David G. Healy

'Bill Miller' wrote: Chris, you could start by using the most magnified images possible rather than the wide frame view which is little more than mud. I will ask you the same questions that I asked 'Sir Ashton the factless critic' .... what happened to the shift that occurred between JFK and his wife in each frame prior to the head shot and please explain why JFK's shoulder blurred in the opposite direction than the limo's did ??? There can only be one reason for all this - I have given you mine - let's have yours. dgh: perhaps there is a optical film printing reason for that, you think? [...] Bill Miller

Ashton, I note that you don't ever seem to speak in specific terms, but rather in generalities like above. Instead of appearing like an uneducated idiot who tries to use large moronic terms like "Flobbergobber and Gombligernicampoikananity" to cover your inability to speak intelligently about the details being offered ... start by explaining where the rotation of the limo (in other words the angle shift between JFK and his wife) went to if the shoulder didn't move backwards? And while you are at it, explain the motion blur of the President appearing on the opposite side that it did with the limo .... there are reasons for this being that way on the film, so let us her your most wise explanation for all of this. The simple rule of physics that I am utilizing stems from JFK's head already being pitched forward so that when the bullet hit him from the front - the head rocked forward while the shoulder was driven backwards and that explains missing rotation of the occupants between Z312 and Z313, and it also explains the blur to JFK going in the opposite direction than the blur of the limo went. A simple test of those rules of physics can be easily accomplished by sitting in a chair in the President's posture and having someone hit you in the top of the head in a front to back motion. The blow doesn't have to be hard to see how the body reacts to it - the harder the force - the more pronounced the movement. It is obvious that the bones on the back of JFK's head were sprung opened to the rear ("avulsed" was the term used by so many Parkland doctors), thus meaning a shot hit JFK from the front. The bullet didn't go through the President's nostrils, nor through his eye, nor through his mouth, but instead it must have entered the top of the skull. Dennis David, who worked at Bethesda, has told me they were taught that when a bone plate such as the one that came off the top of JFK's head .... that somewhere along its outer edge should be signs of where the bullet penetrated the skull. Oddly enough the bone plate seen in the autopsy photos isn't as large as the one seen in the Zapruder film, but of course by the time the body had reached Bethesda - the chain of evidence had been compromised IMO. Bill Miller blur re JFK and NOT the other occupants of the limo? Whose version of the Z-film you looking at, Groden's? Physics a little tougher go that you thought, eh? And btw, Ashton can indeed craft a sentence or two, or three... my hats off to him regarding that! Merry Christmas to all....! David Healy

Charles Black' wrote: Merry Christmas all : For some reason I am having extreme difficulty in loading "this Particular thread". I therefore expect this to be my last attempt to post on "this" thread. I am going to use this as an excuse to somewhat broaden the original topic. I am doing this only, that some who might be interested, may better understand, "my views" on the shootings....not only the "headshot /headshots". In that many of you will think my ideas quite bizarre, I believe them, and must therefore state such. This is "out of the box" speculation, and I have no PROOF to substantiate it. I also, due to my problem posting in this thread, will "probably" not be able to respond to some of the ridicule which I foresee ! I am not placing the following in necessarily their order of occurrence. A) JFK is struck in the throat by either 1) a shot from the North knoll or 2) by a sound supressed handgun, concealed by "an Elm Street spectator". Concealed in possbly a camera, a hat, a womans purse...or several other possible concealments. 3) A glass fragment from a windshild shot from either position. I feel that he is DEFINITELY indicating throat trauma, and throat trauma only, as Zapruder captures him emerging from behind the sign. JFK is struck in the back as reportedly seen by Secret Service follow up (unable to determine Z frame). I believe this to be a shallow wound as reported, and may have been the source of CE399 "magic bullet". C) JFK may have been struck in Posterior head by a small caliber (.22cal) bullet in the time frame approximating Z311. D) JFK was struck at the hairline, above the right eye by either rifle fire from the knoll, or again by a heavy caliber concealed and sound supressed handgun, wielded by an Elm Street spectator. I think that Connally was most likely not struck by any of the bullets which struck JFK and that he was struck by two separate bullets. I feel that there were three or four bullets which contacted JFK, and two which struck JBC. I feel that there were three misses. Probably a total of nine shots fired from four and even possibley five separate shooters. dgh: hey Charlie.... your estimate of the DP shot total isn't too far off from what Doug Hornes interview with the NPIC folks [who reviewed the Zapruder film] concluded I feel that the possibly two "ELM STREET SHOOTERS" had the easiest escape scenario as they blended into the crowd with their concealed and "silenced" handguns. This brings me to my final unsupported theory. The Z film was partially altered, thru possibly frame excision, because "A" shooter was captured (probably one of my proposed Elm Street shooters). This excision was "known by the conspirators" to create what appears to be a very strange wound reaction by JFK. However, it had to be done immediately or destroy the entire film. They could not show another "shooter" and maintain their lone nut, deranged, Cuban sypathizer story ! As I stated, I may not be able to answer your counters in this thread....tho I could in another. "...And to all a goodnight" ! "Crazy" Charlie Black

Bill Miller' wrote: Thanks, David, but the possible occurence that I am talking about is a bit simpler than this. For instance, let's assume that we have two exact model cameras set at the same shutter speeds and each was given to a photographer to film an event. dgh: film speed shutter speed f-stop/t-stop/iris setting, irrelevant.... camera frame rate MOST relevant! Unless both cameras were started at the exact same moment - each camera will be running out of sinc with one another. dgh: no exactly.... (and its 'sync' on the west coast) if both cameras are set to run at the same frame rate, i.e., 18fps or 24fps or 48fps cover the same event, start at delayed times during the event and each camera overlaps someplace within the event, have NOT been shut off during the event -- without sound (SOF) its just a simple matter of finding WHAT frame with a common image indicator-denominator to sync-up the two cameras footage. Certainly not rocket science! Especially if you have access to in-camera originals! A similar example would be like two drums being beat - one on the up-beat and the other on the down-beat. The Nix film head shot shows spatter debris close to the Presidnert's head, as well as debris coming off the back of it. The Zapruder film head shot shows the same debris further from the President's head and what came off the back of the head was gone out of view before Zapruder's shutter captured the image. I hope I have explained this better. dgh: you've better eyesight than me, or a better NIX film to review... frankly I see no blood/brain matter at all in NIX... Wasn't Nix's camera rated at 18fps? Bill Miller

JCostella utilized a Elm lamp post to demonstrate Z-film alteration, I can't recall if the animation is on the web or not, perhaps JWhite can comment John explains the lamppost at... http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...o/lamppost.html I believe his proof does not go far enough in examining the possibility that the DPD photo and the Zframe may be from slightly different viewpoints. I can no longer post photos on the forum or I would demonstrate. Jack Thanks, Jack...

JCostella utilized a Elm lamp post to demonstrate Z-film alteration, I can't recall if the animation is on the web or not, perhaps JWhite can comment

'Bill Miller' wrote: Frank, MPI misnumbered the frames at some point after the head shot to JFK, thus this is where your difference lies in the Nix film equivilant frame to Z380. Also, while not a big deal, the Nix camera shutter was out of sinc with Zapruder's camera. In other words, things like the explosion of the head are slightly different when the shutter of both cameras opened and closed separate from one another. The Nix camera had its shutter open and close slightly ahead of Zapruders and this is why the cranial fluid spray is seen closer to the head whereas the Zfilm captured the same spray a fraction of a second later which shows the mist pattern as more spread out. Bill Miller ********* dgh: Yes, MPI did quite a few things to the film, for our viewing pleasure of course..... one of which was stablizing the frames, scaling up (zoomong in) re-centering each frame for their stated reason. When the frames for the Zapruder film-MPI project were photographed at NARA, the result was single 3x5/4x5 transparencies for each Z-frame (probably more - bracketed] when re-assembled via the computer with After Effects type of software, it was at this point stabliizing and recentering occurred. I have no idea if, IF on the MPI *full-frame* version of the Z-film (1:33/4:3/8mm) any stabilzation/re-centering occurred. I believe the term BMiller is looking for is "lens shutter angle" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle Dr. John Costella discussed this very issue in-depth at the 2003 Duluth Zapruder film conference

Originally, they are 720x480 JPG (75%Q) images from the "under sprocket" version from the MPI DVD. Again, no processing was applied. thanks John - Frank DHealy

'John Dolva' wrote: [...] David, this is the MPI frames from the groden dvd, which Frank prepared. [...] MPI frames from Groden's DVD? I think it has to be one or the other, Groden's Z-frames or MPI's Z-frames.... Also, the edges around the Z-frame sprocket holes appear as if sharpening or UNsharp mask was applied?

John, Quick question and sorry if you've already answered; the source of the Z-frames you're using and a short recap as to filters; scale reduction; resizing performed on same? Tnx, David

'Frank Agbat' wrote: The joys of NTSC and film sources... The following frames are from an NTSC DVD source. The frame number is relative to the beginning of the video file, not to the actual film source. To reduce this to purely progressive video: Remove: - frame 353: it contains no unique information. It is a combo of two other frames - frame 356: duplicate - frame 358: duplicate The result is non-interlaced progressive video. This is the Inverse Telecine process "de-automated". ******** Frank, Help me out here; the below is from a Ultility (Cinema Tools) a program I use when converting 2/4bit film transfers to digital videotape for posting in Apple's SHAKE for composing and Apple's Final Cut Pro .

'Frank Agbat' wrote: David, No need to apologize for questions. Such inquiry is a vital part of any research. The z-film frames that produced the clips are straight from the MPI DVD -- honest! No unsharp-mask, nothing. I'll describe the process that I used for the film frames in detail: * I ripped the DVD to its constituent VOB files. * I opened the VOB file containing the z-film "Under Sprocket Hole" version in VirtualDubMod. * Inside VDubMod, I selected the portion of the video that I wanted. * I saved the resulting clip as an AVI file (no sound) using the Huffy lossless Codec. At this point, I had a very large AVI file, that contained 29.97fps interlaced video. (Huffy is lossless, but tends to produce LARGE files) * I opened the AVI file in a utility that I wrote myself that can produce a JPG (or any other format) image for each video frame in the AVI file. * This utility saved a series of JPG files (Q=75) representing the contents of the AVI. Each file is a 720x480 resolution jpg (same res. as the DVD source, of course) * I then performed the IVTC process by hand. dgh: 3:2 pulldown by hand? Curious, how'd you do that? Thanks.... At this point, I had a directory full of jpg images, each one representing one z-film frame. (same process was used for Nix frames, etc) ----------- I do not have an answer to the speed question. It happens only on the gif, and only on firefox. The appearance of missing frames is an illusion that is the result of my attempts to align the n-frames. Agent Hill, which was my target for registration, is obscured from view on several occasions. Plus, Nix's camera is panning to catch up with the limo. As such, the motion (toward the end) appears to hitch (like a missing frame). Nevertheless, I'll verify that all the frames made it in there and in the correct order. I've been a bit under the weather the past few days, so it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility to have an error in there! I used ImageReady to make the Gif. The "duration" of each frame is set to 0.05 seconds -- this is as close as I can come to 18.3 fps, as ImageReady does not accept 0.0546 -- it merely rounds it to 0.05. Again, though, the Gif is merely for purposes of proving the concept of producing images that have in-sync sources from multiple assassination films. You know all about the limits and problems with Gifs, but for "quick and dirty" stuff (like a proof of concept), they'll do. Ultimately, I hope to be able to produce usable, synchronized footage that allows us to see the events from multiple perspectives simultaneously. This is quite a challenge on two fronts: There are technical issues, of course, but the larger issue is how to present such things in a way that the eye and brain can track. dgh: good idea, I asked the Lone Nutter's years ago to display the seamlessness of the DP films, this is the closest anyone has come to date... Perhaps the 6th floor museum will provide 1st generation digital copies of the film frame, anything short of that and it'll be a tough sell with the alterationists... David

John, I must be blind for I cannot see your example ... can you point me towards it? Feel free to email me with it if you wish at - Imsjle@aol.com. I would also like to know the source for the film you are using because I have a copy of Groden's 1st generation print from the Nix film and I do not see any missing frames around the kill shot in my copy. I called Groden just now and confirmed my observation with him and this is why I would like to see your example and to find out its source. Knowing this is important because if you are using a latter generation copy that someone has damaged by removing frames - it is a moot point if the same film without missing frames exist. Thanks, Bill Miller it's there...

David, I don't know exactly why it runs fast in Firefox. It is possible that Firefox is not correctly interpreting the frame duration (0.05 seconds) that I'm adding. It runs at the intended speed in IE. I'll have to look into it a bit more. The only thing I did to the MPI frames was to crop them. (Same for the Nix frames) However, the conversion to GIF undoubtedly produced some changes. The GIF palette is limited due to the nature and age of the standard. Also, to get the sequence to fit on the forum, I had to accept some loss (25% in this case), and the images are dithered (again, due to size limits). yeah, I ask because Z-film imagery on my MPI DVD is no where near as sharp as what you posted in the above clip. Leads me to believe some *unsharp-mask* process was done someplace... What software was used for 3:2 pulldown removal? and did the final Z-product work out to 18.3fps? yeah, I'm well aware of .gif color palette issues and the internet. Further, the intended speed of the displayed clips - and the N-dropped/missing frames issue i raised? Sorry for all the questions.

why does it run waaaaay to fast in Firefox? There appears dropped-missing frames in the N-filmAny post process applied to the MPI Z-frames, Frank? Also, there appears to be dropped (or missing) N-frames

good job John and Frank... can we assume 3:2 puldown has been removed from both source files? And the exact source of the film clips utilized, please... again good job!

'Bill Miller' wrote [...] From a recent phone call that Mack had with Zavada, Gary said to me, "Zavada confirmed the discussions we've had in recent years, that Kodachrome II film was designed for daylight use and to be pleasing to the amateur photographer's eye - and yet is not a perfectly accurate visual record of the scene. For those with a high level of expertise and who know what to look for, the differences between the camera original film and a duplicate made to any kind of film stock will be noticeable and measurable. Once again, he has confirmed to me that it is physically impossible to duplicate Kodachrome II film in a way that is not detectable by those who know what to look for." [...] dgh: Let's cut to the chase: "...the differences between the camera original film and a duplicate made to any kind of film stock will be noticeable and measurable. " Measureable HOW and against WHAT -and- "...physically impossible to duplicate Kodachrome II film..." then you can point us towards samples that show/indicate this absurd statement! And please confirm right here that Roalnd Zavada said same. Take the golf shoes OFF, this has gotta hurt

Is Max Holland-author, a member of this forum?

David, you can xxxxx with a mouse in one hand and something else in the other all you like, but you and I have discussed these images before and I am sure most anyone following this topic knows where they came from. Maybe your memory is as bad as your research, but these are the frames that Costella used from Life Magazine and MPI. As I recall, you were able to see that one was a first generation print and that MPI's images were several generations away from the original. The color changes between these film generations are noticeable to even a laymen. Actually, a reasonable person would know that if the directions are written on the heel and you still are not able to follow the directions .... you already have your boot off, unless you pissed in it while still wearing it - right, David!Bill Miller uh-hum Bill you've never posted a source for the MPoppins frame, no need to lie about it. I've never discussed with YOU or anyone else any issues with MPoppins frames. Just show us your source and we can get down to what you think is wrong with them -- hell, for all I or the lurkers know there's nothing wrong with the frame mattes. What's the need for a secret here, Bill? Where did the frames come from you posted?

'Bill Miller' wrote: I was invited here by the administrator. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince you of anything for I feel that trolls are not on a forum such as this so to learn anything. Let the record show that 99.9% of what you post is either disjointed say nothing ramblings that never address the issues being discussed or you are purposely and repeatedly misstating the evidence. One example of this is Len's posting of Fielding's email. evidently you've had a difficult time reading HOAX, so sorry -- I understand its in layman terms, perhaps I should remove my reccommendation for your employment at Adobe? If you can't understand my chapter you've no hope in the graphics world David, you not only cannot discount alteration, but you cannot choose one side or the other either! One day you'll be saying that you have seen NO PROOF of alteration and the next day you will say that you believe the Zapruder film is altered. dgh: oh Bill, your so silly, of course I can say I see NO proof of Z-film alteration, what you fail to include in your rant is: because I haven't examined the alleged Zapruder in-camera ORIGINAL currently housed at NARA. Your difficulty understanding that is? Shall I take this continuing misguided error by you, as intentional? Now in your last remark you are back to not "discounting" alteration which implies you have nothing to substantiate that alteration is present in the Zfilm. With you it is a belief system that needs no proof in your mind. In another response you mention color shifting and Kodachrome II film as if I don't know what I'm talking about, but what I have said comes from actual experts .... unlike some forum xxxxx who can't even see the noticeable mistakes in the Mary Poppins clips I posted or who pretends not to know how to get a copy of such a film so to see if what I have posted is accurate or not. You offer no examples to rebut what the experts say, but instead you just post the same non-informative crap you always post. dgh: unlike you chap, I discount nothing and believe little, but then again I'm serious and not looking to fit, nor do I need Lone Nutter friends, unlike some I'm aware of... So, just post where you found the Poppins frames, Bill and tell me what's wrong with them, is that to tough for a serious researcher such as yourself? btw, has Lamson given you a little lesson regardingoptical film printing light paks and color attributes of certain double 8mm Kodak films yet? In your mind Zavada is wrong, Fielding is wrong, Groden is wrong, the numerous experts Mack has spoken to is wrong, and only YOU (who is on record for flip flopping on the issue without any proof for doing so), the guy who cannot produce a shred of proof to the contradict the experts, is correct. dgh: they're all opinions Bill, try as you might you can't change that, there's been zero, zip, nada, nil -- forensic testing on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film housed at NARA, nor the 3 Jamison prints (#0183/0185/0186/0187) All the wishin and a hopin isn't going to change that... So what's a serious researcher to do, Bill? Wring my hands? Or watch you defend the indefensible? So no one is trying to convince you of anything, but rather we set out to expose your modus-operandi so others can see what's based on the facts and what is propaganda that is being used in place of facts. dgh: Facts being what the are, just forensic test the Zapruder film, only a few non-descript frames, we'll take it from there, then Zavada and Fielding can do their gig! MY modus operandi? Hell Bill, anyone can find out where I've been over the years, if they know where to look, they can find my resume. You just popped out of nowhere, no experience just a few wild images you saw in a few JFK-DP related bushes and trees, claimed to be a photo analyst, hence, you were a overnight expert on the DP films and photos. When called to show your research you pitched a fit, managed to get thrown off a forum, ran to another and started all over - so: Who are you Bill? And who is WE? How do YOU spell 'agent provaceteur' Bill Miller

I cannot speak about the LNr side, but I know that the experts I have cited have gone further than high school. I, for one, have attended college and even before doing so - I could read, research, and knew how to obtain materials needed to test any allegations being presented to me. Unlike Costella, I was smart enough to not waste a ton of time telling people how Moorman's photo had this big window of time to be altered because I had learned the subject matter beforehand and knew Mary Moorman's photo was taped for television not 30 minutes after the assassination and that what NBC showed on the afternoon of the assassination was the same image we see today. So college obviously doesn't make one smart about a subject they have not studied in depth. I've seen people who have PH.D's in one area who couldn't pour piss out of a boot even if the directions were written on the heel. I also have witnessed someone who claims to know optical printing who cannot cite correctly the difference between a lone nutter Vs. a conspiracy theorist, so what's the point you are trying to make? As far as color shifting goes ... the proof is in the eye of the beholder .... Bill Miller dgh: even the dumbest of researchers knows better than posting images with NO lineage and NO references to where these images can be found and your work verified. If that's in-depth study ... we're in for deep hurt! Is it any wonder this case has languished for years, and years and YEARS btw, evidently someone forgot to tell you, you have to take your boot OFF, before you pour the *piss* out of it. <sigh>

'Harry Welty' wrote: [...] In my opinion Fetzer's work mostly serves to discredit other assassination researchers. now there is a unique Lone Nutter, straight party line comment... I'm a local eccentric in Duluth, Minnesota. Then I don't think you're his neighbor Harry... don't tell anyone I told you that.... [...]

Hello Myra, David Lifton, in his Great Zapruder Film HOAX chapter discusses how Robert Groden obtained the Zapruder film, his relationship to the Zapruder film AND other Dealey Plaza films and of course, JFK x-ray photos. David does so at great length. Roland Zavada in his 1998 Zapruder Film/B&H 8mm camera report made reference to Robert Groden's relationship with Moe Weitzman's (for LIFE magazine) 8mm-to-35mm blow-up of the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original. HOAX is available at most university library's, can be purchased on the web at various places (used and new)... David Healy

Charles, I have stated that one must first educate themselves on a subject before being qualified to reach a logical conclusion. I have spent countless hours doing just this by going to those people who do have the expertise. So far all I have seen you go on is your own paranoid beliefs. I will ask you once again - name an expert who says that Kodachrome II film could be undetectably altered in the way you people have been suggesting??? Healy likes to cite Fielding as a reference, but David misstates what Fielding had said, which then misleads the paranoids like yourself who don't have the time or interest in seeing if what you are being told is true or not. Below is a message sent to Len in Fielding's own words. Bill Miller From: (Ray Fielding) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST Suject: Zavada To: (Len Colby) Mr. Colby: I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence. I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me. Raymond Fielding ********* dgh: LMAO..... and Ray's review of the Zapruder film is where? Perhaps you or he can tell us how he arrived at above conclusion and who if anyone in the industry reviewed the frames with him.... Better yet, have Ray drop by here and give us ALL, his unabashed opinion... I don't cite Fielding, I cite Fielding's book, The Art of Special Effects Cinematography, 1965. The one with all those SMPE/SMPTE cites, the one with his experience pouring forth -- you'd serve your purposes much better if you opened the book and read it.... Ray knows how get in-touch with me if he so chooses, as does Roland Zavada..... I'd like to see the header on that email, then the entire email, intact -- who knows, it may not be authentic Charlie, these guys have to prop each other up, Miller made a fool out of himself earlier when it comes to "color" and Kodachrome II/A film, any type pf divergence from same, helps him out.... I seriously doubt there's many on the lone nutter side of the Z-film alteration argument have gone further than high school, not that THAT makes any difference! Spiritual enlightment seems to be the only hope

we would be so appreciative if you found that ellusive forum, but I suspect you couldn't keep yourself away, from HERE -- you see, you've got to convince me and few others who lean towards alteration -- not the Mark's of the world, of which they're leigon... You ask why? simple, I can't discount alteration! And, lone nutters holler way to loud when discussing it, very VERY curious!