Craig Lamson

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter. The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated. I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well. dgh02: here's what YOU need to do champ.... you need to demonstrate (on a Z-frame example) what said Z-film frame has gone through during the 8mm - 35mm 8mm" blowup - blowdown process, simulating the KodachromeII emulsion-grain problem. LIFE magazine thought Mo's 8mm to 16mm blowup looked great (its in the testimony), he said he could do it from 8mm direct to 35mm,and DID (its in the testimony) I suspect he used 35mm Ektachrome film, he did state he didn't use Eastman Film for blowups (its in the testimony) some here know what those 35mm blowup frames look like. In fact, Mo bragged about how good the 8mm blowup to 35mm looked like - kept a few prints around to show off that very fact (its in the testimony) ... Groden's intimate with these films, if he can't comment in public, he's useless when it comes to the debate -- why do you need a 78 year old guy to do the debating for your side...? So let's can the bullxxxx about 8mm film emulsion, that is until you can provide a first generation Z-film frame to compare problem your emnulsion to.... How difficult do YOU think it would be to go from 35mm to 8mm? Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers. dgh02: read the above then re-read the above, there is NO argument here Bill Miller, you haven't a clue, you and Rollie and everyone else on the Lone Neuter side of the equation propound a theory then provide not one ounce of proof to support that theory --- your emulsion argument is a joke, how long are they expecting you to tread water....., you taking one for the ole gipper, here? LMAO... <rest of nonsense snipped> LOL! Its always entertaing when Squealy writes...oink oink. You have a lot of nerve demanding someone else provide ANYTHING when your proof of concept work (you know that enlarging 8mm to 35mm and then doing some "optical printing" magic is a simple task) is still MISSING IN ACTION after what THREE YEARS? OF course we ALL know what a failure your computer composites were, so I'm not suprised you have done nothing "film based". Talk about no argument! LOL! Of course it is Squealy we are talking about....oink oink! Yor speaking for Miller now? Typical Lone Neuter tactic: one that doesn't know anything is subbing for one who even knows less... One of these day's one of you overblown experts, in nothing, might post something constructive. Here I thought you'd of found another bus to photograph or is this a slow time of year???? lmao! Nice backstroke through the hog trough there Squealy...now where is that "optical printing" proof of concept you say is so easy to produce? Oh yea..nowhere...later hog....

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter. The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated. I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well. dgh02: here's what YOU need to do champ.... you need to demonstrate (on a Z-frame example) what said Z-film frame has gone through during the 8mm - 35mm 8mm" blowup - blowdown process, simulating the KodachromeII emulsion-grain problem. LIFE magazine thought Mo's 8mm to 16mm blowup looked great (its in the testimony), he said he could do it from 8mm direct to 35mm,and DID (its in the testimony) I suspect he used 35mm Ektachrome film, he did state he didn't use Eastman Film for blowups (its in the testimony) some here know what those 35mm blowup frames look like. In fact, Mo bragged about how good the 8mm blowup to 35mm looked like - kept a few prints around to show off that very fact (its in the testimony) ... Groden's intimate with these films, if he can't comment in public, he's useless when it comes to the debate -- why do you need a 78 year old guy to do the debating for your side...? So let's can the bullxxxx about 8mm film emulsion, that is until you can provide a first generation Z-film frame to compare problem your emnulsion to.... How difficult do YOU think it would be to go from 35mm to 8mm? Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers. dgh02: read the above then re-read the above, there is NO argument here Bill Miller, you haven't a clue, you and Rollie and everyone else on the Lone Neuter side of the equation propound a theory then provide not one ounce of proof to support that theory --- your emulsion argument is a joke, how long are they expecting you to tread water....., you taking one for the ole gipper, here? LMAO... <rest of nonsense snipped> LOL! Its always entertaing when Squealy writes...oink oink. You have a lot of nerve demanding someone else provide ANYTHING when your proof of concept work (you know that enlarging 8mm to 35mm and then doing some "optical printing" magic is a simple task) is still MISSING IN ACTION after what THREE YEARS? OF course we ALL know what a failure your computer composites were, so I'm not suprised you have done nothing "film based". Talk about no argument! LOL! Of course it is Squealy we are talking about....oink oink!

The bed has not been altered, the difference you see is that the SIDEWALK is visable in the Zapruder frame due the the higher camera angle. The lampost also cast a shadow in Chacellare, you can see it as it crosses curb. You can't see the shadow on the street BECAUSE THE CAMERA ANGLE IS TOO LOW! Photo 101 stuff here Jack and you get a failing grade. What is the driver holding out the window...perhaps his ELBOW! But perhaps you MIGHT be able to fool the sheep....

NO NO NO! "critical thinkers" can see through all of this technical mumbo jumbo, and film makers say sure just copy the flat art! LOL! Thanks Bill.

Lee, Gary Mack sent me this: "Craig, you should mention that the negative is slightly out of focus, so some of the detail isn't very sharp. Many of the 60s era UPI prints are quite a bit sharper than Tink's negative (he has two and it was the sharper one that he scanned)." On the Moorman original it's my impression that the original is now very faded and of not much value as far as a new copy/scan. Perhaps Gary can comment.

Just a note on the Moorman drum scan. It was not a scan direct from the Moorman print but rather a drum scan of a copy negative made of the Moorman original polaroid print. As such its only one generation removed from the Moorman original. Unlike most other scans of the the Moorman that are made from a print of a copy negative (one or many generations removed from the original polaroid) the drum scan was made directly from the negative to remove that additional generation. It is discussed here: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html After the scan was completed Tink sent one of the original cd's from the scanner to to Gary Mack and the second to me. I made a number of duplicate cd's and mailed them to the others in our group that were working on this project. I also offered to send copies of this disk at no cost to any menber of the research community that was interested. I did in fact send out quite a few of these disks. Since the full file is quite large (over 100mb in tif format) I have, from time to time posted crops as requested to the web. I posted those crops in .png format because it is a lossless compression ( does not degrade the image) and because the png format is usable on most web browsers.

Lotta noise..all of it bullxxxx. For the last time, then you go drink yourseft into a stupor when I'm finished... NO MULTIGENERATIONAL KODACHROME "FILM" WILL HAVE THE SAME VISUAL QUALITIES AS KODACHROME FILM SHOT IN CAMERA AS AN ORIGINAL...FULL STOP. To claim outherwise is simply the ravings of someone who is ignorant of the process or is trying to fool the ignorant masses. If you are well versed in "look" of kodachrome you WILL see a difference between a multi generational frame anda camera original ...its as simple as that. To say otherwise is a sign of ignorance or perhap dishonesty. Now lets go back to that post you made to Bill..filled with the mumbo jumbo... <its also called reversal because unlike negative, it goes through a completely different set of baths because it was cheaper to do so...it makes a positive first NOT a negative So IF they made a copy to negative from reversal, which is possible, then the actual film touted as "the film" is actually again a dupe...but that again is another bag of snakes...> In the case of Kodachrome and Ektachrome, the chemical process is not "cheaper" than the color negative process. In fact quite the opposite is true. Kodachrome (current process K-14 1963 process K-12) is a real bastard of a process. Which is why, even in its heyday there were only a few labs to process the stuff and today there is only ONE left in the US. Process E-6 (current) and the older version E-3 to process Ektachrome is a much simpler process and can be done by most anyone uning a simple deep tank sinkline, dip[ and dunk or cine processor. Its cheaper than Kodachrome to be sure but far more complicated and expensive than color negative processing which is simple compared to running a reversal line.... Positive movie film was popular for those shooting 8mm and super 8, not because it was cheaper to process the film but rather it allowed for the user to DIRECTLY VIEW the results via a projector or on a lightbox. As such Kodachrome II was DESIGNED BY SCIENTISTS for direct projection onto a screen via a 3200K lamp. Meaning that the spectral response, d-max, MTF curves and color rendering were NOT DESIGNED for use a starting point for multi generational film production. Using it in such a manner results in a finished product THAT IS DETECTABLE as multi generational. SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS LIKE ROLLIE CAN DO THAT WITH EASE. <what you have is "a zapruder film" and you will never ever know that you have the "original". you cannot tell me or anyone else on this board or anyone else that what you have to research from is the original. you have to accept that on faith.> Correct we don't have the camera original to play with nor should we. The Zapruder film much like the films from the apollo missions are national treasures. However the camera original HAS been studied and inspected by those with the credentials to do so and they have found it to be an unaltered in camera original. You interested in calling them liars? <if you have a dupe, or a dupe of a dupe or for that matter what you believe to be the actual film from Abes camera in your hand.. that is really not important. comparing the dupe from geraldo and the Life magazine copy that has been archived achieves little in terms of proving fakery or not.. IF it was altered using the technology available from 61 onwards in terms of film printing, and reprinting and including the stocks available at the time then you would have no way to prove it either way.> Again..utter bullxxxx. There is a VAST difference between camera original film and any multigererational copies...Period. <ok...you have the original and its not a fake. prove that. there is no chain of evidence on that film because it went from abe to a lab and then who the hell knows in between. you believe the warren commision? do you trust the perf numbers that run up the side? > Rollie did it, or are you calling him a xxxx? <if it was reversal made to a neg and a positive was made of that to project , you dont have an original which leaves the real original unaccounted for and alterable...you have copy number three. in good faith that is..> No evidence that it happend that way and besides you are left with a multi generational kodachrome which can be shown as such by visual and enlarged inspection. And you would NOT need a camera original zapruder frame to do the comparisons. <IF it was negative film and only one positive was made and given to life, you have copy number two.> It was not a negative flim camera original..... <IF YOU HAVE 16mm REVERSAL AND IT WAS MADE INTO A POSITIVE YOU HAVE NUMBER ONE BECAUSE IT PRINTS OUT AS POSITIVE okay then the headsnaps and everything are the same again.... so who's is fake and who's is real?> Are you trying to say that a positive (camera original) to positive dupe is not detectable as such? Even on Kodachrome dupe stock? Please....you are really blowing smoke now. <if the people at life magazine say the original they have is a negative, then there is a case for caution because how would they have snapped the film in a slack environment such as the processors used for 16 mm used in those days (processed first and then sliced into two halves remember)> What are you smoking? <so the idea that anyone has an original to compare is a leap of faith, regardless of whether it was faked or not..> Again you calling Rollie a xxxx? <if it was faked, there would be no way of proving it was because you would have no way of comparing it to the original. all the film grain in the world won't tell you that. In respect to it being altered to remove people for example, they could have very well airbrushed the grass over whomever and you wouldn't know without benefit of seeing an original.... and testing it by virtue of its grain is moot because when you make the final copy (the hero that we assume is the original) you get the grain that comes with that film and not the grain of the actual original or subsequent prints to be re roto'd etc...> No, none of that is moot...Example... You take a 35mm kodachrome slide and you make an enlarged 4x5 dupe to Kodak extachrome dupe stock. Is it your claim that the only "film grain" you will see is that from the dupe stock? If so you you have bullcrap flowing from your ears. What you WILL get is a 4x5 piece of film that has recorded the kodachrome grain clumps along with dupe stock grain. You can see both. Now take that 4x5 and reduce it BACK to 35mm and you still have the degraded 35mm grain clumps softening your new frame. One look at the "new frame" will tell you its not a camera original...no need to conpare it to anything because a dupe looks like a dupe.... As to "airbrushing" Its a VERY poor way to retouch because you add paint and not grain created detail. No amount of additional copy work will hide this fact. Done much work with airbrushed artwork Blair? If the answer is no, then kindly refrain from telling us what you can do with an airbrush... <you can't prove that its been altered any more than you can prove it wasn't. because none of you know conclusively that the time life copy that we assume to be the original is in fact the gods honest original and anything to the contrary is trying to sell me a bible. the warren commision told you it went straight from a to b? no they didnt make a neg? the warren report's findings of the film were gloriously inept in even describing the film.. i am even assuming alot here but i know that if that was the camera, that it used 16mm reversal and that at that time, to get a negative, you had to make a new one because the original in camera film makes a postive after its processed UNLESS you ask at the lab to process it as neg..which wouldn't be the way they did that then..... its a whole different set of baths not unlike getting slide film cross processed... yeah okay...> now..i'm not trying to be diffuse here... assuming it is the real McCoy then no it wasnt faked...but your research isn't compelling enough to prove that i am sorry to say.. film grain won't tell you what you want to know as edge perf code numbers wont....all can be easilly duped. and the headsnaps and all that other great stuff is still there... make sense?> Well actually we do know that the Time film was the in-camera original because it was inspected and tested by Rollie. You calling him a xxxx? You are being diffuse and more to the point you are doing nothing but blowing more smoke...and I'm sure that a lot of it will make it up the butts of the ignorant sheep..... cheers,,,,,

Wow, it seems that all that expensive education was a total waste on you Shanet. You have absolutely NO idea about the subject you are discussing. But please keep making your silly and uninformed comments. They really make you look the fool. BTW, there is plenty of information available at your fingertips that can educate you and the rest of the sheep should you choose to understand the TRUTH rather than wallow in ignorance and silly beliefs. Actually Craig, Shanet is correct that this process COULD have been used, I am not saying it was done. In the old days of rotoscoping, which goes back into the days of Disney cartoons, this process was widely used to incorporate live action with animation in what is called multi plane optical printing. That way, Dick Van Douche can dance with the animated Penguins.. Ray Harryhausen and willis o'brien used a very similar process to animate dinosaurs. Apples to oranges in some sense, but not in principle. In fact, if i were to humour the "alteration of the zfilm" theory, thats exactly how it would, could and should be pulled off in that era, as the technology was there 20 years before JFK got whacked. I'll give you an abstract: all of the background plates for star wars were shot on 70mm film so that when they were bipacked back down to 35mm for theatres and release, there was no generation loss. because the original 70 mm is oversaturated with grain, the 35mm would interpolate it into its own lesser grain, making it appear that the 35mm was in fact "an original". the same could very well be said for the zap film being blown up, manipulated and re-photographed. again, i don't know if they did that or not and my feelings on the film being faked are still in the "thinking about it stage." but i will say this: in regards to your attacking Shanet's post , from a technical standpoint, there is nothing erroneous about the post . it would be entirely possible to do that. Jack is also correct in saying that rotoscoping doesn't have to blur or soften the final result. Most of this film grain gibberish is diffuse, if at best questionable. Get your Kodak guys on here so i can ask where my holiday film from 1974 is....i'd like to know that... "this guy i know at kodak says.." I have noticed zero mention of the type of different film grains there are between stocks themselves here and that is also a big point everyone seems to have missed. you simply wouldn't use the same outdoor/indoor stock to make a dupe for a number of reasons : one being a.s.a. the other being the process by which the film itself was transferred. what kind of bulb was used? what was the colour temperature of that in relation to the stock....etc etc.. which leads me to believe NONE of you are foto experts. and in fact, most of the "theories" here regarding film grain are crap. The film stock of the version you look at is the grain you are looking at as film grain doesn't leave markers between generations like a photocopy of a photocopy, so you can all shut the hell up about that. ( unless it was done on a rank cintel which didnt exist at that time..) 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. to tell me that the original z film and first generation copy would have the same grain in any way is not only foolish, it is technically impossible. and KODAK will assure you of this. if not, you aren't speaking to an expert. you are speaking to an idiot. I have shot a few million feet of both motion picture film and still film and worked in the post business for 20 odd years, my SPECIALTY being transfers, colour timing and blow ups from one format to another. most of you are full of it and i invite you to bring your "experts" to talk film grain with me at any time. again, this bickering is pointless. you people who get on here and start calling people "stupid" or whathave you makes you look foolish. attack the facts please and keep your potty mouths for your late night calls to Posner. From my experience, it is those that know the least who make the most sqwuak. SUMMARY: Re photographing stills on an animation stand without obvious artifacts is not only possible, it's exactly how most people i know would have done it IF they were going to fake it given the technology available at the time. this bickering makes you all look like bufoons. CHEERS Dobson. Blair, in your haste to try and score some points you missed a few things. First Shanets theory is crap because of his stated starting point...35mm film. There is only one place in Dealy Plaza where the camera that exposed was is known as the z film could have been placed and that exactly where Zapruder is shown. No other place in the plaza will work. None. No amount of post production work can change this simple fact. That is one point that is set in stone. Now correct me if I'm wrong but there are NO images that show anything close to a 35mm motion camera to be seen. Game set and match for Shanets silly theory. All the rest is bunk. No way in the world to make reflective prints copied on a animation stand pass muster as camera original KodachromeII daylight film exposed in Dealy Plaza. And pass muster under the eyes of someone like Rollie. No Shanet is not correct and neither are you. Its a theory thats based on ignorance of the process. I know Shanet is ignorant in this case and now it appears you are as well. Are you blowing smoke Blair? Despite your long winded explanation, you miss a very important point. No copy be it from a piece of reversal film or a reflective print made to KodachromeII daylight film is going to look ANYTHING like kodachromeII exposed in daylight as a camera original film. Anyone why says thats posible is blowing smoke. Forget fine grains and special internegative and interpositive stocks...there is NO WAY to make the copy be an EXACT MATCH to a camera original. Contrast. color crossovers, grain and reduced dynamic range will DOOM your copy. And all of this will be easy to spot by a trained eye. Perhaps your eyes are not well trained? Forget the 70mm to 35mm Star wars crap..it does not apply in this case. We are not making "new originals" that have to match nothing but rather exact matches that need to pass inspection by of one the formost experts on Kodachrome film! And I loved the part where you tell us that 70mm to 35mm copies show no geerational loss! More bullcrap. There was a HUGE generational loss..the 35mm frame contained much less information that the 70mm original....no generational loss! ROTFLMAO! Heres the deal, and there is no way around it...if a lens is involved anywhere in the process a generational loss will occur...period. And correct me if I'm wrong but you cant do a emulsion to emulsion contact from a reflective print to 8mm film! And you can't do a contact print to make those enlargements to retouch...... You blowing smoke Blair? But thats where all of this has to end up. On a roll of kodachromeII daylight camera original stock. Making the dupe to kodachrome from an interpositive will be bad enough color and contrast wise but doing it from the limited dynamic range of a reflective print is even worse. Play all of the tricks you can think of but none of these methods will fool anyone with experince with first generation camera original kodachrome. And I can't think of anyone better than Rollie to review the Zapruder kodachrome film. Anyone want to suggest that Rollie is not telling the truth or does not know what he is talking about? You think YOU could fool Rollie into thinking reflective art shot on a copy stand to kodachromeII was really camera original KodachromeII taken in daylight? LOL! Or are you just blowing smoke Blair? I've spent a great deal of time working the animation stand and also have exposed miles of film stock. In fact, if you read back in the threads I also suggested that an animation stand would be a far better tool to create a composite z film than an optical printer. On that point we agree, at least to the extent that the live frame area could be produced in a "fake z film". The intersprocket areas are another story. Finally I dont know where you got the idea that I said a camera original and a first generation copy would have the same grain pattern...I did'nt. But lets cut to the chase here... In summary: Its foolish to believe that a kodachrome film made by either a copy process from reflective art, or a dupe process with internegatives/interpositives could pass muster as a camera original film. Its simply not going to happen. Any suggestion that its possible by you or anyone else is nothing more than bullxxxx. Or are you just blowing smoke Blair? Get up to speed here Blair..you are looking like a bufoon.

Film is film is film, it matters not a hoot if the samples come from the zapruder film or a test reel, the effects of the copy and duplication process are the same. Your suggestion that you need to see Z frames is pure bullxxxx. This is standard copy and dupe stuff Jack and the problems as Bill and I have stated are universal. To says otherwise is again pure bullxxxx, but its to be expected from you because all you have is bullxxxx. As for your claim that you have copied prints with both kodachrome and ektachrome film and that no grain is visable is again pure bullxxxx. But hey try and prove me wrong..post high res tif files drum scanned at say at least 50mb and lets see if your theory holds water. For the uninformed lurkers out there do a little research and see what you can find on the web in regards to the grain structure of scanned 35mm kodachrome and extachrome film...lots to be had and you just might learn for yourself what a full of crap poser Jack White really is.

Read aloud for maximum comic effect ....... Read your ignorant theory of the origin of the z film and ROTFLYAO!. Talk about a comedy! Its better then sitcoms on tv! It also shows your complete lack of intellectual honesty. What a wonderful tribute to GSU. God help anyone who takes anything you say for truth. You would not know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Your faulty belief system and wacked out worldview will not permit it. Go back to your fantasy world Shanet, you are way out of your depth in the photographic world. Or not, its always great sport to bust your ignorant chops.

Thank you Shanet for again showing the depth of your ignorance...please keep it up. And btw, why not show us all how wonderful a color print to reversal film copy can look. Perhaps you can fool the educated...LOL! Moron!

You should really try the TRUTH on for size sometime Shanet, instead of that fantasy world you live in....na...never mind....you can't handle the truth...sheep.

Wow, it seems that all that expensive education was a total waste on you Shanet. You have absolutely NO idea about the subject you are discussing. But please keep making your silly and uninformed comments. They really make you look the fool. BTW, there is plenty of information available at your fingertips that can educate you and the rest of the sheep should you choose to understand the TRUTH rather than wallow in ignorance and silly beliefs.

Thanks, Jim...much appreciated. I am always amazed that John Armstrong and I seem among the few interested in the two Oswalds. I think it is the key to understanding the case, but oddly very few study it or are even interested. For instance, the fact that there were two Marguerites is very intriguing to me and I do not understand why others are not interested. Jack The TWO Marguerites are at the least very intriguing. Shockingly so. Strongly suggestive of a long-term program of two "lee oswalds", as was your poster. In that photos and the attending issues are your area of expertise I defer to yourself and others whom I do respect. Your own Work as opposed to my opinions that do concur for the vast majority of issues. When we consider the fairly well established 2 Lee Oswalds it shouldn't surprise that 2 Marguerites appear in the record too. These possiblities and probabilities beg the question: "Were there on-going programs to create assassins as sleeper assets in place in 1963"? Were Manchurian Candidate programs part of the real politics long before Sirhan B. Sirhan and 1968? Sirhan Sirhan and his "case" is easy to establish the possibility of mind bending assets creating an assassin's patsy. Who was the murdered Lee Oswald really and for myself a question arises about multilingual children and possible uses there of very long before 1963. But my research is only an on-going thing unconcluded but far enough along to foster opinions about a shadow operation touched apon by the the primary particpants lives, i.e. the LeeS and Robert and THE MargueriteS Oswald as well as others named Paine as watchers/handlers and so forth. Why would the doubles as assets idea be so hard to consider in 1963? It is not. Jack, much more than you and Mr. Armstrong are very curious about what the heck was going on in Dallas that November concerning doubles and further what the heck was going on in the lives of the primary participants before that culmination of operations? It is not a stretch to say that this particular area of interest has ignited others' interests in who really was killed in Dallas and such. Research has been spawned of these unanswered questions conducted by myself and others, further it is on-going both for myself and others. I can think of no higher compliment to any researcher's work than to see that work used as a beginning point for digging deeper. As always Best Health and Regards to you Jim Thanks again, Jim. I had hoped that Armstrong's fantastic book would have a greater impact...but researchers still largely ignore the subject of the Oswalds. Jack Blah blah blah. These are standard problems for the copy and dupe process Jack. They have been standard problems since the first copy negative was made. If you are unaware of them please retire your "photo expert" membership card. Now it seems to me that since you, Healy and company are suggesting that copies of a frame of film CAN be made that are not detectable as second, thrid or more generations away form the original, that YOU do the tests and post the results. It's your claim, you prove it. But good luck because it cannot be done. And thats exactly why you and Healy, despite your continuing blather have not done so todate.

He is the guy who has ripped you to shreads time after time. His credentials are listed in his bio. How did you miss that Jack? Oh wait, its an observational thing, and you are a failure at observation.

Healy barked: polka dots? you gotta be kidding? Where's the photographic examples? Lurkers want to see Zapruder film samples and references. The before and after??? Let me assist you; You have access to 35mm or 4x5 trannies LIFE Zapruder-frames. Utilizing a 2k (4000k by 4000k) first generation digital file .tiff file of same, take a 500x500 pixel section of the DP infield grass of said alledged in-camera Zapruder film frame [any frame showing the infield with or without the limo] - and we'll need the provenance of said frame], that will be your Kodacolor II 8mm example still (sample-image 1), the result of image 1; in its 8mm 35mm 'bumped' form to *negative stock (make that sample, image sample 2) - then to 35mm reversal stock (make that one, image-sample 3), then back down to 8mm Kodacolor II (and finally, image-sample 4). Also, tell us the 8mm and the 1963-4 vintage 35mm film stock you'll be referencing. Show us what we should look for. How we can tell the fake frame from the original... Care to name your experts? LOL 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!

Thanks, Jack. This process is obvious and color/contrast could be retained and even enhanced by doing this. It is pretty obvious to me this is where the "blob" came from, since the doctors at Parkland all saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out. Evidently the Zapruder film and the Bethesda autopsy materials were HEAVILY altered (in the interest of national security, of course) Shanet Man you are so out of your depth here it's not even funny. It seems your grasp of the subject matter is "problematic".

I've been watching this exchange with glee David. You should really try and stay away from these sorts of discussions because you are not mentally equipped to play. Now for a little red meat, not that you will have a hoots chance in hell of understanding. First I've spent plenty of time comparing unaltered and altered 35mm Kodachome film. Guess what David, even a dunce like you could tell the difference, which tells me you have not done the comparisons. Of course the major difference is contrast, even when the altered material is Kodachome dupe stock. And them there is generational losses caused by the optics in the process chain unless the copy was made via contact. But even with a contact process you still get the contrast gain. PERIOD. Now take that Kodachome original and make a dupe with standard duplicating film or internegative film of ANY type other than Kodachome dupe stock (and as shown above that’s a can of worms itself) and you have a color mess. You see Kodachome film has a unique dye structure and when you make an internegative or dupe on standard films made for this use you get color crossovers that are impossible to PERIOD. Now if you had ANY practical experience in any of this WHATSOEVER you would know all of this. But since you don't have the mental equipment to play you are nothing more than white noise. You tell Bill that you are a compositing professional, and maybe its true you earn money for making composites. But the examples you have posted here and elsewhere showing your computer compositing skills on Zapruder frames are childish in execution. Perhaps you have found clients that are willing to accept crap, but its pretty clear that you don't have the mental equipment to play. No David, you are so over your head when it comes to film based compositing its not even funny. Hell you can't even do a decent computer composite. So why is it again you are attempting to play? Give it up. You don't have the equipment upstairs. P.S. You really should bone up on stereo viewing...then perhaps you would not look so F--king stupid.

I've seen a number of ct's try and to find a way to exclude that a 757 actually hit the pentagon but this one takes the cake. Nice job Ron.

Simple question for you Blair, IN all of those 50 years of plane wrecks, how many were 500 plus mph aircraft plowing into a building built to withstand a huge blast? If you find one then perhaps we can compare how such a wreck might look. But until then you are just blowing smoke. One final question. How big was that hole again? 15 feet or 18 feet? At least tell the same story every time...sheesh.

Ah come on now Evan, give Blair a break...after all he has met Len Osanic, host of Black Op radio...and now we know he's just another blind nutjob. Would it suprise you to learn that Fetzer is a regular guest on Black Op radio? I did'nt think so. I

LOL! You have fallen off the wagon eh David? Pardon me while I report this back to headquaters. LOL! BTW, ever going to address that latest silly claim by your buddy White? Or are you too busy being the big bad black sheep? LOL! However, being totally candid...do you really believe this crap? Or are you the next to be "outed"? I"m getting the feeling that someone very high up the chain is pulling your strings and its beginning to appear it goes all the was to DC. Who exactly do you work for David? Your jig is about up!

And another sheep checks in. So how about this claim? Crazy or not. Educate us. And here we have the lead sheep. So David, where is your professional opinion of this latest claim of Jacks. You spend lots of time attempting to defend his "honor". Its time for you to actually defend his 'work". So hop to it there black sheep and show us some of that massive professional imaging experience claim to posess. Educate us for a change...if you have the guts. You don't ignore us Jack, you stay way because you know you can't compete. Its the typical Jack tactic, apply a label and then stick your fingers in your ears and pretend not to hear the evidence that destroys yet again another ignorant Jack White theory. Then you will claim no one has debunked your crazy theory! What a wonderful ploy. Too bad its not very honest. Of couse by now its pretty claer to all with open eyes and an open mind that what you do has noting to do with honesty nor truth.

Blair, I think Bill said it best, with these guys it never ends. Its rare indeed for White to retract a claim even in the face of daunting evidence. I suggest you visit Evan Burtons rebuttal of Whites Apollo stuff to see what I mean. Mostly when faced with massive evidence that his work is wrong, White will simply stick his fingers in his ears and pretend not to hear. Then he will claim that those people who have provided evidence are not to be trusted, governmental agents, etc. And on it goes. In a few months he will recycle his discredited work on some forum again and the cycle will start anew. It never ends. Now over the years many folks have undertaken massive efforts to try and resolve these silly claims investing time and money to try and educate those with limited understanding of this stuff. One example is the moorman in the street claim. I was part of that debunking effort again we went way overboard to try and deal with every part of the claim made by White and company. It was amazing because his claim was based on a simple error in viewing a copy of the moorman. Of course now that the work is done and it has been shown that he was in error, White has simply moved on with his claim and now its the MOORMAN that has been altered in the area where he made his mistake...but not where he claims "badgeman' exists. Over time it will become clear that its a fools errand. Now for this claim. Even with his total lack of understanding of the photographic process, White has a very good understand of the advertising game. Thats how he works his claims. He is selling ice to eskimos. In this one he has set him self up to alway be right because he based his claim on an "opinion" that can't be shown to be totally false. In this case its his claim that Jackie is grabbing Hills arm in Nix. Of course there is no way to prove that she is or is not doing such a thing because the Nix frame does not show enough detail or sharpness. Of course it does not show enough for Jack to make the claim either but he still does and quotes it as fact. Now a thinking person would go to the zapruder frame and see what it shows them and then compare to Nix. Doing so we can see that Jackies hand on the trunk is located in such a manner that when viewed from the nix line of sight and elevation it could APPEAR to be grabbing Hills elbow. In other words what we see in Zapruder validates what we see in Nix. If one was so inclined this could be proven emperically by simply taking a few pictures. This is not rocket science. But its amazing that someone who bills himself as an expert on the JFK photography and photography in general would make such a silly claim. Its a case of you can't always believe your eyes. Unless you take the time to deal with the line of sight issues and the optical compression issues caused by the lower nix camera elevation it possible to think that the frames don't match. Now when you are selling ice to eskimos you have to bank on the fact that they don't have a clue about what you are selling. In that respect White has his suckers figured out to a tee. Its simply the game he plays and he plays it very well. The problem is that he is not peddling the truth, but rather disinformation. And unfortunatly he finds a lot of willing but ignorant buyers. Now if you feel you can offer some work that can clear some of this up, great. Just be forewarned as to what you will face when you do. Me, I've given up trying. Those with a real desire will do the work to find the truth. Those with a belief system to support will follow along regardless of the facts because they "know better" and will never change their minds.

Blair, You offer an interesting exercise but it will fail to address the basic point of Jacks theory, that the hand placements in the z and nix film do not match for two specfic frames. So great, now you have stablized cropped whatever matched versions of each film but you still can't deal with misconceptions of Whites latest "theory". The fact that this theory is even being discussed is beyond me. This is simple line of sight stuff. For anyone who fails to grasp the fact that the two frames depict the same action, just draw a simple overhead diagram of the scene and plot the lines of sight from both cameras to the hands and arms in question. Then factor in the elevated camera height of Zapruder and this whole silly game is done. There is nothing amiss with these frames...period. But hey you want to do the video thing, go for it. It will not however resolve this issue.