David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
This shifts the contents of the frames, and the other frames around there are shifted within the mask to compensate and give a continuity look. The blue timing splice is a major correction, without which the abrupt shift in content caused by the two composites would draw attention to the composites which are very deceptively good workmanship.
The first composite shifts the contents of all following frames to the right.
The second composite shifts the following frames further to the right.
The blue timing splice brings the frames following it back into the mask frame area.
John ... what can you tell us from the Muchmore film that wasn't broken and merely taped back together ... I mean, are these shifts present on the undamaged copies in your view?
Bill
perhaps you can tell us where one can view the Muchmore in-camera original, for that matter ALL the DP-JFK assassination related in-camera *original* films, especially the ones you seem to have access too! Nothing like an even playing field, eh?
-
If necessary and it's wanted, I can and will set up a separate forum where such topic sabotage isn't condoned and actively defended so you, Frank Agbat, and any mature and responsible researchers making actual contributions can conduct your collaborations in a safe environment completely free of such pitiable nonsense, then export it wherever you feel it should go. Let me know if and when it gets to that point.
Ashton
From the amount of personal messages and emails I have gotten concerning the quality of your research and the tone of your responses ... many here would prefer that you did start your own forum. As far as the Muchmmore film goes .. the film was broken and merely had the two ends put back together.
Bill Miller
-
And, until such time as you have studied the WC and:
Thomas,
I ain't gonna read it.
EBC
-
exactly..... I'll correct your terminology too.... I'll create a illustration for review
David, if you do post that illustration, can you please post some of the countless others that you promised, but never came through on?
Bill Miller
sitdown Bill -- the boys are taking care of business -- unless of course you'd like to tell us all about film size and dimensions, hot and cold film splicing, wetgate printing, compression video codecs, DVD's MPEG2 progressive and interlaced video, not to mention optical film printing techniques and all that sort of stuff that leaves you speechless..... jump right on in, little guy!
And Bill, my donation to the film alteration question is in a published book.... I'm still waiting for you to get something published, your envy is palpable....
-
Thank you for the information, David.
I think I know what you mean with 'nah'. Hence the word good in parenthesis. I think it might not be a splice that was needed because the film was broken there, but rather to correct a situation that arose from a more subtle 'repair' that may very well have resulted in partial excision of other frames. It's 'good' in the sense that it quite well obscures that excision and creates a 'perhaps' with regards to frame removal, shuffling about etc. However, I'm working on the notion that it's 'decipherable'.
I wonder if you have to post an example of a wet and a dry splice, or describe what they would look like and why??
exactly..... I'll correct your terminology too.... I'll create a illustration for review
-
Frank, I wonder if you have found out
the exact aspect ratio change Z to published MPI in pixels or percent.
did they stretch lengthwise or compress vertically. Either way changes the data somewhat but compressing definiotely 'deletes'
From incomplete and frustrating attempts to resolve that exact question, I'm so far of the opinion that there is not a uniform simple ratio: that there is distortion in unequal distribution in the MPI frames—or in the mpeg of the Zapruder film I have that I'm attempting to resolve the MPI frames to.
I've been trying with Z:220 because it has black diagonal lines in it running down from top left toward center, and several pretty well defined horizontal and vertical points to keep aligning to.
So far, the ratios that seemed promising in some relationship were:
W: 78
H: 62.4
W: 76.7
H: 62.1
W: 78.3
H: 62.2
All are wrong.
When I get a vertical sizing that aligns, I cannot (so far) get any horizontal sizing that aligns at all points. There seems to be unequal "stretch" in places across the horizontal that I can't figure out. There may be some fundamental flaw in my approach, but I haven't identified it.
Ashton
dgh: here's the SMPTE (Roland Zavada's organization established in 1915) benchmark:
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~cksm/Formats.html
* * * * * *
8mm film, in size is 1.33:1 (as it was in 1963) - simple shorthand, a 4:3 screen ratio (4 being horizontal/3 the vertical) all standard NTSC video is 4:3 or 1.33:1. If your dealing with film imagery converted to DVD you have the *added* problem of dealing with the MPEG format which the film will be converted to when burned to the DVD, which is 2:1 near frame ratio. Scaling those images to 90%+/- horizontal will bring the 8mm images back to 1.33:1
-
OK, I've got an alternative set up. The strip of frames are also re done to aid in the next steps which involves a lot of aligning.
In order to minimise disruption to Nix-Zapruder-Muchmore-Bronson-Bell etc sync thread this thread deals with an issue arising from it that IMO unless resolved fully, one (or at least I)cannot trust the Mfilm.
To proceed in small steps:
At this link is a 2mb strip of the early color version, not the cleaned up ones that followed. This will form the basis of this study.
http://www.vidiars.com/jdolva/Mfstrip_37-46.jpg
"'why such a splice that shifts the contents of the frame?'"
Comtrarily, I think the splice is a result of 'good' workmanhip.
dgh:splice in the **middle** of a frame? nah, not professional, at all. Perhaps a frame was added or frame removed, repaired? The blue/whitish strip across the frame, the one with the little circle on the right of the blue/whitish strip. That circle probably represents of a timing cue mark, if that circle is on the alleged camera original, the film is suspect, then again that mark may have been placed on a second, third, fourth generation copy when the film was prepared for inclusion in a television presentation by digital post production folks (why they'd place it there I don't know).
note: those little circles, they were/are quite common in the film/tv industry, and can be seen in modern day movie theaters. where they usually denote a source film reel change, or, for optical film printing buffs, a edit/splice/reel change point.
-
Frank, I wonder if you have found out
the exact aspect ratio change Z to published MPI in pixels or percent.
did they stretch lengthwise or compress vertically. Either way changes the data somewhat but compressing definiotely 'deletes'
the frames are not all level, I suppose you've noticed that. In particular when resizing this 'relocates' items in a way that makes some fine measurements dodgy.
Could this be the source of the skewing or distortion seen in the Msplice. Ie the splice needs to be treated as two separate images and aligned properly first before any resizing, restoration.
dgh: regarding MPI DVD imagery720x480 MPEG2 DVD format (2:1)
base NTSC video imagery is 640x480 (4:3)
scale 90-91% horizontal (only) should get you in the ballpark....
Have a nice New Year's guy's!
-
I believe the MPI Z-film version is missing the last frame....
You are correct! (I'll edit my post accordingly).
In the missing final frame, one could easily argue some combination of "lazy" and/or "thinking for us" i.e., MPI determined that there was nothing of value in this frame and merely ignored it.
The more I closely examine their work, the more I wish they'd make the individual frames in all their various zooms, etc, available for purchase in full-resolution.
dgh: John Costella PhD. Physics (HOAX contributor) pointed that out to us a few years back, Frank. Not I.....
In defense of MPI, they had no idea the backlash they'd receive from JFK DP phot/film research community, they just did a simple job for the Zapruder family, making the Z-film available, in current viewable media form, for public consumption and our viewing pleasure... and made pretty good money in the process.
FWIW: they, MPI, won't be making anything available to the assassination research community, they won't answer any questions regarding the Zapruder DVD/VHS project...
-
Speaking of missing frames...
MPI's version of the Z-film is missing the following frames:
155, 156, 208, 209, 210, 211, 341, 350.
If I understand the provenance correctly, it is claimed that the MPI version was taken from the "camera original" in the archives, and that the damage was caused while the film was in the custody of Time/Life. (Inexcusably, MPI does NOT correct for the missing 341 and 350 frames, so all the frames after 340 are mis-numbered). Apart from the utter incompetence of Time/Life to allow such an important film to be damaged at all, I got to thinking about the particular frames in question. Specifically, why would certain frames end up getting damaged? What causes such damage? What is special about those frames?
The timing problems with the preposterous WC fantasy forced the search for evidence of a first shot prior to the "Stemmons Road Sign-vicinity" shot. This could conceivably explain some of the 155/156 damage (probably from wear and tear, bulb-heat damage, etc).
208-211 seems fairly obvious as well -- the search for the magic bullet shot (or shots)...
341 and 350, though, are curious. Unlike the aforementioned frames, there is no evidence of a pending problem in the preceding frame nor in the following frames. They're simply missing from MPI's collection of frames in any of the formats provided. So what is special, if anything, about those frames, or did some knucklehead at Time-Life simply break the film in two places and spliced around it?
I believe the MPI Z-film version is missing the last frame....
-
'Bill Miller' wrote:
In your attempt to try and play the forum xxxxx once again - you have actually made my point. JFK and his head wound were always in motion just as the limo was and that is where the motion blur comes in. Any idiot should know that stationary objects will appear somewhat sharp if the camera doesn't move causing panning blur. Can you read that license plate or tell anything about the design on the headlamps or grill in your frame - of course you can't. Back to the type of camera and film Zapruder used ... what can you tell me about JFK's expression in your frame ... is he smiling, is he frowning, are his eyes open - what? How about the faces on the stationary people along the south side of Elm Street?
Bill Miller
************
dgh: Back to the camera and film? LMAO.... You're going to tell all of us motion blur is caused by the camera and film used? Yes or NO?
-
double post -deleted-
-
dgh: Stop your dancing guy.... either deliver or get out of the discussion, what you add [currently]isn't germain to anything other than *pure speculation*. Where's the beef, er, the 1st generation frames.... Next you'll be telling us the 'alleged' in-camera Zapruder film was available to reasearchers.... who the hell is going to believe a copy of a coipy of a copy of a already questionable in-camera original? What-a-crock of crappe! Roland Zavada? LMAO, He certainly verified the the film was Kodachrome II/II-A, that's all he did champ, that was all he was required to do....He wasn't even ALLOWED access to TEST the alleged Zapruder B&H414 camera..... some investigation..... a JOKE!
Asked and answered numerous times. What date have you made your appointment at the archives for, Davie boy?
fuzziness? Geez Bill, give us an example. Say show us a 1st generation frame (from some verifiable source) compared with a 2nd or 3rd generation 8mm Z-frame (from some verifiable source) and let us make the comparison and distinction.... Your pal Groden will supply you the needed 1st generation frames .... Post all my remarks, all your remarks and by all means have Groden come in here and POST all HIS remarks -- Hell, I don't even believe you speak to Groden.... post away![/color]
Sure, I'll use the source from Costella's site that you always brag about. Seeing how you endorse that site and must know what it says - you can go back to it for he image sources.
Bill Miller
PS: try and not xxxxx too much, Davie ... Ashton is getting jealous when he see's that he isn't the only one posting back and forth.
____________________
dgh: I wouldn't elevate yourself too awfully high there champ -- On the proper forum, one where you have to validate your sources, you're toast, and you know it..... till then post on -- A few of us out here continually get a kick out of your feeble attempts....
-
For Bill Miller and David Healey to usurp this thread for juvenile bickering is about as revolting as it gets.
They've been doing the exact same thing for at least five years. If I had a dollar for every time Bill Miller used the Jim Garrison quote about justice and the heavens falling or for every time David Healy called someone champ I could purchase a full set of the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
Bill's rationalization has often been that he has a continuing responsibility to keep people that are "new" to the case from becoming misinformed. And most people with an interest in this case have learned to simply ignore Healy.
stuffit Hogan..... Miller is about as up on film alteration possibilities as you are.... Z_E_R_O! Champ! When you or anyone else develops some credentials concerning the subject matter, feel free to chime in-- till then I'll be correcting Miller, and/or you....
-
dgh: What filters were used? What does motion blur have to do with the type of camera Zapruder used? Soon I'll start calling for the varsity to get in here
David, we have been through the MPI process once before over the Life Magazine images. Also, Zaparuder's camera wasn't made for high speed filming - if it was then we'd see the bone plate coming off the top of the President's head or better yet - the bullets flying through the air, so don't waste my time. As far as the varsity goes .. when they get here I will show them a couple of your post where you claimed not have seen any evidence of alteration and how even a 1st generation copy can be recognized compared to the in-camera original. i'm sure they'll have some questions for YOU!
Bill Miller
Bill if you knew what you were talking about concerning "motion blur" this would be painfully obvious to you.... We're indeed laughing.... I'm STILL waiting for the varsity....
-
Ashton, you are using MPI frames that have been digitally done and through a process of filters has caused an already motion blurred piece of film to be even fuzzier. The aquiring of knowledge is the key to solving any problem, so why are you refusing to at least aquire some knowledge about the effects of motion blur in conjuntion with an old type amateur camera like Zapruder used?
Bill Miller
The license plates on the limo were in plain view and not obstructed by hair. I ask Ashton to read the large numbers on that plate from the frame crop below. I then ask after he finds that it is not possible, may he then explain why it is he thinks the Zapruder film should show enough clarity to see a wound through all that hair that is outstretched on the back of JFK's head?
Bill Miller
perhaps you can tell us what "motion blur you see in this image. I can assure you this is closer to the alleged in-camera original than anything else posted on this board.... foreground in-focus, background definitley in-focus, limo on Elm Street out of focus.... is it any wonder why you can't read the license plate? btw, those folks up towards Huston look pretty good, don't they? image info:
640x480 75% JPEG derived from a .tiff 40 meg image
-
I take it you then include the film images I've posted, as well, being faked to eliminate any visual indication of a large hole the way testimony describes it as being in the back right of Kennedy's head.
Ashton
Ashton, you are using MPI frames that have been digitally done and through a process of filters has caused an already motion blurred piece of film to be even fuzzier. The aquiring of knowledge is the key to solving any problem, so why are you refusing to at least aquire some knowledge about the effects of motion blur in conjuntion with an old type amateur camera like Zapruder used?
Bill Miller
dgh: What filters were used? What does motion blur have to do with the type of camera Zapruder used? Soon I'll start calling for the varsity to get in here....
-
dgh: a]films in sync? Unless you can confirm the imagery used here was 1st generation film material converted to digital files, your whistling in the dark champ!
David, you are your own worst enemy and your past post will never let you off the hook. For years you have been asking for someone to post in-sync assassination films to show that they matched one another so to put the alteration stuff to rest. Now that someone has been doing it - you come up with ridiculous statement above. You asked for it and once you recieve it you want to take a detour and claim it cannot be confirmed. What a sorry-assed waste of forum space your replies have become. The same applied to your claims of how forensic testing needed to be done and to test your sincerity, I asked you to tell us what forensic testion would you do if you had the said in-camera original film in front of you. To date you have not answered that question though it has been presented each time you xxxxx this forum, which means you were only trying to salvage a position that you really were not prepared to defend.
Perhaps he, Groden can do a show and tell, compare **ACTUAL** 1st generation 35mm Z-film positive with 2nd generation 8mm Z-film, eh?Why would Groden need to to that, David. All one has to do is go back and read your remarks on how to tell a 1st generation copy, 2nd generation copy, or a third generation copy from the camera original. Your post telling us this stuff made it seem like anyone can do it. Walking some xxxxx through the degree of fuzziness created by each generation is nothing to concern one's self about when none of them do not show the sharpness that you claimed the camera original would show. Do I need to go back and post YOUR remarks once again? Groden and Zavada have taken the time to make an appointment and go look at the said camera original Zapruder film ... when are you going to do it is my question?
Bill Miller
dgh: Stop your dancing guy.... either deliver or get out of the discussion, what you add [currently] isn't germain to anything other than *pure speculation*. Where's the beef, er, the 1st generation frames.... Next you'll be telling us the 'alleged' in-camera Zapruder film was available to reasearchers.... who the hell is going to believe a copy of a coipy of a copy of a already questionable in-camera original? What-a-crock of crappe! Roland Zavada? LMAO, He certainly verified the the film was Kodachrome II/II-A, that's all he did champ, that was all he was required to do....He wasn't even ALLOWED access to TEST the alleged Zapruder B&H414 camera..... some investigation..... a JOKE!
fuzziness? Geez Bill, give us an example. Say show us a 1st generation frame (from some verifiable source) compared with a 2nd or 3rd generation 8mm Z-frame (from some verifiable source) and let us make the comparison and distinction.... Your pal Groden will supply you the needed 1st generation frames .... Post all my remarks, all your remarks and by all means have Groden come in here and POST all HIS remarks -- Hell, I don't even believe you speak to Groden.... post away!
-
'Bill Miller' wrote:
[...]
I think you showing the films in sync was an important task to complete and I commend you for it, but it was that needed task to answer that alteration question once and for all concerning the possibility of the assassination films being tampered with .... least ways that is the way I read it.
dgh: a] films in sync? Unless you can confirm the imagery used here was 1st generation film material converted to digital files, your whistling in the dark champ! You can't provide us with the detailed lineage of the films utilized for this test. I'd ALSO say, you're a wishin and a hopin!
That the best committment you can make when it comes to DP film/photo tampering.... "least ways that is the way I read it" ?
Also, thanks to Robin - for his film grabs are really good ... some of the best I have seen pertaining to the Muchmore film.
dgh:
Everybody should be commended for their efforts! Now, can anyone explain to us HOW frames are dropped OR added during optical film printing? Perhaps Bill can have Robert Groden drop by and fill us in... Hell, maybe he can provide us with 1st generation imagery (after its confirmed as such) so a real live test can be performed (looks like John Dolva and Frank have a headstart on a template for testing, I salute you).
Perhaps he, Groden can do a show and tell, compare **ACTUAL** 1st generation 35mm Z-film positive with 2nd generation 8mm Z-film, eh?
What do you say Bill? You're Grodens contact here, ask him?
oh, and "frame grabs", we don't need frame grabs, we NEED actual, verifiable frames with generation info AND lineage... anything put on videotape and or DVD is tainted - PERIOD! End-of STORY!
Bill Miller
-
What first generation images Healy? You have the frames from the original film then post away.....until then take a hike.
Just when I thought Healy finally wised up when his past arguments fell apart, mostly by his own doing, he shows that the art of trolling is not dead. It looks like daddy gave him the day off to play with his er' ... lets say ... putter on the Education Forum.
Bill Miller
dgh: Wised up, to YOU????? ROFLMFAO! Nothing, nor argument has fallen apart Miller, you still experiencing some Christmas CHEER, perhaps? -- its taken 4 years for you Lone Nutters to get around to comparison DP film studies.....and what happens when a little bit of physics come into play (as displayed here and in another 'current ' thread, you run like stuck banshees -- "the line is too thick" -- roflmao. You ever find a physicist to counter HOAX, YET, 4 years and counting? Or are we in for more of your **rank amateur** opinion?
Give Lamson a job, it appears resting on his laurels is makes him anxious.... catalog photog's are NOT busy this time of year, have Groden find some images so the Craigster can play, all he does is yakety-yak, no beef -- Where the hell is the BEEF?
-
Hopelessly contradictory "facts," glaring omissions, gratuitous irrelevant details, falsehoods, and altered sequences are illogics that form the iridescent trail of madmen.
It is a fool's game to attempt to find reason, rationality, or logic in such mad illogics. They are traps laid by madmen specifically to snare reason and rationality and hold it fast in the hopes of covering their tracks. But the illogics are their tracks. They are effective as traps only when the rational attempt to find logic where there only is illogic. Then they are hopelessly inescapable traps.
I thought we had already gotten past your flawed 3D graphics and mass hallucination theory.
3D? you know 3D? Can you put Dealey Plaza in a 3D world? If you can't, how do you know something related to perspective, size, position <x,y,z> and/or area activity is flawed? If you can, please provide 3D topo graphics files of DP...
-
Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT!
Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless.
I don't think John purposely created the small sized images and I since discovered that the thickness of one of his gree nlines allowed a little play for frame alignment that I am sure he didn't do on purpose. I advise that people use thin lines when doing overlays so to reduce the chance of alignment error. (An enlarged version can be seen below) When the corner shade line of the fence and the edge of the concrete wall are spaced evenly, then the Hudson tree shifts showing that these images were taken at different angles to the knoll. Note how John's green line shifts over the corner of the fence between the two images. This could not be noticed when seen in the small images.
Bill Miller
dgh:everything is worthless when the Lamson comes to the plate, perhaps he can do a little work here, show us ALL how competent he is with 1st generation imagery, eh Craig?
Where have I seen the 'line thickness' argument before.... LMAO....
Groden show up with a few images for us? Or is everyone (excluding yourself and Lamson) working with **inferior** DP imagery, eh?
-
dgh: Now if you could get Groden to cough up something worthwhile, we might get someplace...
Oh but Groden did cough up something worthwhile when he reported that he had examined the alleged camera original Zapruder film and stated that the signs of it being a copy didn't exist. Even you have stated that its common knowledge that a first generation print would be slightly fuzzy even in the good frames, thus we have to give Robert credit for doing what you had never bothered to do.
Bill Miller
when one has access to a optical film printer anything, ANYTHING is possible including: fuzzy 1st generation "prints"; additional motion blur, etc....
When and where did Groden examine the the in-camera original Zapruder film?
Give credit to Groden for what? Acquiring film, prints, negatives, selling to the tabloids? Give me a clue....
-
And, until such time as you have studied the WC and:
1. The Adjusted Position
2. The Alteration of Survey Data
3. The multiple run-through's during the re-enactment
4. The multiple filming of the re-enactment from different angles and elevations
5. The jacked up rifle/filming position in the sixth floor window
And, until such time as you have studied the WC and: STOP THERE!
Any knowledgeable person who has read the WC - I assume you mean Warren Commission here - knows that it is full of
inaccuracies,halftruths and downright lies and would be better referred to as the Warren Omission.
If you are basing your 'research' on the dubious tissue-of-lies WC then I am afraid that you are not going to convince me or
any more knowledgeable persons of the veracity of your 'research'. IMO a copy of the the WC
deserves to be consigned to every WC across America and perhaps only there the WC may
serve a more useful purpose and, who knows, maybe even get to the bottom of the issue.
EBC
EBC, I have bought two sets of the complete 26 volumes almost a decade ago and have read nearly every volume completely through .... how far along are you in your set? As far as the points you listed above, I don't buy the WC's evidence, but instead I rely on the views from those key locations and when it comes to the road sign - it was not a factor. I have also logged several hundred hours in Dealey Plaza while taking photos from about every possible position with the exception of the alleged sniper's window. I have actually went into the middle of Elm Street to run test in between the light changes .... sometimes having traffic have to make a lane change to get around me because I didn't complete a task fast enough. I also took the time to shoot 360 degree panoramas so to have those views to work with upon my return home. I have taken several rides in the replica car while sitting in JFK's place while holding a video camera to my eye so to see what locations were visible and at what points - have you?
As far as a first shot(s) coming from the RR yard and passing through the road sign - I do not buy it for several reasons. One is that once a shot is fired from that loaction ... there were plenty of witnesses who would have their attention immediately drawn there. Gordon Arnold for instance never mentioned a shot coming from behind him until the President was at the kill spot. You are welcoome to go to Dealey Plaza and do as I did and report what you found ... I will look forward to hearing what ever information you bring back with you.
Bill Miller
dgh: Now if you could get Groden to cough up something worthwhile, we might get someplace... Like one or two first generation prints of DP films... what-do-you-say?
Speaking of which, reminds me of a docu I once saw, a researcher in DP on Elm Street with the re-creation limo [stopped], dummy in the backseat with a white spear coming out of his back trying to align the spear with the 6th floor window... looked like a third rate cluster fu*k.... remind you of anyone?
Muchmore film headshot sequence
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
inter frame displacement of two composed images creating additional motion blur? Sure its possible via 1963 aerial image and/or optical film printing -- certainly would change the final frame film density, where applied.