David G. Healy

Anyone know when Dale Myers DVD is due out?

EBC

dgh: if its something new and I suspect ABC [Peter Jennings docu related] can make a buck, I'd check with the 6th Floor Museum, all Lone Nutter inspired case related info, is there! If, its available or in fact, exists for public sale.

I'm still trying to figure out why Dale Myers needs a 10,000 word FAQ section on his website... All those anticipated Q&A's defending the Lightwave *animated* cartoon version of the Zapruder film?

I assume he was referring to the half assed "composites" you made for Hoax. (No I couldn't do any better but I don't claim to be an expert.) http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html

Len

And let me remind everyone that Healy didn't make his composite examples the old fashion way in a dark room, making enlargements from 8MM film and shrinking them back down again, but rather by playing around on a computer with software that didn't exist back in the 60's. This is what one has to do when he has no valid argument to make, thus he relies on narrow minded followers who will hopefully not pay any attention to that one major flaw in his position.

Bill Miller

dgh: ahhh, the *bane* of the Lone Nutter's posing as CTer's -- computers! So why shouldn't I use them I, I know how composites are/were made, and any, ANY film lab tech worth his/her salt could of made them... then again the only, ONLY benchmark you can point to is Groden, which of course, is a joke.

Shrinking? That is the term you used to explain film format reduction....? You really have a grasp on this subject matter don't you.... ROFLMFAO

You and the rest of your tribe could remove me from this entire discussion and you'd still have to deal with RAY FIELDING'S: THE ART OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY-1965. Not to mention the 300 or so references to SMPE/SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Engineering-1915/Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering-1955) discussing some of the very same techniques used in films dating from the 1920's.... (of which I've given you only a small fraction of [80] to comment on). So piss and moan all you want, your wish'in and a hop'in isn't gonna change that.

You've made pretty dumb statements regarding film printing lately, you want to take on the entire film post production industry?

The source for Mary Poppins frames are located? LMAO

'Craig Lamson' drones...

Ah yes another useless Z film thread.

Healy posts a strawman and has yet to deal with it in an over a 100 post thread.

dgh: pssst; tell me what the matter with all those frames in my Z-film presentation, make a case worthy of my comment and you'll get a response -- till then, your nothing more than *white noise*. Perhaps Ray Fielding will give you a hand, he knows, film compositing and optical film printing...

White posts more disinformation this time concerning the qualities of Kodachrome and Extachrome film. Then really spins one as he tells us he has made dupes without generational loss and Hollywood does the same.

Black chimes in with more nonsense about the secret film editing prowess of the government and how he believes it must have been possible in 63 to fake the Z film (never mind that Hollywood still cant do what he suggests today) and in the process shows us all the depth of his paranoia

Miller posts some nonsense about how its the lightsource making dupilcation impossible and Mack joins in with some silly statement about how clothes look in different light...stupid.

dgh: of course it's stupid, none of them have a clue as we've been saying for months and years and they're laying the above at the feet of Zavada, so have at it --

Of course all along Healy continues to act the jerk and fails over and over again to deal with the Mary Poppins defects, and his original strawman argument that started this thread.

Len joins in and is, as we can always expect, attacked by Healy who once again fails to deal with the objections to his arguments.

What a crock.

dgh:well big guy, perhaps you can tell me where those Poppins frames came from, why the amateurs are so scared to post their origin, perhaps you can tell me and the lurkers what's the matter with the Poppins frames, if ANYTHING... you can't save these morons everytime they blow it, Craig. They can opine all day long, they've no credibility --

As for Groden; are you going to layout his VAST film compositing experience for us (can he?) so we can determine if he's qualified to talk to, and address film compositing issues... Hell, why don't you tell us YOURS I'm sure a few around here would like to know. Bring Len into the fold too, that way we can determine how much 'weight' to give you and the rest of the uninformed Nutter responses

Why should we give any "weight" to you David, you have NO film compositing experience and yet you spew ignorantly on the subject every time it gets mentioned. Hell your posted examples of computer aided digital composites are "third grade" level.

dgh: simple, my profession -- just for the record, I've probably handled more film (16mm/S16mm/35mm/65mm/70mm) in the past 2 years than you have in your entire life. Of course you handle no film these day's, nor do I suspect have you stood in a lab in the past 10 years, much let alone *pull* a matte...

also, I don't believe I've posted anything here... Have you posted composite imagery here, perhaps some of your film effects work?

We should listen to you why? Because you have read a book?

dgh:

I've read plenty of them, wrote a chapter concerning the subject matter we're discussing, oops i should of said the Zapruder film, and your film compositing/expertise/track record? Oh that's right, you can light a trailer even a row of chairs.... you're beating an old story Craig, why not *think* repurposing your photo database, stock footage, big market in that these day's I hear

'Bill Miller' whinned:

Charles, how well have you thought things thrtough? Let me address each paragraph accordingly as to your remarks so you can see it from the outside looking in.

Paragraph 1) I supposed that the same can be said about CT's who possibly have been bought to post responses on forums that are designed to make CT's as a whole look like baffoons.

dgh: ah--- might you define the two classes of CT's first: Lone Nutters claiming to be CT'ers, you know the preservers of the WC status quo, then those that have been quietly dealing with the REAL coverup.

Claiming that anyone can be bought out so to lie is a statement designed to offer a back door to slip out of when sound logical reasoning have just barged through the front door!

dgh:now THAT is a real Millerism...

Paragraph 2) Zavada, as far as I know, has no interest in promoting one side or the other.

His accuracy reflects his reputation, thus why risk it on something when it's not necessary? Robert Groden has been and still is one of the most vocal CT's known in this field, so why would Groden claim conspiracy in every aspect of the assassination only then to cover-up the Zfilm being altered - IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE!

dgh:and you verified his Zavada's accuracy HOW. I don't recall *peer* review, perhaps you know something the rest of us don't.

As for Groden? Accuracy in WHAT selling assassination photos to supermarket rags -- fill us in, please!

Paragraph 3) These individuals acquired their knowledge through education and/or experience.

dgh: Roland Zavada's education-experience in film compositing? NIL comes to mind, by his own admission. Nor was Roland Zavada charged with determining the validity of Zapruder film content.

That is why Zavada asked Author/Producer Ray Fielding (who has vast knowledge of the art form) to join him rewriting his report, which appears not to be forth coming due to Zavadas 'current state of health'

As for Groden; are you going to layout his VAST film compositing experience for us (can he?) so we can determine if he's qualified to talk to, and address film compositing issues... Hell, why don't you tell us YOURS I'm sure a few around here would like to know. Bring Len into the fold too, that way we can determine how much 'weight' to give you and the rest of the uninformed Nutter responses

note: perhaps Robert can get a letter from Moses Weitzman praising his expertise

'Len Colby' dronned on:

[...]

I don't think anybody would say that it is 100.0% certain that the film wasn't altered or that it was impossible nor for that matter can the possibility that the assassination was carried out by ET's be totally excluded but the probability of either is extremely low. You have said a few times your understanding of the technical issues is nil, perhaps your belief that alteration is a reasonable possibility is due to this lack of expertise like creationists with no science background declaring that the theory of evolution is obviously wrong.

dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter.

'Bill Miller' wrote:

My reply doesn't depend on the authenticity of Bill's frames which I assume he got from the DVD.[/font]

Len[/font]

BINGO!!! Healy knows damned well where those frames came from. The problem with guys like him is that he hasn't the class to admit when he is wrong - instead he chooses to play stupid about the whole thing.

Bill Miller

dgh:My goodness - I do? Why can't you tell us where these frames came from? Perhaps those reading this thread would like to see for themselves -- This isn't Lancer Bill, you got t'a make the case and your failing miserably... When you tell us where the frames came from and who extracted them, then you can move on and tell me/us what is the matter with the mattes....

After all your a *amateur* film/photo sleuth.... Get Len to give you a hand.

Miller cannot recognize that I was talking about computer scanning

and halftoning...not optical photocopies. I have made hundreds of

slide copies that I defy anyone to examine visually or by projection

and distinguish the difference between originals and copies. In fact,

my copies were quite often SUPERIOR to the originals. "Blurriness

of edges" is TOTAL NONSENSE if focus is accurate. Hollywood would

be out of business if copying degraded images...because ALL HOLLYWOOD

FILMS ARE COPIES THAT ARE MULTIGENERATIONAL without loss of

quality!

Miller ought to leave such matters to people who know what they

are talking about.

Jack

More snake oil, Jack? Let us see what you did in 1963 that supports your position. Zavada doesn't buy your nonsense, Groden has said you have been wrong in every instance pertaining to film alteration, the people Mack has worked with don't buy into what you say and to think of it - what experienced expert does support your ramblings???

dgh: there's that magic name, AGAIN....roflmao -- and now he's an experienced expert? Does OJSimpson and Bruno Maglia shoes sound familiar?

About color shifting, Gary Mack used this example once -

"To follow up on color shift when duplicating motion picture film, here's another example, and it's something everyone can understand and appreciate.

dgh: color shift? roflmao, then you'll have no problem tell us what kind of filter/light pack was used at Jamieson when the 1st generation prints were made -- tell us all about it! Zavada, Fielding, Jamieson, KODAK -- **GRODEN** isn't he the guy that worked for Moses Weitzmen, a self claimed optical film printing technician...

Take a good look at the colors of your clothing with indoor lighting and then outdoors in full sunlight. The two will absolutely not appear the same, due to the characteristics of sunlight vs. artificial light. The difference is even more noticeable with fluorescent lighting.

That color shift absolutely cannot be fully corrected in regular Kodachrome II movie film by any combination of filters. Copying 8mm movie film involves the use of artificial light and that is what causes the color changes. A sharp-eyed expert will notice and can measure the difference.

dgh: mesure WHAT difference, Bill, if you [an amateur], nor anyone else [including professionals] can get access to the Zapruder in-camera original [for testing], HOW can one compare the colors? IMPOSSIBLE, not even an argument! The problem we have here is; YOU expect us to believe YOU, we DON'T. Forensic testing is in order -OR-, Monaco Labs, San Francisco, original digital frame files of the in-camera Zapruder film should be made available to researchers -- including those digital original frames they created of what is left of the original 3 Jamieson prints (#0185,86,87)

Feel free to pass this along to those who would like to understand the significance of the physics involved with daylight Kodachrome II movie film."

dgh: yeah right, rotflmfao give us a break, do you even know what a 'light pak', is?

to wit: "...offers nothing but doubt, suspicion, inneundo, speculation and suggestive fantasy of sinister agent lurking in the shadows, fabricating...", "twisted logic and assassinated science, which have a negative effect of representing the traumatic, historic event of November 22nd, 1963, as farce." *pg. 282 TRASK, National Nightmare on 6 feet of film; quoting Joe Durnavitch (whoever-the-hell he is)-former/Josiah Thompson-latter --

to which I'll remind ALL three (author TRASK included):

The 1963 assassination of the President of the United States IS the FARCE, the record of that FARCE was created utilizing "TWISTED LOGIC", for whatever reason. There in lies the Lone Nutter problem, trying to defend the undefendable, the SBT theory & WCR....

TOP POST

dgh: ahh, "a bit confusng"? I SEE, your ego just won't let you say, "I don't know where I found the M. Poppins frames I posted, and even if I did, I can't tell you what's the matter with them, nor do I know anyone that can..."

Further, regarding the below, you're sounding very, Very, VERY confused -- Warner Brothers, NARA, NASA, Elm Street, the LIMO, software, backyard photos, Zapruder Film, me, Jack White, Zavada, HOAX... all in one POST. What can we expect NEXT? What about Mary Poppins?

I'd like to point out a few things that I agree with and disagree with and state why I take the position that I do and because it is a bit confusing to me as to who is saying waht - I'll just speak directly to each quote of interest.

I could list numerous things that could simply have not been achieved in 1963, regardless of how much time and money was invested or how many smart people were involved. The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963... and the list goes on and on.

Frank...hate to disagree, but computers did exist in the sixties. NASA used them. NASA and the military were at least twenty years ahead of the public in such matters...which were withheld from the public for "national security".

This is just one example of someone finding two pieces of a puzzle that can be made to fit together while ignoring the fact that the other sides do not match anywhere else with the remaining pieces. It is not enough to say that computers existed in the 1960's or that NASA had them because it is the SOFTWARE that would be needed to make computer animations. Jack has admitted in the past that such technology didn't exist back then and went on to point out how the alterations would have been done by hand the old fashion way by creating 8 x 10 images of the Zframes.

Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination.

Of course David cannot say what scenses were as extensive as the ones discussed in "Hoax". Furthermore, David has stated for quite a while that he has seen NO PROOF of alteration to the Zfilm, at least until recently, but has not explained what is altered and why it didn't register with him when he made his prior statements of never seeing proof of alteration.

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Is it not interesting that the alleged forgers couldn't alter the so-called Backyard photos without detection, but somehow were said to be good enough to do it to the Zfilm and not have it noiced for 30 plus years. Once again, the problem is that the grains on a film are all unique, thus inserting film grain on a image such as an arn or leg from one roll of film would show a different pattern of grain than the rest of the image which was present on the original film.

Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown"

Sometimes it appears that Jack just isn 't playing dumb, but actually is dumb. Jack knows Groden has examined the alleged oriiginal Zfilm and has offered his opinion as to the films authenticty and why Robert believes what he does. Jack's way of dealing with the facts is to ignore them.

I

t's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination.

It's called "double-talk". Its tthe same as saying you have not seen proof of the Zfilm beling altered only to tell people you believe the Zfilm is altered.

Bill Miller

dgh:do us a favor, go back on the road.... while your out there find out what Zavada was charged with doing and what his qualifications were/are for special effects film composing...

Funny Ray Fielding never said anything about that to me -- only thing he told me was, Fielding: "... I want nothing to do with the Zapruder film..." Then miracle of miracles Zavada drops me a note telling me, Ray is going to join him with his report rewrite...imagine that...

Any Len, when you get a chance I posted about 80 movies you can review concerning compositing sequence examples, do your self a favor, get educated, make your comments then, till then you're wasting lurkers time and mine...

Evidently you too have a Mary Poppins fixation, why don't you rescue Miller and tell me where the Poppins frames came from (the exact source), till you or he does Len, your blowing smoke... as usual... and if by chance you find the source, tell me what's wrong with the frames -- surely you wannabes can find a film lab techie that can tell you, thus all the rest of us whats wrong with the Poppins mattes , eh?

******************

I was traveling and didn't notice this thread till yesterday.

Charlie,

I could list numerous things that could simply have not been achieved in 1963, regardless of how much time and money was invested or how many smart people were involved. The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963... and the list goes on and on.

Yes, there are times in human history when things are impossible...

Also, even if the ability to do a given thing DID exist at a given time, that doesn't mean that it was done...

Frank...hate to disagree, but computers did exist in the sixties. NASA used them. NASA and the military were at least twenty years ahead of the public in such matters...which were withheld from the public for "national security".

When studying Badgeman in the 80s, I saw computers for the first time at MIT and other government sponsored places, doing things I found incredible and which were unknown to the public. A place in Dallas Gary Mack and I were able to visit showed us how they could take a one-dimensional aerial photo and using computers could create a 3-D view of flying through mountains and valleys at low level. I still have no idea how it was done. An Israeli company called Scitex showed us things that in the 80s I thought impossible, but are commonplace today.

Your "computer example" is not apt.

Jack (emphasis added- Len)

No Jack Frank was 100% correct in his original statement but you failed to comprehend what he said. He said that a computer like the one Charlie Black was using was not possible back then not that computers didn't exist. Do you really believe that 1963 computers had anywhere near the capabilities of current ones? Someone else speculated that in 1906 people would have said television was impossible that they would have been wrong doesn't change the fact that it was not possible at the time.

As Steven succinctly put it, the question is not whether the alleged alterations are possible today or even if alterations via optical printing were possible back then but whether the technology to make the alleged alterations so as to be undetectable today existed then. Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination.

It is instructive to remember what is being alleged, Hoax's "top technical expert" John Costella wrote:

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did." (emphasis added- Len)

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

Elsewhere it is alleged that items such as lampposts and a street sign where not as they should have been and presumably were added by the forgers (though why they would have to do this if the film was shoot on the real Elm St. is never made clear).

Perhaps Dave as been asked of him repeatedly can identify scenes from 'his' movies in which there were alterations like those and the fakery isn't detectable.

"Bill Miller" wrote:

" the Zfilm has been examined by more than one expert in one field and has been declared to be the camera original. "

Please name these numerous experts and the nature of their claims. We know

about Zavada, whose only declaration is that the film used can be verified

to be Kodachrome, manufactured by Kodak. That is the extent of his claim,

as far as I know. I know of no research that has disputed that the film is Kodachrome.

Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown" http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Also "more than one" = two or more nor necessarily 'numerous'.

The people who wrote the book HOAX said what? Well, I'm one of those, did I mention the film Mary Poppins, was that me? If NOT then WHO, What was their source? We need your sources, Bill!

I'm not sure if the movie was cited in the book itself but it certainly was cited by its authors.

Fetzer himself cited it.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/shex12.html

As did Costella

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

and Jack.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry48849

I suspect you haven't a clue about film composing/composition, nor the reason why it was so important to the film industry -- You might find that and other reasons WHY in Ray Fieldings 1963-64 book, you know the book I refer too in my article, which I'm sure you haven't read -- right along with not reading HOAX.... so don't let me interrupt you making a fool out of yourself.

It's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination.

And Charlie Black -- you're right on target... we invented the transistor, went to the moon, during that decade and Lone Nutter's think we can't alter a piece of film...? ROFLMFAO

Dave are you sure we went to the Moon? White says it never happened and Fetzer and Costella have their doubts. Funny how he keeps repeating the 'anti-alterationists' = Lone Nuts straw man.

Charles, take the time to learn as much as possible about the type of film Zapruder used. Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Kodachrome II was also made for filming in sunlight and to a copy film one needs artificial light, which experts could detect the differences right away. Someone like Healy may tell you that this information is incorrect because he has seen it done, but I can assure you that he has worked with PROFESSIONAL FILM whereas the difference in this case is that I am talking about AMATEUR FILM, which is what Zapruder used.

Bill Miller

"Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is what

matters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples.

Jack

What kind of silly semantic argument is that? The color temperature of light is directly related to what 'kind of light' it is.

http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm

As already pointed out more than once on this forum Roland Zavada the inventor of Kodacrome II said that the difference in color temperature would have been detectable. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf pg. 2

KODAK-Dallas provided 3 rolls of Kodachrome 11A film rated at 40ASA 3200K for the printing of Zapruders film, the story goes: they, KODAK had no 'print' film on hand (tough to believe for the film of the century).

So Dave you think they could have known a head of time they would be developing the Z-film? IIRC they said they didn't have any copy film.

On edit: Another significant reason for alteration is to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head, supporting the bullet from behind theory, rather than shooting backward, which shows a shot from the front.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html

It's quite noticable that the blood explosion disappears after just one frame (the infamous 313). So all that brain and skull and blood are supposed to have dissipated in 1/16 of a second? I don't think that's possible.

Actually Myra not even Costella claims it (they) completely disappeared in 1 frame as even he shows some blood (or cranial fluid) until frame 315 (see your link) and his copy of the film shows splatter at least until frame 318 [ http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg ]. If your claim that you've read every page of every thread on this forum is true you should have read the thread in which a forensic expert explained the obvious, that the blood would have been accelerated by the bullet, funny that some one with a PhD in physics (Costella) couldn't figure it out.

This was explained to me one night in DC at the all-night bookstore cafe at Dupont Circle where Judge is treated as a celebrity because of his appearance on the Ali G show.

Not having seen the show - I don't know what to make of the guy, and don't know if he's a ct, but he seems to have a young, generation x cult following. I guess we can put Ali G in the Paul Krasner-Richard Belzner-Dick Gregory funny bone category.

Ali G (Alistair Leslie Graham) is from the UK. He had a very popular TV show in the UK that ridiculed politicians and show business celebrities. It was very subversive. Of course, once his identity was exposed, no one would appear on his show. Therefore he went to work in the US.

For more information on Ali G see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_G

Thanks John,

I noticed that Ali G/ BORAT film made Doonsbury Cartoon earlier this week.

I asked John Judge more about it and he said that, despite being a big movie buff, he doesn't appreciate Ali G's type of humor and will not see the movie.

We were organizing a COPA fund raising benefit, so I suggested a COPA CABANA, with a Cuban theme, "Lola," and a host of stand up comix - like Dick Gregory, Mort Saul, Krasner et al., and maybe some Sinatra and Rat Pack impersonators. Ali G would fit in there.

As for Peter Dale Scott's COPA Talk, I am working on a transcription and should have it soon.

BK

BK

sounds like a show for out here, Bill!

David

Jack,

Very interesting information on Kodachrome II film. I've not shot it in a movie format, but I have used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color transparency work. I'm certainly not an expert in the subtleties of the chemistry of various films, and don't pretend to be, but my experience with both products is consistent with what you have written.

The question that I have is this:

If I recall correctly, there were some immediate duplicates of the z-film made on 11/22. I keep hearing about how difficult/impossible it is to accurately copy Kodachrome... How were these duplicates made and what would they have looked like when they were new?

KODAK-Dallas provided 3 rolls of Kodachrome 11A film rated at 40ASA 3200K for the printing of Zapruders film, the story goes: they, KODAK had no 'print' film on hand (tough to believe for the film of the century). The prints were made at Jamieson-Dallas via contact printing and bracketed; best copy - 1/2 stop up - 1/2 stop down, developed at Kodak-Dallas and returned to Zapruder the same day. note: Trask in his latest offering concerning the Zapruder film covers the process much better than Zavada, which really gives me pause tp wonder about the formal Zavada report.

Supposedly, the double 8 films were split that day. Well, that is until a double8mm UN-SPLIT B&W copy turned up in material donated to the 6th floor via the Zapruder family (after we spent 16 million bucks for it), best guess is the original in-camera film #0183 was the father of that b&w dupe - which means the in-camera original was NOT split immediately and PROBABLY means (though NOT confirmed) the Z-frame images appearing in the first editions of LIFE were not derived from the Zapruder's in-camera original...

Most of the above is covered in Roland Zavada's detailed report (which has been severly criticized) -- and then there's the mysterious "cock the printer" - #0184, which is another bone of contention...

Expect a email from Gary Mack, Frank....

'Bill Miller' wrote/dreamed....

[...]

In short, alteration of Kodachrome II movie film cannot be accomplished without the results being detectable by those who know what to look for."

dgh: roflmfao -- ROFLMFAO -- those that know what to look for, geesh! Think Mary Poppins, btw, where'd those frames come from, AGAIN?

[...]

However, in my opinion, when I speak of alteration, I am referring to a very short time frame. I feel certain that the Z film was altered during the shooting sequence for one of two reasons... or for perhaps both reasons.

Charles, take the time to learn as much as possible about the type of film Zapruder used. Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Kodachrome II was also made for filming in sunlight and to a copy film one needs artificial light, which experts could detect the differences right away. Someone like Healy may tell you that this information is incorrect because he has seen it done, but I can assure you that he has worked with PROFESSIONAL FILM whereas the difference in this case is that I am talking about AMATEUR FILM, which is what Zapruder used.

Bill Miller

dgh: I await your's and Sherry's 3d *particle effects* simulation of the mist emmanating from JFK's head wound (should be no problem for DMyers, you know the goto guy) -- Shouldn't be a problem with today's computer technology? Do I have to point you, Sherry or Myer's towards the plug-ins?

David, you don't have to wait for anything ... just free up your trolling hand and call some experts to see if you can find one that says something any different. I am always amazed at how some guy who works with an optical printer seems to always disregard what the experts have said even when that same guy couldn't even detect the errors in the Mary Poppins clips that I posted despite my telling what they they were in the same post. Maybe it's time you prove something to us instead of the other way around.

By the way, you have said more than once that you HAVE NOT seen any signs of alteration to the Zapruder film and just a few days ago you stated just the opposite, but didn't say what had changed your mind. Could you tell this forum why you have now flipped 180 degrees so we can see what you have learned in recent days that you didn't know before when the matter has come up?

Thanks!

Bill Miller

in the big leagues, Bill -- we post cites and references regarding claims we or others make, something you're completly unaware of not to mention, DEVOID of.... again, where did you find those Mary Poppin s frames you have such a love affair with....? Then we'll discuss those same Poppins frames, we'll see then, just how much you know about film compositing...

If your going to be a *photo* researcher (which I notice you've ceased using in your signature block - why is that? ). So, Bill you gott'a get the references and cites out there. Hell, you never know, someone out here might not believe your line of bull xxxx...

Oh, regarding your above to Charles: "...Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. ..." what kind of nonesense is THAT? Better run that one by Roland Zavada or Lamson they'll appreciate your humor....

take the golf shoes off Bill, AGAIN! <sigh>

UMMMMMM?

So, if I were to whack you in the top of the head with an ax/axe, then it would not bleed.

Most interesting! I will have to so inform all of the Dr.s' that I know of this little known fact.

Barbara! (the ER Nurse with in excess of 20 years of ER experience) Come here, I have a new medical breakthrough for you to inform all of the Dr.s down in the Singing River Hospital ER about the new medical revelation that one does not bleed when they have their scalp ripped all to pieces.

Any idiot who knows anything about the brain is aware of the cerebral fluids.

Any idiot also knows that when one rips the scalp open, that it bleeds.

And, although the amount of blood vs. cerebral fluids is certainly minimal, it is most unlikely that those Dallas cops did not recognize the color which they observed on their uniforms; helments; and windshields of their motorcycles.

All of which does nothing in regards to explaining exactly how it was that chuncks of brain tissue which were also blown up and out of JFK's head, magically dissapate as well.

Do we now have "Magic Cerebral Tissue" in which chunks of the brain of JFK now merely dissapate into the wind along with the "bloody" cerebral fluids?

Tom, you should be smarter than to say some of the things you mentioned here. Of course the head bleeds once you have damaged the arteries and blood vessels ... JFK's coat and shirt are examples of this, but the bullet passed through JFK's head just under 2000 fps before much bleeding could have possibly occurred. Instead the missle splattered the crainial fluid which was tossed up in the air. I should also point out that Zapruder's camera could not possibly record an object moving at even 2X the speed of sound, let alone 3X, thus why you would think that you should see the debris flying from the back of JFK's head is beyond me. I'd like to think that everyone is capable of looking at the evidence in a logical fashion, but I know that does not happen. All I can do is tell you that no doctor (Dallas or otherwise) has ever said that the brain matter that was blown from JFK's head should have been seen on a blurry pice of film running at 18 frames per second. If you have data to the contrary, then I'd appreciate seeing it.

David, the area of study about spatter has been known about in the JFK assassination community for years and mentioned on this forum several times in the past .... you just didn't bother to try and understand it.

Bill Miller

*********

dgh: I await your's and Sherry's 3d *particle effects* simulation of the mist emmanating from JFK's head wound (should be no problem for DMyers, you know the goto guy) -- Shouldn't be a problem with today's computer technology? Do I have to point you, Sherry or Myer's towards the plug-ins?

Just so lurkers understand, we got us a CSI-Las Vegas,NYC/Miami type of forensic Elm Street *blood spatter* study perhaps happeing here - we're gonna study a 40 year old *possibly* altered Zapruder film, in the hopes of proving the same film ISN'T altered. -- We DO have 'other' possibly altered Elm Street-DP films to coorborate the one possibly altered film (Zapruder Film) which according to the Lone Nutter's ISN'T altered (which of course the OTHER film show no blood spatter)...

I maintain skepticism even with regards to my own work until it has rigorous scrutiny and confirmation . If this can be confirmed then relating it to the zfilm, limo speeds etc certainly promises exciting things. However it's not there yet.

In this gif the missing frames are replaced with a mix of the frames on either side. If you look at the woman walking her movements are now smoother. The limo looks a bit choppy as the replaced frames are composites of two which blurs them and the wheels and fender contrast stands out. However the limo seems to stop momentarily and it looks like the front of the limo 'dips'. By reinserting the frames this stretches the timeframe making this more noticable.

John,

Can you replace the frames you duplicated with black and/or white frames? Post same?

David

Just for the record, I am having trouble with my copier in it's reduction capability.

Therefore the "large" full size attachments.

Sorry for the inconvenience, however, with those such as myself who are also suffering deteoriation of eyesight, perhaps it is an aid.

Since the "Adjusted Position" is also associated with the "Shaneyfelt Position", may as well include the two items together.

oh-my.... thanks for the doc's, Tom -- someone email Spector for comment, when we're done with this, perhaps someone can determine the exact date Shaneyfelt numbered the Z-frames...

Cranial fluid has been misrepresented as blood many times ... I did it for years until I was corrected by someone who knew the facts.

Bill Miller

UMMMMMM?

So, if I were to whack you in the top of the head with an ax/axe, then it would not bleed.

Most interesting! I will have to so inform all of the Dr.s' that I know of this little known fact.

Barbara! (the ER Nurse with in excess of 20 years of ER experience) Come here, I have a new medical breakthrough for you to inform all of the Dr.s down in the Singing River Hospital ER about the new medical revelation that one does not bleed when they have their scalp ripped all to pieces.

Any idiot who knows anything about the brain is aware of the cerebral fluids.

Any idiot also knows that when one rips the scalp open, that it bleeds.

And, although the amount of blood vs. cerebral fluids is certainly minimal, it is most unlikely that those Dallas cops did not recognize the color which they observed on their uniforms; helments; and windshields of their motorcycles.

All of which does nothing in regards to explaining exactly how it was that chuncks of brain tissue which were also blown up and out of JFK's head, magically dissapate as well.

Do we now have "Magic Cerebral Tissue" in which chunks of the brain of JFK now merely dissapate into the wind along with the "bloody" cerebral fluids?

perhaps Wild Bill and the Lady of forensic *Spatter-Matter* have opened a new area of study... ?

Interesting that you don't address the impossibly fast head motions and the impossibly fast dissapating blood Bill. You seem to ignore the points you can't explain. Which makes you a timesink. I seriously doubt I can learn anything useful from you.

Myra, it is just as interesting to me that you have not bothered searching the archives for this information for it has been addressed not only here, but on Lancer, as well. I will address it once again just for you ....

Let's get the blood issue straight first of all .... it was not blood, but rather the cranial fluid which when released from JFK's head - it was more of a watery mist. That mist was thrown into a stiff breeze which quickly pushed the mist cloud back over the President's head. If you wish to test this - try spitting into the wind and see what happens. If you doubt the wind gust that occurred at the time of the head shot, then watch the coats on Hill, Moorman and the BL at that moment and you will see them been blood wildly to the east to southeast.

The error over the Greer head turn was a result of its author thinking that Greer's head didn't move during a couple of frames once he started his head turn. When I checked this out for myself, I found that Greer's head was in fact turning with each frame once his actual head motion started and that his head turn was no faster than other peoples head turns during the motorcade trip from Love Field to Dealey Plaza. You will note a light shift on the top of Greer's head which the alteration author missed. That shift was a result of the head turning between those frames and the grid example clearly shows this IMO. The examples I speak of are offered to you below so that you may learn something from them. Again I will say this ... there is a reason why even the smuttiest tabloids don't even touch these claims even if you fell for them.

Bill Miller

Jesus -- you find a MD that will certify what you call *watery mist* is just THAT cranial fluid, and NOT blood?

"...try spitting in the wind...."! roflmfao, you REALLY know how to win folks over to your way of thinking, don't yeah?

"...there is a reason why the smuttiest ..." -- ya mean those supermarket rags in Florida, you know the ones that do the JFK stories all time might "gag" because the Z-film is altered? You really should get out more!

'John Dolva' wrote:

Interesting, David, thank you for that. How I understand it then (please correct) is that the process creates frames that didn't exist in two ways. By mixing half interleavs from consecutive frames and by dupliucation.

dgh: essentially correct

This would be the case with the dvd clip and removing dupes doesn't solve it.

dgh: correct

The avi clip on the other hand is not necessarily like that. It depends on how the frames for it were derived.

dgh: .avi, .mov makes no difference what motion file gets to DVD or video, when its on tape or DVD disc (sold commercially) in most cases it will formatted at 30/29.97 NTSC or 25/24.96fps PAL. the giveaway is; as one single frame 'advances' through the piece, you'll see multiple frames (up to 2-3) of each frame and of course sometimes a single frame. The MPI DVD full screen version (not the cropped version) of theZapruder film demonstrates the above clearly.

The large spaced group around the headshot which Frank seems to have also found (Frank, could you mark the line that is from the headshot frame) I'm betting it is the same, if so then that indicates an intent as the pattern of missing frames is not at all regular?

dgh: there's more than one 3:2 pulldown pattern, I believe there's 3 or 4 . I can't remember, I'll be on After Effects this weekend, I'll let you know then...

note: PAL is progressive scan, frames will more than likely clearer or appear "sharper", NTSC on the other hand is interleaved, two fields (upper-lower/odd-even) make one frame, as a result the frames will appear slightly "softer" than the PAL frames, all things considered, including the original quality of the imagery

Well, I have to admit, I'm a bit puzzled about a couple of things.

I ran the same process against the Nix avi from the site you indicated. Here are the results:

I also re-did my previous one, in an attempt to improve the registration:

On your source AVI, I was never able to achieve the level of clarity you achieved, but there are some irregularities in the frame spacing.

On my source, I think the results are slightly improved. I blame some of the fuzziness on MPEG-2 block distortion, as the DVD "chops" a bit. The frame spacing seems quite good, with no indication of missing frames.

But there is another problem...

When I play these frames at 18.5fps (the speed of the Nix camera) the film seems to be in slow motion. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain this at the moment. I'm going to have to go back and look at the source again... When something looks to be in slow-mo, there are usually duplicate frames present, but there are clearly no dupes in the film. There also don't appear to be any missing... (there is probably a simple explanation that I'm missing... it has been a LONG day).

unless the source utilized in your study can be certified/guaranteed at 18.5fps your wasting your time... Most, if not ALL of these JFK related reference films on the internet are at 30fps DF (drop frame) version of 18.3 or 18.5 fps in-camera originals. For these 30fps clips to be used accurately 3:2 pulldown is required in order to get the frames back to their original frame rate... Adobe After Effects will accomplish same...

3:2 pulldown? go to

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report..._2_pulldown.htm

for more information

'Thomas H. Purvis' wrote:

David;

Hope that some of it is starting to either come together and/or make some sense now.

dgh: yes, coming together, reinforcing early recreations.

Chuck could not explain what it was all about when he released the altered survey data/vehicle speed info to Fetzer for publication.

Mainly because I did not explain it's significance to him.

Tom.

P.S. And yes, I am that sneaky too!

dgh: you, *sneaky* Pete?

Findings: On this composite the black lines are the locations of the front edge of the fender on consecutive frames as per available film . The lower single red mark is the frame where the headshot is first visible. The red lines between the black lines are my estimates of missing frames. When the film runs the missing frames give an appearance of smooth continuity. When properly placed in space on the composite the jerky leaps of speed at the missing frames is obvious.

(image)

John,

Nice work -- was the source for your above work a videotape-DVD presentation (based on a 23.97PAL - 29.97NTSC fps)?

David

In "Body of Evidence" Kellerman is shown, in a transcript, to be actively arranging the diversion of the body to Walter Reed (for alteration) as the empty casket goes to Bethesda.

Myra, I have been unable to track down any reference to a book (or video) entitled "Body of Evidence."

Can you tell us more about it?

Thank you.

Is that the one with David Lifton and Madonna and the knky sex scene in the parking garage?

ouch.... evidently DavidL didn't respond to one of your emails?

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

John;

The most stable firing position would have been with LHO virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, down on his left knee, with the right foot planted firmly on the floor and the right leg in it's correlating 90-degree bend at the knee, with the knee pointed at approximately a 45-degree angle to the left, in relationship to the horizontal line created by the rear/back side of the boxes.

The shooter should have been virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, and leaning forward across the boxes for elbow support, as well as body support if necessary.

Thereafter, depending on how far forward one had to lean in order to shoot downward at the corresponding downward angles of fire, one merely had to lean forward over the box(s'), changing little other than the forward angle of the upper torso of the body.

The left elbow, as well as the left knee and right foot is easily maintained in it's exact position, and the only portion of the body that actually moves is the upper torso portion as it leans farther forward or backwards, dependent upon the extent to which one would need to lean out of the window in order to increase or decrease the downward angle of fire.

When directly behind the boxes, the pipes along the wall create no problem, and since the boxes were aligned with the direction of Elm St., and there was actually very little horizontal change in the firing direction, the positioning of the boxes was absolutely ideal for stability shooting.

Under the assumption that LHO/the shooter actually shot from the right-handed position, the only movement thereafter required is movement of the right hand from the trigger to the bolt, bolt operation, and back to the trigger.

Even the "stock weld" position of the buttplate of the stock into the shoulder, would never change.

Absolutely ideal shooting situation and conditions, whether with a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle.

Interesting and a few questions, the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate? Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)? Brennen spoke of the "entire barrel" exposed, did he elaborate further? Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time? Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

For someone thats making so much hay over the film Mary Poppins, why don't YOU tell me what's the matter with the Poppins frames you've posted? For all I know, matting for those frames are fine, perhaps the projector in the aerial printer chain wasn't positioned correctly, YET -- That's why when you do research Bill, and make claims regarding things you've no proveable expertise in, we need to question your thoroughness, we need your documentation, your sources, in order to validate your claim....

Get out your copy of the "Hoax" book and I bet if you look in the idex that you will find who mentioned the movie Mary Poppins and why. As far as what is the matter with those Mary Poppins images I posted ... go back and read the text that accompanied them. If then you still do not see what I was talking about, then it is little wonder why you have not been able to follow even the most simplest of the points that I have posted to this forum.

dgh: gee Bill, I've got it right here, all three editions, nothing in the index for Poppins, Mary Poppins, not even Walt Disney, you lying about this Bill? Remember I wrote an article for the book, I'm pretty familiar with the content... give us a cite or dawn the mantle of xxxx --

If you insist regarding Mary Poppins frames, just tell us, ALL of us, your source for and where the frames came from. AND what's the matter with the Poppins mattes, if anything -- Lamson you better get in here and help this guy out, he's out of his league, AGAIN... of course Bill, you can always find a optical film printing lab tech to help you out. EH? I understand one hangs around DPlaza selling JFK memoriabilia

Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Our good friend Robert Groden examined the camera original film and has said that it is authentic. I posted several of Groden's findings and how he reached the conclusions that he did and not once did you offer anything to the contrary.

[...]

How the hell would Groden know the difference between a in-camera 8mm original film and a 2nd generation of same? Give us a few clues here will ya! Better yet, maybe he can speak for himself, what the hell are you carrying his water for?