Greg Burnham

Absence of the specific evidence you seek to substantiate a claim of alteration is not evidence of absence of alteration.

Bill, if ANYONE is "high on the witness list" it is inappropriate to turn them into "suspects" -- suspects in the crime of perjury, among other things. For instance, I'm quite inclined to be in favor (at this late date) of granting immunity to Ayers (for example) in order to extract the truth from him (assuming he is still witholding information). Such inflammatory remarks hardly encourage the cooperation of a witness whose testimony is potentially valuable, IMO. Maybe, but not necessarily. Yeah, I know. Chauncey told me about it. But, Jerry concluded Holt was not the third tramp as a result of the encounter. Go figure? Agreed. I hope so...and that she killed him in his sleep perhaps? Just one more witness...

Bill, How odd that your following post (time stamped 7:48am) includes my post (time stamped 7:07pm)? Is that because you edited this post at 10:55pm and then "copied and pasted" my post from way later? I think so. And that's OK by me--really, but I almost missed your reply to what I wrote as a result! Quoting BK [quoting me]: I am truly confused by your post...

Jim, I am convinced of Chauncey's authenticity! However, some things are not "black and white" especially when it comes to "operational" matters. I'm not comfortable posting about this. I'll call you over the weekend or next week. As far as the taping of the session goes, are you kidding me? Wow. If true, that's very odd. I thought they taped everything, if for no other reason than to sell it!

Jim, We may or may not agree on this, but "to split hairs" (which is sometimes good for the sake of clarity), let me say, IMO: "Operation Dallas" was carried out by several layers (at least 3) of gunmen and their spotters. The primary [out-sourced] team consisted of six individuals (three groups of two each--1 sniper and 1 spotter). The "second" team was similarly constructed, but unknown to the primary team. The ansillary team was placed in the event that the earlier attempts failed. The "out-sourced" team was supplied by the CIA. No question. But, not for THAT "mission" as it turned out. Lansdale was there to manage the cover-story, no matter the outcome. Did he have foreknowledge? No question about it! But, what did he think was going to take place that day? Huh? What? Therein lies the key to this case...

Jim, As you probably recall, I too was on the Chauncey Holt Panel at Lancer in 2000. I think the presentation is available for purchase from Lancer on DVD, but I don't know for sure since I never have seen it or ordered it. That said, I also knew Chauncey Holt for several decades. Well, let me re-phrase that: I first met Chauncey Holt in the very early 70's (about '71) and had contact with him for over a 2 or 3 year period (yes, my early teen years). Long story. However, I didn't see him again until about 1990, a year after I moved back to San Diego. I personally do not think the third tramp is Chauncey. I could be wrong, but that is my belief. Karyn and her (now late) mother knew this was my belief and we remain(ed) friends. However, I don't doubt the bulk of the remainder of his claims regarding providing Secret Service ID's and all the rest. We discussed several "details" of his appearance on JFKresearch Forum 10 years ago. You asked me specifics about his height, which I confirmed--as they were accurate to the best of my knowledge. However, they alone do not convince me that he was or was not the third tramp--there is more. GO_SECURE monk

Thanks Jack, Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602 You probably just missed it. Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid. He wanted a larger view of them. I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are. chris Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd. Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts? Best, Jerry Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work. Jerry, I would expect to see more of this speed (discounting limo). Probably a pinch faster, but not much. What did I do? Took out the blurry frames in the sequence (about 12 of them). Reduced FPS to 6, in the movie. Thoughts!!!! thanks, chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/4D37D/6FPS.mov This is terrific work, Chris. Many thanks for the effort. I'm sure we'll all learn more from it. Hey Greg, yes sir: chris is indeed, GOOD! Any nutters in this thread come up with anything of merit yet? David Not so far...

Jim, I sometimes observe what I perceive to be: JD's "odd reasoning", as well--but, I don't claim to know its source! That was humorous! Yeah, I agree, that is weak--and inconclusive, at best. Why is Fernandez not credible? (I'm not arguing that he is credible, but why isn't he?) IMO: Those are all red flags, and quite obvious. Yeah, and even if they had said "No!" -- it still could be due to a misplaced loyalty to protect their father, in the same way Morales' daughters denied his presence at the Ambassador. I'm with you, Jim. [emphasis added]I agree that those who are not disinformation artists, but who nevertheless insist on discounting (out of hand) the reliability of identifications made by otherwise competent witnesses, are clearly not using their heads. It is, in my opinion, unnecessary for a researcher to discount evidence. All evidence needs to be weighed and measured irrespective of how it impacts one's own pre-existing beliefs. So, dismissing "supporting" evidence because we have "other evidence" is not productive. That is partly the reason some CT researchers deny Zapruder film alteration or remain agnostic about it. IMO, JFK was assassinated by a military ambush "operationally" -- not the CIA. However, the CIA and many other government agencies were deeply involved in the "cover up" (Obstruction of Justice) and continue to be. That is not to say that the agency lacked motive. They had plenty of motive. They just "suck" at that type of operation. They might oversee such a thing--at least limited aspects of it--but they are operationally incompetent on that level. In other words, they lack "the means" to directly do the deed. They can, and do, have "hired hands" to act on their behalf world-wide [read:abroad], but NOT here. I know it sounds naive for me to say that, but it's true. And there is a reason that they don't. There are many reasons that the military had to be involved operationally in Dallas, IMO. The agency "stuck a leg out" into the aisle--sometimes causing "a trip" is all that's required. Moreover, the Secret Service and supplemental military protection provided by the 113th Army Intelligence Unit Washington, DC (112th 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston), had to be "removed" from the equation to insure success. That "removal" is a function of the CIA... But I digress..

Thanks Jack, Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602 You probably just missed it. Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid. He wanted a larger view of them. I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are. chris Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd. Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts? Best, Jerry Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work. Jerry, I would expect to see more of this speed (discounting limo). Probably a pinch faster, but not much. What did I do? Took out the blurry frames in the sequence (about 12 of them). Reduced FPS to 6, in the movie. Thoughts!!!! thanks, chris http://98.155.4.83:8400/4D37D/6FPS.mov This is terrific work, Chris. Many thanks for the effort. I'm sure we'll all learn more from it.

We the People are the government. And since we are a democratic republic, we elect officials to represent us and protect our interests. Therefore, any crime involving the cooperation of 2 or more elected government officials (or their staff) is a CONSPIRACY by the American government's elected officials against "We the People". Ever hear of Watergate? There are perhaps hundreds of other examples. The Teapot Dome Scandal, etc., etc., etc. [edited error]

Hey, without evidence, the LN's need all the help they can get.

Noted! Thank you, my friend...I will. Greg, I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple. You wrote.... "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" --" Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film. Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question. Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film? These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong. I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is", You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder. In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those. "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand. Jerry This is not my last stand. Why suggest it is? In fact, why are you raising issues (that I didn't raise) and then attributing them to me? Knock it off! It's a poor representation of your intellectual prowess. Seriously, Jerry...you are attributing WAY MORE to me than what I actually said. I don't like it. Even Jim D is getting swallowed up in it...not his fault. He is agnostically gullible on this issue. But you are not. 'nuff said--

So be it.

What are you talking about, Jim? Nobody implied anyone was a "spook" -- sheesh. However, similar tactics can be employed by the un-employed...as they were in this case. I do not require that anyone believes the Zapruder film is altered in order to "prove" they are honest, intelligent, sincere, etc.

Noted! Thank you, my friend...I will.

That is NOT what I said! Not even close. You are NOT cognitively impaired. Please don't continue to misrepresent yourself as such...it will gain little sympathy. Try again because that was LAME(son). Huh? What are you talking about now? Several of the rudimentary techniques in use in this 1928 film demonstrate the technology (however accomplished in 1928) to ALTER FILM. The 1928 film displayed formidable "credibility" in its presentation. The Zapruder film was shot and processed 35 years later! So, even more advanced technology was available to our government in 1963, coupled with an unlimited budget to implement the technology. If you thought it silly, then WHY CONTRIBUTE TO THE THREAD AT ALL? You parrot the position of others in your post. Similar defense tactics have been employed by the CIA to support the WCR, although they appear innocuous on their face--just like your cordial nonsense does. Countering Criticism of the Warren Report 1 April 1967 Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases Document Number 1035-960 for FOIA Review on Sep 1976 SUBJECT: Countering Criticism of the Warren Report PSYCH 1. Our Concern: From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results. 2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments. 3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addressees are requested: CS COPY 9 attachments h/w DATE 4/1/67 1- Satts 8-Unclassified DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED JFK 01, p.2 a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation. b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.) 4. In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful: a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been much more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.) b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the commission for good and sufficient reason. JFK 01, p.3 c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions. d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory; or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties. JFK 01, p.4 e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed-up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms. g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.) 5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the Report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Greg, I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out. In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie. Of course! It is 35 years later, why wouldn't 1963 technology not be ahead of 1928? That's a no-brainer, Jerry! Is it really the opposite process? Are you sure? I think not. I believe that stop frame was not the "end all" process, but was, in fact, incorporated when the film frames were individually re-shot. Well, that's only partially true, Jerry. Stop frame can also be used to alter images "frame by frame" in a studio... and you know it. The (pre-recorded) "scene" can be changed and then re-recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion making the source of "graphic violence" appear to be uncertain, too. Uhhh, no that is not correct, as it is based on a non-sequitar. It might make you look foolish, my dear condescending one, but not me. That is an insulting and quite embarassing (for you) statement! Why use intimidation as a deterrent if your case is so strong, Jerry? It is beneath you. Thanks...but, try again. Oh, and BTW: there are a number of professional film makers who do not agree with your assessment either. However, that proves nothing--except that we both know professionals with opposing views on the subject. Greg, I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds. h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film? Jerry No offense taken. How did your professionals address those irrelevant issues, Jerry? Mine didn't address them at all! They are more concerned with actual issues--content inconsistencies, and impossibilities. The Zapruder film is interestingly similar to the Warren Commission Report, in that it is "internally" inconsistent with itself.

Jim, The best and the most highly advanced techniques to alter and/or manipulate film in 1963 were, far and away, most readily available to the US Federal Government--as they are even today. This should not even be in question. If we accept the above as true, then is it really a giant stretch to conclude that between the Hawkeye and NPIC facilities, that TOP SECRET "STATE OF THE ART" technology was, in fact, available to the US Federal Government? Is it a stretch to conclude that the technology (TOP SECRET) that was available to the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT might have exceeded even Hollywood's best special effects? Given the magnitude of the "cover-up challenge" to the perpetrators of the crime, and given an unlimited budget, when do you think such technology would have been employed for use on an URGENT basis? Seems like this would have been opportune, no?

Greg, I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out. In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie. Of course! It is 35 years later, why wouldn't 1963 technology not be ahead of 1928? That's a no-brainer, Jerry! Is it really the opposite process? Are you sure? I think not. I believe that stop frame was not the "end all" process, but was, in fact, incorporated when the film frames were individually re-shot. Well, that's only partially true, Jerry. Stop frame can also be used to alter images "frame by frame" in a studio... and you know it. The (pre-recorded) "scene" can be changed and then re-recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion making the source of "graphic violence" appear to be uncertain, too. Uhhh, no that is not correct, as it is based on a non-sequitar. It might make you look foolish, my dear condescending one, but not me. That is an insulting and quite embarassing (for you) statement! Why use intimidation as a deterrent if your case is so strong, Jerry? It is beneath you. Thanks...but, try again. Oh, and BTW: there are a number of professional film makers who do not agree with your assessment either. However, that proves nothing--except that we both know professionals with opposing views on the subject.

Jerry, Just to be clear, I did not say that I believe the same technology was used in both films. If you re-read my entire post, you'll note that I am only arguing against the position of some of the anti-alterationists who have claimed that (re-phrased for clarity): "The Zapruder film is legitimate because the state of alteration technology was not developed sufficiently to have pulled it off...believably in 1963." In my opinion, that argument is not well founded because film manipulation had come a very long way, even by 1928. If my original post lacked clarity, my apologies.

Francois, I would say that this is perhaps a "cultural" distinction, except that many of those who support the official story are Americans, too--so that's not it. Rather than me speculate on why those who support the official version choose to do so, or speculate as to their "motives" which I have no way of knowing, let me instead point out one reason why many of us find the official version so suspect. Initially, the main problem is that the officials "rushed to judgment" in their haste to claim: "Case Closed" for all the world to believe. To most Americans, such behavior--by their government--is inherently suspect because it defies our own rule of law. That isn't how we do things here. There need not have been any rush to close the case at all if there was, in fact, nothing to hide. Indeed, such governmental behavior backfired and kept this case open for nearly 50 years so far! In America, our Declaration of Independence advises us to be ever vigilant over government. Our Constitution similarly acknowledged the rights of the individual; rights that are inherent to being human--not "granted" by any government, and therefore, may not be infringed upon by any government. It is within this environment that Americans must view the assassination of our 35th President. It is within this environment that we must evaluate all of the surrounding events (the investigation and handling of witnesses and evidence) before laying the case to rest. And, the problem is, too many things just don't add up.

Thank you for being civil in your reply. However, I don't agree with you at all. Your mis-characterization of those who are thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence as "refusing to acknowledge the evidence at hand" is not accurate. Bill is demonstrating (as usual) an exceptional knowledge of the "evidence" that was advanced by the government. So, there is no "refusal to acknowledge" the evidence. However, he is scrutinizing that evidence in order to determine if it is valid. He has asked to be "persuaded" by those who support the official version. So far, the arguments in support of conviction have fallen far short of the mark.

Francois, Oswald IS an innocent man in terms of American jurisprudence because he was never found guilty by a jury. There was no trial. Here, a suspect IS considered innocent until proven guilty beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. We do not live in a Napoleonic Court System (guilty until proven innocent) in the United States. That is a French invention. So, Bill isn't "turning him into an innocent man" at all! Bill is merely alluding to the only accurate label by which he can be described. This is one of the tell tale signs of intellectual dishonesty on the part of people who should know better. People like McAdams nearly flat out deny that Oswald is legally still presumed innocent because his guilt was never proved. If, as Bill points out, the evidence in support of his guilt is inadequate to persuade beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT then a jury would not have convicted him. Unlike the inculptory evidence in the OJ Simpson case, the evidence in support of Oswald's guilt is very weak, and even the so-called "strongest" evidence against him is rife with gaping holes.

We call it "talking past the close..." but that's not what I did. I feel strongly that she was not lying to me, but that means little in terms of evidence. My dilemma might be resolved by elements in her new book--one way or another. Huh? Don't be so condescending. That won't work with me.

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered Hello Dean, I was referring to the clip Chris posted. It's obvious that clip was a stop frame animation so no part of the film was added or subtracted or changed - it was the scene which was changed between frames. I haven't commented on the entire 1928 film because I'm no expert in 1928 movie technology - although most of it looks to me like simple stop frame animation, not alteration in the sense of using composites or mattes to create images of things that didn't physically exist or happen or retouching frame content to change the images in the frame. Frankly, I find the entire thread kind of bizarre. Everyone (I think) knows that images have been retouched and composited since the very start of photography. The fact that someone in 1928 could use black and white professional negative film in a controlled studio environment to produce some limited special effects which look pretty good on youtube - that doesn't tell me anything about what's required to create a color positive 8mm film strip of a changing outdoor scene that's good enough to fool the guy who invented the film when he's examining the original with a 20x microscope. It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16. Best to you, Jerry It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16. Precisely! Er, which came first again? Bernie, It was a late night analogy so I'm not married to it. Plus, firearms history doesn't seem to be your forte. How about this instead? It's like saying that since Walt Disney animated Mickey Mouse in 1928 it was possible to produce Avatar in 1963. Whatever analogy you prefer, the point is that concepts are around for a long time - a lot earlier that 1928. The real question is what specific techniques and tools are required to realize a specific instance of a general idea. Nothing in the 1928 film speaks to what's technically required to generate a highly plausible Z film. Best to you, Jerry Hi Jerry, I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men. Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar. Was there no midway point in all this technological development? Thanks for all of your well thought out posts in this thread, Bernie.