David G. Healy

'Robin Unger' provided document Abe Zapruder signed....

'Bill Miller' [...] I only hope that if you guys ever get someone to actually go examine the original Zapruder film that you choose someone who is a bit more thorough as to how they draw their conclusions and not be out of the same gene pool that causes one to offer such detailed replies as the previous one that you gave in support of Jack's nonsense. Bill Miller _____________ dgh01: gene pool, where you going with all this Bill? What term is coming next? Where's that Researcher title under your name go? You didn't forget what "research" is/means, did ya? Examine WHAT? The original Zapruder film????? When did you see the "original Zapruder film"? You have the schedule handy when the next screening date is???? And you expect to be taken serious.... Sign me up for a screening, I'm sure Ray Fielding would like to see it, too! Especially in the first generation 35mm format.... How they doing, anyway?

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

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

nice to see you here, David.... D. Healy

Bill Miller [...] Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!" As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............ Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear. One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film. dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers. The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie. dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray... Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not. Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films. I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions." dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko! So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge. Bill Miller

NO NO NO! "critical thinkers" can see through all of this technical mumbo jumbo, and film makers say sure just copy the flat art! LOL! Thanks Bill. and then THERE"S Lightwave -- the alledged saving grace of the Zapruder Film choir, talk about taking a 2D image and creating 3D something out of nothing [stick with hard goods].... then there's the 25,000+ posts BillM has blessed us with... and yes Gloria, Z-film alteration is much easier than you can believe, look at it this way -- In the 90's MPI did it right in front of your face, sold thousands and thousands of "altered Z-film" copies and not a peep... YOU and the peanut gallery think alteration is difficult? In 1963-64 terms ROFLMFAO! Yes indeedy, Thanks Bill [tsk-tsk]

'Bill Miller' wrote: I think Mike replied because he saw through your intentions. What puzzles some of us is that you have heard the things Zavada has said, you've heard the things Groden has said, you have seen the Kodak information posted, you have even seen the science involved in checking films for authenticity and how experts have validated the Zapruder films authenticity, and you have seen the faulty alteration claims made by Jack White and you've gone as far as to say after all this ... that you have not seen any proof of film alteration. So there is no reason that I can see why you haven't moved on. Take some time off and study the other evidence of the case ... there is plenty of material to learn about. Bill ________________ I don't pariculary care what YOU think or know about anything, actually. My response was to Mike, not YOU. Can't help yourself, can you? -- I recently noticed Dr. Thompson had to help you out in another thread... LOL, course he's having a hardtime answering questions directed to him, such as THIS thread... what's expected -- 'Michael Hogan' wrote: I'm not about to get into a back and forth with you. As I noted, you are always determined to have the last word. simple Mikey -- don't respond to a thread I start, REAL simple... [snip the nonesense]

Jack, I see that Shanet, 'the guy who hates to see forum space wasted', made a post doing nothing more than copying and pasting your response, so I entend to just answer your remarks rather than to post the same thing twice. But before I do ... lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I anxiously await your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks. Bill Miller ahh, before you nail down anyone, lmao -- post a url to where Costella says anything about frames altered in Life magazine.... I suspect you finally understand why I say; I can't prove the Z-film is altered, but I certainly can say everything is present to do a Z-film alteration on 8mm - 35mm - 8mm... Rollie and i suspect Ray know EXACTLY how it can be composed and printed oh, and the frames Life had in B&W, were the Zapruder frames numbered in December? Funny, my Life magazines [Nov-Dec 1963] re JFK DP/Zapruder frames Life have no frame numbers, yours? It is nice to know you've spent thousands on filters.... and you understand 3200k and 5400k and what Wratten filters are. Now all you need is a Hollyweird -or- New York City optical film printer... Ray.....

appreciate your comments, thanks... So, if you find the subject matter so mundane, why post to the thread? Feel free to remove yourself from the thread. Perhaps YOU by chance can provide answers about a few Z-film concerns? Any representative of Josiah Thompson is fine by me. Actually anyone representing Roland Zavada and/or Ray Fielding will do nicely too... I've been waiting a few months, you up to the task, Mike? David Healy

In the interest of fairness regarding possible Z-film alteration a link to Dr. Josiah Thompson's 3 part article concerning same is included below: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...y_Assassination Dr. Thompson mentions at the end of his essay quote on ... The efforts of those who sought to show the Zapruder film was a fake have produced unanticipated results. The failure of their effort has disclosed a region of evidence in the case which is incontrovertibly genuine. This evidence, in turn, can be used to test the authenticity of other evidentiary elements. In the photographic record from Dealey Plaza, we have available to us a single fabric of self-authenticating evidence which can be used as bedrock for reconstructing the event. quote off I suspect if the altered Z-film camp has failed, little of what is now finding its way to the internet would be there, including your essay... Also in the interest of fairness and possible closure, I wonder if Dr. Thompson's reference to self-authenticating evidence might be provided to the Z-film alteration side of the argument? In the form of first generation Life-Time Inc. 35mm frames of the Z-film. I, as well as others would like to know if Roland Zavada magnified, in any form, by any means, the actual in-camera 8mm Zapruder film frames or 1st generation 35mm/4x5's trannies, during the course of his investigation. If so, under what circumstances i.e., film content and/or film structure, and where? Did he confirm (if so, by what means) Life-Time Inc. 35mm/4x5 trannies were in fact, single frame blow-ups of the Zapruder film frames? Was review of film content part of RZavada's KODAK sponsored investigation mandate? I understand why Harry Livingstone's current book regarding the Zapruder film is cause for angst, I'd like to see the debate (if it ever get's to that) end, too! I'm ready to move on... I'd lend Dave Wimp's measurements credibility once I'm convinced the Z-film is NOT altered (I'll run his theory past JCostella if and when he comes out of retirement - before I comment though). Thanks for your time David Healy

'Craig Clark' wrote: Hello, my first post. I've really enjoyed the information here and Teacher Simkin has performed a great service, as most of you perhaps. If, as I suspect, the assassination was primarily acted out by Military Intelligence (utilizing other like-minded Intelligence folk, and a slew of other sources: Mafia, Cubano, Corsican, White Russian, Texas Oil, Permindex,etc., until the whole apparatus becomes what one researcher coined [i quote from memory, excuse errors]: 'the conspiracy itself is the cover-up'); I take that to mean that so many threads were employed and so many trails were spun-off, that the sheer dizzying effect would cause even the most level-headed researcher to go vertigo, or stop, 'Aha!, at just one or two threads. I think the guy in the beret, his mentality is sadly still in Viet Nam. Perhaps we all should go to Viet Nam now and help take out some of those landmines there, or help all the Viet Namese children, deformed (Agent Orange babies), maybe we should all spend a vacation making ammends to the people of Viet Nam, because after all the smoke and bulls--t has cleared, the real freedom fighters were the Ho Chi Minh supporters, and not even the American Empire could still that fervent call to freedom from Western colonialists. ___________ dgh:******Oh brother -- 'another' closet Viet Cong... next we'll hear about all those malcontents the 'Crown' sent sailing west to populate and tame the new world. Hang in there, the end of the world is coming we'll make sure you get to the head of the line... but we won't guarantee HIS judgement.*********** I'm sorry TP had to go, I wasn't in diapers, but that doesn't matter, that comment just shows how much pain TP is in. dgh:******* I'm not sorry he went. Hell of a lot of guys made the *round* trip because he DID go, which leads to a question I won't ask. Btw, I made a round trip, too! As a practicing member of the Roman Catholic flavor, I can only imagine what will come out of the mouths of babes next ********* It's hard to look at ourselves, our history of genocide, oppression, and murder, and still feel proud about the uniform. America has a terrible case of amnesia! Read Zinn's 'People's History of the United States' for God's sake. Part of our mission here could be to go a little bit public, to organize or join a 11/22 memorial ceremony (preferebly outside, but esp. in DC at the flame, and Dallas, LA, Memphis at the shooting sites). Just my 2 sense. dgh:******** would you like any change with that, sir? ************* btw:God bless America and God bless the rest of the world (incl. our enemies)! dgh:************ don't look for quick fixes -- you're in-charge ************

Josiah Thompson' wrote: Note Fetzer's self-description as given above: "James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK and has published three books on this event: Assassination Science,Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax." Seemingly forever, Fetzer has been championing credentials as the key to credibility. No surprise then that he should be involved in upgrading his own. Note that Fetzer (now retired after a two-month suspension without pay for "sexual harrassment" a couple of years ago) has given up any association with the University of Minnesota (Duluth). He now advertizes himself as distinguished professor "at the University of Minnesota." This is sort of like telling people you teach "at Harvard" when "Harvard" is really an obscure technical college on the outskirts of Enid, Oklahoma. Sic semper bloviatus! Is anyone surprised? Josiah Thompson _____________ Gosh, I'm glad you chimmed in here Dr. Thompson, Ive always wanted to know [as have others] HOW a Philosophy Professor at an obscure College, Haverford I think it is, nearly overnight wound up at LIFE Magazine dealing with the Zapruder film frames and The JFK assassination? How did that happen? Now, I know you have your worshippers on this forum, so I'm probably insulting them, and others by asking such a base, legitimate question. It would nice to have that understanding. Can you help us out here? Then feel free, get on to your bashing of JFetzer, seems you just can't stay away. Not in anybody's defense, I will say, whenever the the non-Z-film alteration crowd are putting on a less than stellar performance, the call goes out. Guess who shows up? How is Rollie and Ray doing these day's? tap-tap-tap! We're await'in...! David Healy

Jack, lets get something straight. I am not a defending the owners of the film, instead I am defending the laws of physics, the rules of mathematics, and data offered by Kodac and the experts I have spoken to. I am defending those experts who have actually examined the Zapruder film original and applied these proven sciences in order to be able to authenticate it. Groden was right when he told me "Jack White doesn't know this stuff because he is not a photo or film expert." As a matter of fact, I heard that same thing from sereval of the sources I went to for information. They recognize your work in the dark room, but even I took photography in school and processed photos from negatives in a dark room, but I had never learned at that time the in-depth aspects of film that these guys have brought to my attention. And just so you know, I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this until you and your cult followers at least acknowledge some of these basic principals concerning film and its graininess and granularity existence. I had put up a link to a Kodac site where they showed actual magnification of emulsion grain and dyes and I assume it was too much trouble for you to link onto the website and see the images. Below are two of the images they (Kodac)provided on their web page. I will also share the text Kodac provided. "Motion picture films consist of silver halide crystals dispersed in gelatin (the emulsion) which is coated in thin layers on a support (the film base). T'he exposure and development of these crystals forms the photographic image, which is, at some stage, made up of discrete particles of silver. In color processes, where the silver is removed after development the dyes form dye clouds centered on the sites of the developed silver crystals. The crystals vary in size, shape, and sensitivity, and generally are randomly distributed within the emulsion. Within an area of uniform exposure, some of the crystals will be made developable by exposure; others will not. The location of these crystals is also random. Development usually does not change the position of a grain, so the image of a uniformly exposed area is the result of a random distribution either of opaque silver particles (black- and-white film) or dye clouds (color film), separated by transparent gelatin (Figures 21 and 22). Figure 21 Figure 22 Grains of silver halide are randomly distributed in the emulsion when it is made. This photomicrograph of a raw emulsion shows silver halide crystals. Silver is developed or clouds of dye formed at the sites occupied by the exposed silver halide. Contrary to widely held opinion, there is little migration or physical joining of individual grains. Compare the distribution of silver particles in this photomicrograph with the undeveloped silver halide in Figure 21. Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size. At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23). Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size. At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23). Figure 23 a: A 2.5X enlargement of a negative shows no apparent graininess. b: At 20X, some graininess shows. c: When a segement of the negative is inspected at 60X, the individual silver grains strt to become distinguishable. d: With 400X magnification, the discrete grains are easily seen. Note that surface grains are in focus while grains deeper in the emulsion are out of focus. The apparent "clumping" of silver grains is actually caused by overlap of grains at different depths when viewed in two-dimensional projection. e: The makeup of individual grains takes different forms. This filamentary silver, enlarged by an electron microscope, appears as a single opaque grain at low magnification. Randomness is a necessary condition for the phenomenon. If the particles were arranged in a regu;ar pattern like the halftone dot pattem used in graphic arts, no sensation of graininess would be created. When a halftone is viewed at a magnification sufficient for the dots to be distinguished, the eye notices the pattern and does not group dots into new patterns. Even though the dot pattern can be seen, the eye does not perceive graininess because the pattern is regular, not random (Figure 24). At lower magnifications-at which the dots can no longer be resolved-the awareness of pattern ceases, and the image areas appear uniform." As far as you agreeing with Healy ... he isn't a photo or film expert either. By the way, Jack ... did you agree with Healy when he posted on this forum that after seeing all the claims in "TGZFH" that he had not seen any proof of Zapruder film alteration either. Strike that question for you wouldn't give a straight forward honest answer anyhow. Let me ask this question instead, Do you agree that an altered film would be showing at least a thrid genmeration image as David said and would you not agree that a real Photo Expert would be able to see the signs of such? If it wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be amusing, but I have to point out that someone like myself can solicit actual Photo experts and pass along information obtained from the actual people who know the most about the science of film, especially Kodachrome film, and not once have you rebutted with a single photo expert or an alternative Kodac site that has said anything contrary to what I have posted. The dot illustration was to show the blurring that would take place when enlarging an image. That rule applies to the grains on the film as much as to the image itself. I believe that you know this stuff, but because you have so much invested in all those ridiculous claims you have made ... you have too much of a motive for not admitting that you were wrong. Bill Miller I do believe Jack has outted you for what you truly are... an underachiver when it comes to JFK photo research and investigation -- especially when it concerns the Zapruder film... time to produce, that or we're left with the alternative: you're irrelevant when it comes to meaningful discussion conerning the possibility of Z-film alteration we'll talk when Rollie and Ray finally put something up, so till then, have a nice life, champ... Nice job, Jack you saved me the time... Thanks, Jim...much appreciated. I am always amazed that John Armstrong and I seem among the few interested in the two Oswalds. I think it is the key to understanding the case, but oddly very few study it or are even interested. For instance, the fact that there were two Marguerites is very intriguing to me and I do not understand why others are not interested. Jack The TWO Marguerites are at the least very intriguing. Shockingly so. Strongly suggestive of a long-term program of two "lee oswalds", as was your poster. In that photos and the attending issues are your area of expertise I defer to yourself and others whom I do respect. Your own Work as opposed to my opinions that do concur for the vast majority of issues. When we consider the fairly well established 2 Lee Oswalds it shouldn't surprise that 2 Marguerites appear in the record too. These possiblities and probabilities beg the question: "Were there on-going programs to create assassins as sleeper assets in place in 1963"? Were Manchurian Candidate programs part of the real politics long before Sirhan B. Sirhan and 1968? Sirhan Sirhan and his "case" is easy to establish the possibility of mind bending assets creating an assassin's patsy. Who was the murdered Lee Oswald really and for myself a question arises about multilingual children and possible uses there of very long before 1963. But my research is only an on-going thing unconcluded but far enough along to foster opinions about a shadow operation touched apon by the the primary particpants lives, i.e. the LeeS and Robert and THE MargueriteS Oswald as well as others named Paine as watchers/handlers and so forth. Why would the doubles as assets idea be so hard to consider in 1963? It is not. Jack, much more than you and Mr. Armstrong are very curious about what the heck was going on in Dallas that November concerning doubles and further what the heck was going on in the lives of the primary participants before that culmination of operations? It is not a stretch to say that this particular area of interest has ignited others' interests in who really was killed in Dallas and such. Research has been spawned of these unanswered questions conducted by myself and others, further it is on-going both for myself and others. I can think of no higher compliment to any researcher's work than to see that work used as a beginning point for digging deeper. As always Best Health and Regards to you Jim Thanks again, Jim. I had hoped that Armstrong's fantastic book would have a greater impact...but researchers still largely ignore the subject of the Oswalds. Jack Blah blah blah. These are standard problems for the copy and dupe process Jack. They have been standard problems since the first copy negative was made. If you are unaware of them please retire your "photo expert" membership card. Now it seems to me that since you, Healy and company are suggesting that copies of a frame of film CAN be made that are not detectable as second, thrid or more generations away form the original, that YOU do the tests and post the results. It's your claim, you prove it. But good luck because it cannot be done. And thats exactly why you and Healy, despite your continuing blather have not done so todate. sit down, I haven't yanked YOUR chain, YET

One might regard this as punitive. You cannot reasonably regard it as preventative, IMO. What Wecht has to say about this matter was said long ago -- clearly, repeatedly, and vehemently. This horse left the barn far too long ago to be muzzled. shall we assume; the prosecution rests?

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] HOWEVER, blowing up 8mm film to 35mm, altering the 35mm, then reducing it to a new 8mm film would be detectable because the grain size of 8mm film is much larger compared to the overall image. In other words, your altered copy would have twice the amount of visible grain as the original film. dgh01: show us Zapruder film examples... (don't hold your breath, Lurkers) Any competent observer would note that the "new" image would be far grainier in appearance than an original film. Plus, copied film images are not as sharp as original images. The slightly softer, less-distinct result would also be noticeable, especially with 8mm film. dgh01: show us Zapruder film examples... (don't hold your breath, Lurkers) Also, the altered 8mm film would actually be a third generation film, since the original is first and the 35mm copy is the second generation. Third generation film has a quite noticeable look that is different from original film......IF seen by an experienced observer. I look forward to your first ever sensible and logical response. dgh01: 3rd -- check with Lamson again, your getting faulty information, its least 4 generations, how can anyone comment when you don't know what you're talking about, THEN show us the examples -- read: SHOW US! Lest I forget -- bull puckey!!! Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' dronned on.... Actally, David ... I consider eye witness testimony all the time, especially if it can substantiated by independent witnesses and/or film. The problem I have and I will repeat for a dyslexic like yourself dgh01: dyslexic? that got to do with XXX< Bill? You make so many inferences and accusations it's hard seperateing them ... over 200 witnesses watched the morotcade pass by the TSBD and Truly is the only one that I know of that claimed to have witnesses the limo come within an inch of the north curb. Maybe Truly was like Superman and could see through such things as a line of people between he and the curb, but I really doubt it. dgh01: perhaps Truly saw it because it happened right in front of him? What a idea? What was the name of the building he managed and where is it locared in Dealey Plaza? Hey ... one witness said he saw the President stand up in the car during the shooting ... maybe you might want to make that a new piece of evidence for film alteration. Another witnessed observation was that JFK's ear look like it flew off and this too was the only witness who made such a statement. Yet even CT's supporters who saw the President's body have not said that Kennedy was missing an ear, of course you might purpose that JFK had three ears so to avoid the point being made. Me, I'll just write it off as someone's interpretation that was subject to error because of a set of circumstances. dgh01: stick with the Zapruder film, you go beyond that, some start wondering... Bill

David, I think that a reasonable person would first look to see why Roy Truly is the only assassination witness who made such a statement. I would note where he was standing and if there were a line of people between he and the motorcade so to get an idea as to whether he really had a good view or not. I would then compare his statement to the assassination films that recorded the turn. Then I would have to wonder if all the other witnesses were just blind to this event and the films all wrong, or had Truly merely stated how something looked from the angle and view he had to the scene, which allows him room for error considering the obstructions between he and the street and it also would explain why no one else claimed to have seen what he stated. But like I said ... that is what a reasonable person would consider - that doesn't include you. Bill Miller oh gosh Bill, there you go AGAIN with that old Lone Neuter axiom: "you can't trust eye witness testimony" -- You guys really need a new schtick.... so when are we going to hear from Roalnd and Ray?

If you are talking about the Mary Poppin's stuff - I captured them off the movie. And only a jackass would try to distract away from the message they convey by bringing up copyright laws. Most, if not all photo or film captures placed on these forums are copyrighted and isn't it funny that the one that bites you in the ass is the one you have copyright concerns over. You're a class act all the way, David! I'm to believe, the ABOVE? You know better than that! None of the above would hold up for a second in a court of law... then again the way the evidence in this case was handled, especially the photo evidence and the chain of custody, sheeesh -- have to stay on top of you guys every second... What disc, certainly wasn't videotape.... and why snip comments, trying to confuse the lurkers? -- Photo expert like you and all... so being in the business all these years, I don't play fast with others creative and/or copyright works, If I refernce works, one knows where to find them, unlike yourself, why is that Bill? of course I'm a class act... thanks for recognizing the fact! he's gotta say something, anything to fill up bandwidth, humor him. Poor example for a Zavada stand-in

'Bill Miller' cranked on: No, David ... I am not interested in your computer examples. dgh02: there you have it Lurkers, the preservers of DP historical record aren't interested in legitimate frames from the Zapruder film, show us the errors of our ways, fill up bandwidth with nonsense regarding "dye clouds in their emulsion" - what-a-farce, tell me what that has to do with getting a film altered for Warren Commission viewing. Computer examples, what computer examples? I am glad however, that you want to stay focused, so lets focus back to the fact that in 1963/64 that there were no computer graphics to do alteration with and that they had to be done by hand. dgh02: duh! now THATS a revelation .... lmao Let's get focused on that grain and dye problem that you keep dancing away from. The site I referenced was not just any site, but one by Kodak ... so I can understand you not being interested in any information that destroys the crap you preach. On the Kodak site it says, "The location of these crystals is also random. Development usually does not change the position of a grain, so the image of a uniformly exposed area is the result of a random distribution either of opaque silver particles (black- and-white film) or dye clouds (color film), separated by transparent gelatin (Figures 21 and 22)." dgh02: display the difference between a in-camera original Zapruder frame and one that shows what your newly created alteration frame, side-by-side. Get it certified by Kodak as accurate, we'll take it form there So on the original film there are grains and dye clouds that are distrubuted across the film emulsion at random ... this will prove important. Would you not agree that the grains and dye clouds have a certain mathematical ratio to the over all image that they cover. So when the original image is blown up - the grains and dye clouds are blown-up at the same ratio. (Surely you can follow that simple rule) Next the alteration would be done to the blow-up which has it's own grains and dye clouds in its emulsion. dgh02: how? what 35mm film type and under what light pack? The problem here now is (and I know you have never considered it) is that the new grains and dye clouds are going to look far too small because they are of normal size on an enlarged image off the Zapruder film. dgh02: Roalnd this guy is flaming... And because they are distrubuted in the emulsion at random - they will not cover the grains and dye clouds that transfered with the original image. In fact, the new grains and dye clouds will now make double the normal grains and dye clouds on a piece of film, which an expert would catch under high magnification. Also because of the enlargement that was done ... the original film's grains and dye clouds under high magnification will appear blurred around the edges, while the new grains and dye clouds on the altered film which was only shrunk down will still look sharp around their edges. dgh02: and what does this new creation look like? Will it pass muster in front of the Warren Commission, confirm the Lone gunman scenario? We need a Z-film frame sample of the fine description above. Come on now, I've got you to 35mm stage, and I do know the film type... This is just another tell-tale sign that an expert see's that tells them that they are not looking at an original piece of film. Nor you, White, Costella, or any Zfilm alteration supporter has ever considered this stuff, but why would you ... you are not experts in Photography. dgh02: pssst, who said I was an expert in photography? Film and video compositing has been my game for nearly as long as you've been on the planet.... based on your above description of what "happens" in/on film, I'm surprised you can even spell "film". How long have you been at this, again? Bill Miller

'Len Colby' Jack as has been pointed out ad infinitum Zavada made no promises as to when he would submit his latest "dissertation" debunking your nonsense (he already wrote two). Quite to the contrary in fact, he said it would take him "some time". Contrast this with your "sidekick" who promised submit his "formal claim soon" back January. "Rollie", as has been pointed out already, is in poor health. dgh01: does that mean Harry's book re the Zapruder film & Roland Zavada has been read? If so... I'd have one hell of a case of GAS, too! As has also been explained to you repeatedly he already explained why he concluded years ago that the film is an "in camera original" not a copy for technical reasons such as grain structure, tonal range and color balance. dgh01: looky here: tonal range and color balance... might fly (but not far) if you can acquire frames from the alledged in-camera Zapruder film... As the inventor of the film Zapruder used that day is a very definitely an authoritative source. dgh01: well then, Roland and Ray shouldn't have ANY problem cranking out the Rolands 3rd version and definition andthen observed concerning the alledged Zapruder film, now should he???? Interestingly Robert Groden reached the same conclusion. An "in camera original" means that the frames of the Z-film photographed live events NOT photo stills or projected frames. dgh01: well get HIM here to comment, and we might ask him where the NIX 35mm Weitzman made is, as well as the NIX in-camera original... We do read the Zavada report, you know! Since this conclusion precludes alteration there was no need for him to analyze supposed content alteration. dgh01: I do believe Roland was not charged with determing Z-film content or alteration, in fact any discuussion of same overstepped his *report* boundaries, correct? A simple yes or no is sufficent Most if not all of the claimed anomalies in TGZFH have long been debunked. dgh01: they have? Funny I see only BM here, only witnessed wailing and gnashing of Lone Neuter teeth... and that certainly didn't amount to much, and then you -- all total, makes for a intesting diversion, nothing of substance... knew you'd show up for this thread...you're so predictable Zavada wrote: [...] Jack to never fail to bring a smile to my face. Thanks!

Bill Miller wrote" dgh02: thats the problem with your stuff Bill, you can't validate anything; you can't be sure; somebody else told you -- how in the hell are we to believe you about anything....? You're out there champ, but there's hope I was on the looney forum and participated in those debates ... no one had to tell me anything ... and don't worry about believing me, there were plenty of people who were listening and participating in those discussions. How about you ... I seem to recall that your big mouth was running all the time back then in those threads ... maybe you can tell us who said it? Bill ___________ dgh03:The best you have countering 'trouble negotiating' a turn onto Elm St? **eyewitness** WC testimony from Truly, is not good? lmao mummmwah? me? nah, actually I didn't participate in many threads at all, my post count could of told you that...speaking of post count how many internet JFK related post you got going now, you gotta be approaching Dave Reitzes all time high what 25-30,000+? Keep at it, you'll get a handle on it!

Shanet, please be more specific if you will. I only ask this because you had previously stated that you were convinced that the Zapruder film had been altered even though I am not sure that you really knew why you believed it to be so. I would like to be sure that you have understood the things I have shared with you regardless of what ever conclusion you then draw from it. Do you have any specific comments or questions about the information that I have shared with you at this time? I have been aware for some time that the alteration heads were not telling the listener all the facts, so are you now saying that there was at least more to the impossibilty of Zfilm alteration than what you have been told previously? Bill You don't suppose you can tell us the frame source for the above is, can you? I.E., work print, composite 1st pass print, answer print, matte test print, secondary matte pull, release print, etc.? You ought to see some of the composites I send to clients before I pull the final matte -- and who released the above frames (read where did you get them and have you violated copyright laws), under what guise where the above frames published andwhat quotes went withthem -- you know general all round stuff one would need in a courtroom.... when tying to prove something or other.... For all we know Bill, the article that goes with these frames may very well tell us that information... You're not trying to pull a fast one are you? ~~Ding-dong the witch is dead~~ this is turning into a farce --Three words -- prove the above!

Bill Miller continues... There are several Zfilm alteration supporters on this forum who seem to have not been able to grasp what I have been telling them about emulsion grain and what to expect during a transfer from one size film to the other. I hope that those who are really interested in the process will take the time to review the information and examples on this web page so to be able to intelligently discuss the subject in the future if the need arises. Bill Miller http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...tometric6.jhtml ________ listen real close.... you ready for a 35mm frame in jpeg form to do a little magic work... I, as well as a few lurkers, need to SEE a simulation from YOU. Who cares about 'other' website examples, they have the Z-film posted there? So let's stay on point, if you can.... How about this, what if I posted here a Zapruder frame from the alledged in-camera 8mm KodacolorII original blow-up to 35mm? -- (course your gonna have to color correct it, its old, should be no problem for an old hand such as yourself) That should provide a base for you to SHOW us what 1964 KodacolorII film emulsion problem will look like, in a freshly minted, Zapruder altered KodacolorII film frame.... It'll get you 2/3rd's of the way there, all YOU have to do is this, show us WHAT a 8mm Zapruder frame looks like when it prints from 35mm reversal to 8mm KodacolorII reversal. You have the guy that damn near created 8mm film structure, Zavada. We don't need another "website". You have Groden, Zavada, you have Fielding and of course, KODAK (and a few others I won't mention)... I'll give you frame provenance... pretty close to the alledged Z-camera original... damn close as a matter of fact. the lineage: camera original 8mm Z-film blow-up to 35mm color neg (1st generation), 35mm neg dupe to 35mm intermediate/reversal (2nd generation), 35mm reversal frames digitized (3239x2964 pixels) to 25 megabyte .tiff file each frame. Have access to a frame here, saved and compressed to BEST-100% .jpeg (will add a disclaimer and a X across the frame) Can you grasp this?

'Bill Miller' [...] dgh01: I believe the point here is the 'limo ran up on the curb' -- you're quote, where did that come from, who stated it and when? Pretty simple question for any DP film/photo researcher The statement you are inquiring about came up on the looney forum back around the year 2000. It's been too long for me to recall who all claimed to observe the incident in their "other film" version, but never-the-less it was said. I cannot be 100% sure, but it too may have been Scott Myers who made the statement. The person's name wasn't what caught my attention as much as the fact that it was just another variance in the alleged "other film" witnesses descriptions that meant to me that at least some of these individuals were not talking about the same film even though they were all being added to the support list as seeing the "other film" dgh02: thats the problem with your stuff Bill, you can't validate anything; you can't be sure; somebody else told you -- how in the hell are we to believe you about anything....? You're out there champ, but there's hope dgh01: rofl! gheesh --- that response was a waste of bandwidth... I wouldn't think that mentioning the descrepencies in the alleged "other film" witnesses observations is a waste of time, but even if it was ... do you think that you should be the only one who should be allowed to waste bandwidth on this forum. I invite anyone to go back into the archives and pool all your responses together to see just what percent of them dealt with anything specific that was being said and see how it quantifies as 'wasted bandwidth'. dgh02: roflmao! 20,000 internet posts? Hell, have your employer save us the trouble -- Have him do it! Bill, if you haven't seen the "other" film, how do YOU know? Nothing esoteric about that, is there? Hell I haven't seen it, I've no comment whether its true or not... dgh01: not just name guy. Which opens up all sorts of avenues and questions And none of them pertaining to the evidence before us. dgh02: tsk-tsk you're a hopin'.... dh Bill Miller