your lack of understanding concerning word useage. Healy has constantly made repeated responses that do not address the topics being discussed. His purpose for trolling these forums and to promote unfounded paranoia to the less intelligent members is not to educate anyone, but to satisfy his own selfish needs. What would you call what he does? David pretends to be educated on photography while at the same time telling us that he has seen no signs of alteration. So which way is it going to be ... if Healy is so educated on Photography and has used his vast knowledge to be able to say he has not seen any signs of alteration, then what in the hell is he doing arguing on behalf of Zfilm alteration ... you cannot have ot both ways. I have already said that I believe he has a cult-like mentality based on faith alone. Let me share with you the term "XXXXX" in the religious sense and how it applies to cults and their purpose for existence .... "Un) In all fairness, the counter argument is that XXXXXX is selfish, and any selfish act is - by definition (due to the word history of) - is a sin. (e.g. selfish = sin, under any circumstances)." I hope we are clear now. Bill PS. "All should be allowed to speak their piece and their opinion, without being afraid to do so, because some bully may come along and ask them for their proof, and or studies, not everyone has, and never will, but that should not stop them from being allowed to do so or and or put on the spot because they dared to......that in MO, should be put a stop to....and if they do not have that proof or study they certainly should not be rediculed as they have been in so many instances on the F by the bullys..... Perhaps Bill and such need to be told that and more often by those that would like to express their opinions without being put in the spot light...So what if they have not got proof have not studied all for many years, have not got a degree, a degree means nothing in this, there are no degrees given out for JFK research......never has been and never will be...anyone should be able to give their opinion ask their question without a bully giving them the third degree....anyone.." I think you have my responses confused with Healy's ... don't let the little quote boxes fool you. I spend countless hours posting information based on the research I have done and from talking to experts. Your selective bias is quite apparent, but this is an eductaion forum designed to offer data to those who wish to learn more about the JFK assassination. This means that opinions should at least be expected to have been formed on good information and solid reasoning and not soley on one's own predjudices or beliefs, after all, there are other forums where you can practices those types of irresponsible behaviors.

Here here to that. The symposium isn't just about the film alteration, although it's a major part. The main issue, as I see it, is getting this whole rotten episode to start registering on the mainstream media's radar. Bill, you were too quick off the mark in starting another brawl about the Z-film. Mark, I would not even posted in that thread had Jack not come out calling people 'idiots' over the black and white shoe crap he was pushing.

What Ed has done makes perfect sense to me. He has taken an image and degraded it so bad that there is no way to ever know where he got it and somehow through this warpped process he feels that he has found two cops carrying someone. I wouldn't be surprised if I saw this in the next book claiming more proof that the Zapruder film is altered.

Jack, your dishonesty in using a lightened MPI film frame which not only expands the borders of Jean's legbecause of the level of contrast that you added to it, but has lost its sharpness of the shoe line during MPI's processing of the image ... only overshadows your being one of the worst people at photo interpretation that ever looked at the evidence in the JFK assassination. look at the overlay animation and tell me how someone could not see the similarities in Jean's two shoe captions. Bill Miller PS. BTW, Jack ... do you now at least admit that you were wrong about Moorman's black shoes not being visible on the Zapruder film?

Jack, do realize what you have said here. You are on record for saying that both Jean and Mary were standing in the street ... you used Muchmore's film to make that allegation. Now you are saying that the Nix film shows just Mary in the street and Jean above the curb. Your just making off the wall calls at any given moment without regard to the past claims you've aready made. (see your Muchmore film claim below) I find it funny that Hill and Moorman's height difference didn't seem to bother you when wanting to claim that both women were standing in the street, In fact, their height difference seems to not change at all between how they are viewed in the Muchmore and Nix films. Below is a view of two gentlemen who were of equal height within a couple of inches of one another, but when one stood on top of the slope as Jean did and the other stood over the slope near the top of the curb like Mary did - their height difference increased. James Altgens took his #6 photo showing both Jean and Mary's shadows barely making it over the curb as they stood in the grass. Altgens photo equates with Z255 ... 2 seconds from the cycles closing in and passing by Jean and Mary ... now what kind of a mental giant would think that these women walked into the path of those cycles after Altgens took his photograph! Jack, how many more times do these claims of yours have to be shown to be dead wrong before you'll drop this nonsense? Bill Miller

Whoa, Jack! I recall where you made the claim that Moorman and Hill didn't have on black shoes in the Zapruder film, but instead were wearing white tennis shoes. How you made that claim in "TGZFH" was to use a black and white image that blended color tones to the point that the average person wouldn't be able to make out where one color left off and the other started. Even if someone was so inept to think that Moorman and Hill's feet had been cut off at the ankles, they surely would have seen your dishonesty by looking at "COLOR" stills of Mary and Jean's feet. The proof is in the color images below, so if that Tom fella is going to repeat that crooked nonsense that you tried to pull, then it is he who then becomes the idiot IMO. By the way, the black shoes seen against the green grass are reasonably visible even on the MPI version that has lost some of its sharpness because of the filters that was used in processing it ... how much sharper do you think the actual original Zapruder film would make those shoes appear ... think about that before you continue calling people idiots! Bill Miller

David, David, David...no DI on this one pal. A 4000x4000 2k scan? Why? Exactly what information are you trying to record outside the image frame? Or is there some secret square format 8mm Kodachrome? LOL! Not that it matters because ITS A DIGITAL PROCESS! Now who exactly was doing this back in 63? In any case your example is worthless to the task at hand...understanding generational loss and kodachrome color crossover problems (no warttens can fix that) via the copy process (film copy process that is, 1963 style). Nope either you understand how it works in old school film or you don't. Seems you don't. Why try and fool the lurkers with all of this digital crap David? Not very honest of you. But then again thats never been your strong suit anyway. Back to the drawing board there pal....btw, need any white shoes? ROTFLMAO! Craig, I gave David the chance to take the high road and show some hint of integrity by admitting that the transfer problems were valid, but instead of addressing them, he tries to deal off the bottom of the deck in the way you just described him doing. I guess I should not have him the benefit of the doubt, but what do you expect from a guy who is consistently pretending to know it all and ends up looking like a moron because he didn't do his homework. One such example can be found in this thread when he said and I quote ... " And, its not called enlarging, it's blowup as in 8mm blowup to 35mm (exactly what Groden's mentor, Moe Weitzman did with the Zapruder in-camera 8mm original he received from LIFE, you're not disputing that are you?) -- " They say that the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man is too ignorant to know when to admit he was wrong. Once again David Healy tried to appear as if he knew more than someone else by trying to divert attention away from the matter and once again it can be proven that he didn't know what he was talking about. I believe you could tell David all about gravity and how it works, then have to argue with him that if a hammer was dropped from over his head that it would fall and hit him while he says it will just float in midair despite it common knowledge to the contrary ... but rather than he admit that he was ever in error, he'd try to make it appear that one needs to actually show a hammer being dropped from above someone's head to prove the already substantiated laws of physics are correct. Taken from the glossary of terms in photography: http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossary...ml#anchor348243 BTW, I took the liberty to enlarge/blow-up the text about enlargement definition as it pertains to photography - saved it - and then shrunk it back down again ... maybe someone can point out to Healy that it lost its sharpness during the transfer and stands out against the first generated text of the post itself. Hopefully there will be no need for hand puppets, but they are nearby if we need them. Bill

In many frames the top of the curb can be seen over the limo, so I don't think the limo descending down the 3% grade is a factor at that point. Bill

David, there is no insulting you IMO. And as I had said, one major difference between you and Myers is that if he has nothing to say of any significance - he doesn't say anything. On the other hand, you will post even if you do not have a single thing of significance to say. David, stop playing the role of the disgruntled clown long enough to answer some simple questions ... feel free to even solicit the answer from an expert(s) in film if you wish, but tell this forum if you understood the basic principles concerning the blurring of the grains when enlarging an image from 8MM to 35MM or even 8 x 10's as Jack suggested? If you did understand it, then lets go to the next step and you tell this forum if you understand how once you have "photographed" those blurred grains by now locking them into 35MM slides, then they will remain blurred even when the image is shrunk back down to 8MM size? Then if you are intelligent enough to have understood this simple process so far that applies to all photographic images, then tell this forum in your opinion why the 35MM grains on the new altered product when reduced down to 8MM size would not be sharp and would look the same as the original grains that transfered with the image and became blurred when the original image was first enlarged? You see, David ... you can talk in riddles ... you can even attempt to dance around the issues, but you cannot in no way shape or form get around the simple basic rules of physics, which doesn't take a degree in Photography to apply to this case. Take any photograph that you have and blow it up (8 x 10 as White claimed will be a good size) and look at it under magnification and you will see that it has lost its sharpness during the enlarging process. There is just no way of getting around it! So no one is leaving anyone out to dry ... they just don't any better way to explain the most simpliest laws of physics. The problem with you is that you didn't bother to investigate these avenues before wasting all the time you did on the subject of Zfilm alteration. My only advice to you now is that instead of being angry with the messenger - you take the high road and be a man by taking some responsibility for your own shortcomings and get mad at yourself for not doing a thorough investigation on your own before becoming committed to an impossibility. grains on an original print - sharp along edges grains that have been blown-up - sharpness is lost along edges blurred grains from the original blow-up process seen mixed with the sharp grains from the 35MM film stock The illustrations apply to the basic laws of physics, thus they would apply to Photography issues as well. I have shown these illustrations to Photography and Film experts, as well as to those who have also consulted such experts, and they have confirmed that these illustrations relay the principles pertaining to the issues quite adequetly. Now pretend that you didn't understand any of this and say something else silly and misleading, David ... because that seems to be all you have left to fall back on. Bill

One can tell you're no litigator, get another NUTTER lawyer in here, these guy's are going up in flames --lmao. In your spare time consult with Groden, then find that BRAIN. What a nutter farce! Healy, don't you get tired of trolling on these forums. You post absolutely nothing in the way of evidence .... in fact you do nothing but xxxxx looking to jump into a post with your Baghdad Bob Healy BS. Now while I agree that Dale Myers cartoon is a farse and he won't debate the facts - but neither did you when faced with the emulsion grain problem when it comes to detecting alterations on a piece of film ... so how are you any different than Myers with the exception he that he knows better than to run his mouth when he has nothing of significance to say. BAGHDAD BOB HEALY

Looky here another one of those nervous Lone Neuter morons. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus! Right, David ... Who in their right mind would think that before someone makes a statement that is being presented as fact that they first make sure they have covered all the bases. In your world, all one has to do is make an assertion like you did concerning optical printers being used to alter the Zapruder film without looking any further to see if that was all there was to making an undetectable forgery. Who cares if one cannot get past the emulsion grain issues ... we're supposed to just pretend it doesn't exist - right, David? Who cares if Costella writes that the conspirators had a year to alter the images only to then say that Life Magazine had made their alleged altered prints off the original film within the first few days following the assassination - right, David? Who cares that all the color balancing to any altered film would had to of been done by hand to each and every film frame by hand through a long photographical process ... as long as someone says the film was altered before Life printed the frames in their magazine, then it must have been done within the first 48 hours of the assassination despite the year long window of time previously mentioned. Who cares that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes after the assassination, if one of you guys says its altered, then it must be so - right, David? Who cares if the use of filters reduce the sharpness of an image ... you just don't tell anyone - right, David? Do you think that the altering of the Zapruder film is not more of a belief than a scientific fact when you people have left so many impossibilities unaddressed. Like one of your followers said, "I don't care what the evidence says to the contrary, I still believe that the Zapruder film must be altered" .... now that is a cult member by any definition of the word. By the way, I will say it once again ... just because someone doesn't think that poorly thought out half-assed shoddy altteration claims are acceptable ... that doesn't make them a lone-nutter. The fact that you cannot grasp the difference between someone not wanting to support poor research practices Vs. someone believing that the assassination was carried out by one man tells the members of this forum a lot about your mental state and your severe lacking in comprehension skills. Bill

I have already posted the definition of a cult as it pertains to this matter. Those who have read it and understand the English language probably understood it quite well. Those of you who have shown an inability to relate to words and phrases will have to remain in the dark. You will not distract me by foolishly attempting to get me into an argument over your opinion that the word 'blow-up' as it relates to a photograph is somehow totally different to the word 'enlarge' as it relates to a photograph. blow-up: make bigger or wider in size, volume, or quantity; "expand the house by adding another wing" enlarge: to become larger; grow. To give greater scope to; expand. Color issues? Does the term Wratten mean anything to you? If not google, and tell us, ALL of us what you find... Anyone can 'google' the definition of the word "wratten" ... just as someone can google the definition of "rocket scientist", but it doesn't make them knowledgable on how a rocket works under a specific influence. Surely you don't think these little piss-ant tactics of yours is going to fool anyone, let alone me. As usual you only glanced at the term and didn't look into it far enough to see how it would relate to the previous things I have mentioned concerning the tell-tale signs of film alteration. While something like a Kodac Wratten filter can be used to achieve spectral performance ... they do not prevent things like cross-color shifting and as with filters, you lose sharpness of the image. And it certainly resharpen the grain in the film once it has been "blown-up" or "enlarged" from a minature 8MM film frame to an 8 x 10" images as Jack White said would be done. I believe I mentioned these things in a previous post and I assume that you must have missed what I said because you were out running your mouth elsewhere. As the 'Soup Nazi' said on Seinfeld .... "NO SOUP FOR YOU, NEXT!" Bill

"for instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy cover-up." I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time. Bill

"did you read Ed's post? your insinuation "caught once" being? " Can we assume that people who can use optical printers don't necessarily have to be able to have a general understanding of the English language? Ed posted on Lancer a few years ago a large blow-up of a very small cropping from Moorman's photograph, but he wouldn't tell anyone from where it came or even which assassination image it came from. Ed told the readers that it was a view of a cop(s) with cameras filming the assassination. For several days we requested that he give us the photo source and he didn't comply. The fact that it was a B&W image made me think that Moorman's photo was a good starting place to look for the image Ed was claiming to be cops taking photographs. I soon found that small area on the south side of the wooden fence just beyond Emmett Hudson's location. Ed's image can be seen coming in over the very spot I show in the animation I posted. Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... now is there any part of what I just said that you still couldn't follow? There is no insinuating anything - it happened! "Hey Bill, I'm going to post a Z-frame in a day or so, no commentary, just what was done to the original as I received it. I want you Lone Neuter's to tell me its origin, generation and pedigree. When I post, probably Tuesday, feel free to pass it on to Roland and Ray... and all the other able and willing photo experts you command around here..." David, you have promised to post things so many times now without delivering that I won't hold my breath waiting to see if you actually come through for a change. However, if you do post an altered image, please be sure in the name of 'possible Zfilm alteration' that it be done without the use of computers. That it was done in the way that it would have been done in 1963. And to use your own request that we have heard so many times ... please make the original altered image available for study for as you are aware by this time ... alterations cannot get past the grain found in the emulsion of Kodachrome II film and any photographic transfers will be detectable when viewed at high resolution/magnification. If it is your intention to sell us some snake oil by bypassing that process and using a computer to alter an image, then I am afraid it has nothing to do with the possibility of Zapruder's film being altered in the first two days following the assassination before B&W prints came out in Life Magazine, nor by the time the color prints came out in Life Magazine two weeks later. The one thing Costella said that actually was accurate is that in 1963/64 there were no computers to do graphic alterations with. Bill

I'm hoping that Craig will put together something addressing the lens, what itdoes and how it affects wehat isseen, and possibly suggest ways of incorporating whatever it is. I am certain that some of the varying shadow thickness of the grass along the south curb is caused by the degree of blurring between the frames. I also think that because MPI photographed each film frame ... that somehow they caused some movement of the limo and its occuopants that is not on the Groden version. One such thing that comes to mind is the north to south and back again rocking of the limo as it travels across Zapruder's field of view. If my memory serves me right - the MPI film is the only version that created this appearence. Bill

I'll play the Rorscach game. It looks like the outline of two men standing next to each other, with the one in front holding something in front of him at arm's length with a whte end. A gun? With a muzzle flash? In the overlay animation that I posted in response #2 is from an earlier claim Ed made. Ed had posted only a large fuzzy B&W blow-up claiming it to be two cops with cameras. Ed was asked several times to show the wide version where the photo crop he was using had come from. Upon not being able to wait any longer, I deduced that he had used the Moorman photograph and it didn't take long to match his enlargement to the foliage seen on the fence. The inserted overlay in the clip I posted in my earlier response is Ed's image (only reduced to the size seen in Moorman's photograph. It was a perfect fit, thus Ed was pulling a fast one or had won the grand prize for being the worst at photo interpretation. I suspect that unless he shows you the wide angled view, then I imagine that the same thing may happening all over again. Bill

(EDIT:: PS>Bill, forgive me, my fault for mentioning peripheral issues . It has nothing to do with the topic here. I'm not going to be diverted from the main topic here which is to understand the orientations by understanding how things move frame by frame eventually perhaps being able to compensate for such movements. People are free of course to speculate on related matters as they wish. I find related matters interesting and eventually will deal with them.) Most of the discussion has been dealing with frames before the head shot ... now if I understand you correctly - you are implying how fractures seen on an Xray that doesn't even match JFK's head wound fits nicely with the blurred image Z313. I am just trying to rationalize what it is that you think you are saying here. Bill

Ed, because you were caught once making a similar post where you had blown up the shadows of the tree foliage being cast upon the stockade fence in Moorman's photograph and calling them cops with cameras (see below) ... I have to ask if you will post the frame number and a wide view of the area you are talking about. Thanks. Bill

PS::if this is approaching a correct view then a sideissue would be to look at the xrays some fracture lines seem to match Who's Xrays are you planning to match? JFK's alleged Xrays don't match his head wound. One key example would be that the entire right eye socket area is blasted away and yet Kennedy's face hasn't a scratch on it.

I seem to recall John Costella going over all of this during the Univ of Minn Zapruder Film Symposium... and no, its not lens distortion David, seeing how you seem to remember what Costella didn't say, then do you recall specifically what Costella said about it? Did it start out something like this .... "Scientists believe that the forgers created the images by first ...."? Bill

I'd have to defer this off to Craig Lamson because I suspect that the lens Zapruder used is causing some of this movement between those two frames by his moving his camera.

Would not the fall of the street (3%) matter only if Zapruder kept his camera on the same horizontal plane? Also, the head turn between frames would still occur even if the car was moving left to right on a perfectly flat street and in a straight line - would it not? Bill

Hear Hear and Amen Thanks Mr. Clark Jim Me thinks some doest protest too much borne of an impossible to defend position. What I find "suspect", Jim ... is people like yourself supporting the notion that the Zapruder film is suspect while not spending an ounce of energy addressing the simple rules of physics that I mentioned concerning the things that would be present had someone tried to alter the film. While I believe our government is less than honest with its people ... I would at least expect more out of a serviceman than to be embracing the role of 'cult follower' without having first thoroughly reviewed the evidence .... for I thought the miltary taught individuals to meet problems head on ... maybe it's different today than how it used to be. . If all you intend to do is make unfounded assertions without addressing the data laid before you, not by the government, but from a fellow conspiracy believer concerning the death of JFK, then you have done that. However, if it is your intention to make it appear that you take JFK's death seriously, then I will ask that you address the points I made concerning the problems with the film transfers in relation to the possibilities of someone altering Zapruder's film. And before you think about what to say next - look around you and take note that your pro-alteration cult leaders who do have some understanding of those points I have made are now sitting dead in the water and having no responses to offer. You people have come together in your beliefs concerning Zfilm alteration and it appears that not a single one of you has bothered to research the data well enough to even address these critical issues. Bill