David G. Healy

I felt this quote important enough to start a new thread.... Bill Miller said: First lets get this cleared up: WHO said "those" 8mm films taken from various points angles in Dealey Plaza, the area where a sitting US President was about to be assassinated/take place, literally moments before the assassination were "unimportant"? Or is this just another of your opinions? Please provide a cite and/or document.

if its on "par" with your Jersey shore stories, then by all means recount it! Hey David How hot is it where you're at? I don't have a digital copy of story of The Birth of the Birdie, but will try to find one. If I can't find it I'll recap it. If you want stories of the Jersey Shore check out: http://jerseyshorenightbeat.blogspot.com/ http://athepoint.blogspot.com/ http://whitedeercafe.blogspot.com/ http://kellysgolfhistory.blogspot.com/ hey Bill.... the real deal or for public consumption? 113 off-strip [the real deal] 103 in the shade under the D concourse [for the visiting public]. Thanks for the Jersey shore link. Thought Rocco had a real shot today... sigh! Can't wait to see/read "Birth of the Birdie"

if its on "par" with your Jersey shore stories, then by all means recount it!

Bill, Can I copy-n-paste this to other JFK assassination related (USENET) board? David

Tom Purvis lastly: [...] Not bad? An understatement at best.....You've urged on more than a few in their studies/research concerning the 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza photo/film record. So, please continue when you can! I do notice the resident "Scout Snipers" have faded into obscurity, AGAIN. I wonder why A major hurdle LNer's have here (and elsewhere), they can't quite comprehend there are researchers whom have NOT discounted the possibility of LHO's involvement in the assassination (either wittingly or un-wittingly). Hence, CT post photo/film theses, scenarios and research while LNer's wage a PR campaign in support of the WCR, and the status quo... A simple fact remains: the thinking public supports (for whatever reason) a conspiracy did JFK in on 11/22/63!

The duplicate post were deleted upon reading your June 12th memo about them. So why are you complaining about them not being removed at the time you wrote this June 13th post which appears to have been written well after their removal??? Sometimes the quickest remark isn't the most intelligent. Bill Miller Miller, you definitely need a job... all this lazzing around has ruined the career path you were on... 10,000+ post to JFK boards and no one knows who you are... fascinating

sure.... "... ALL DONE PRIOR TO THE WC HAVING DONE THE EXACT SAME THING! The provided drawing is the result of that work, and if one took basic trig, than they will find that the hypotenuse/slope distance for shot#1, as computed to the impact point as determined by the Time/Life Survey work of 11/25/63, was 174.80926 feet. Now, if only I could recall where I have seen a distance which was similar!" [...] has your memory recalled where, Tom? (I'm sure Bill Miller is sitting at the edge of seat, too.) Would this be close enough? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TUESDAY; MARCH 31, 1964 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm Mr. EISENBERG - I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired. Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances? Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us. Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself? Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however. Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm Personally! I always disliked a "cheater" who already had answers to the test before the test even came out. The provided drawing is the result of that work, and if one took basic trig, than they will find that the hypotenuse/slope distance for shot#1, as computed to the impact point as determined by the Time/Life Survey work of 11/25/63, was 174.80926 feet. great material, Tom.... great material, Tom.... You sweet-talking devil! Let me check, as there may just be an additional "furry feline" left in the bottom of the sack which should also be yanked out! Back to March 1964 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances? Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us. Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself? Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however. Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are. --------------------------------------------------------------------- MEOW! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A distance of 175 feet is the distance of the first shot to impact point of JFK as determined during the Time/Life Survey work utilizing the original/first generation copy of the Z-film. The distance has been "corrected" from the erroneous information which Charles Breneman measured, as well as having taken into consideration the height of JFK above the pavement. This impact position is virtually at Z207 and correlates with as shot fired in the Z204/Z206 time frame, which also correlates with the "jiggle/blur analysis", as well as correlation with the examination of the Zapruder film in regards to JFK's reaction. ---------------------------------------------- April 22, 1964 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg Subject: Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of the first and second bullets ( The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position). ---------------------------------------------------- 3. The distance of 265 feet is the "corrected" slant distance of the Z313 headshot, with the "elevation" of JFK's head above the pavement added into the equation. This true slant distance was not officially determined until the WC work in May 1964. However, with the relatively accurate SS & FBI survey information, all that one has to do would be to add in the height of target (JFK's head above pavement), and easily calculate this figure. 2. The "240" foot distance is in fact 242 feet as shown on the survey plat which was given to Ronald Simmons, which is of course the FBI Survey plat of 2/7/64. This is the FBI "FIB" in which the SS work of 12/5/63 in which the impact of the Z313 position was made to disappear, and the FBI/JEH & Company, thereafter moved (on paper) a shot and attempted to sell that JBC was hit at the 240-foot mark and that the Z313 impact was made to disappear, yet the survey plat still demonstrated the Altgens impact location. This, not unlike a brick, neither flew nor swam! Primarly due to the fact that it did not, and could not account for all of JBC's antics shortly after having come out from behind the road sign, as well as the extremely short distance/elapsed time on Elm St. for a shot to have struck JBC at a 240 foot slope distance and then the last shot to struck JFK only 25-feet farther down the street. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of which demonstrates that the WC had that information/knowledge which clearly demonstrated that they knew exactly when the first shot was fired, as determined by Time/Life on November 26, 1963. All of which demonstrates that the WC had that information relative to exactly when the SS as well as FBI demonstrated the impact of the third/last/final shot down in front of James Altgens position, as this position is clearly platted on the SS as well as the FBI Survey Plats, and did not change. All of which demonstrates the beginnings of the WC lie in that they knew that the Z313 impact location was correct for one of the shots, that the survey plats showed the impact of the third/Altgens Shot, that the Time/Life as well as SS & FBI works showed the location of the first shot, and yet the FBI/aka the WC is now attempting to sell the impact location of some mythical shot in which the slope distance was 240-feet. Quite obviously, no one has ever correlated the importance of that information which Melvin Eisenberg has "let out of the bag" in regards to exactly what the WC fully knew and how they proceeded to cover it up. Just perhaps, the "cats in the bag" have now turned into a TIGER* for the WC. *HUSTLER MAGAZINE definition of TIGER: A 400 pound P***y that will eat you! noted (Eisenberg material), tnx....

Yes David ... seems like others have had a similar problem whereas the post just runs and doesn't go through, so we give up and try again and again only to find they all finally got posted. You were probably not paying attention at the time and is why you didn't correlate that to my duplicate post ... no surprise to me. Bill Miller well, remove them.... what is no surprise to anyone is: your desire to be the number one poster on this board -- no surprise to me.

That's almost what I have said, except I pointed out almost a foot more of the wall is seen in TMWKK and that any scaling done by overlaying that wall as its seen in Turner's documentary with how it appears in Moorman's photo would cause any scaling results to then be inaccurate ... would you not agree. The plot gets lost when you claim I used a 'Faked Moorman' because implying such means that I have represented an image to be "Moorman's print" rather than saying it is a composite of another image laid onto Moorman's print. I can go back and paste all instances you repeated that misrepresentation if you like. Not an accurate representation of what I said ... already answered. Your print is not as reliable in my opinion for interpretation purposes Vs. a far superior clearer print. There is a difference in what you just said d what I have continually posted and I believe you are aware of it. Do we need to post where you said that I attributed my "Fake Moorman" (as you called it) to you? It won't be hard to find your many references to it. Yes Duncan ... I doubt that another person would have ever guessed that the faded people (seen in color) were not part of the original Moorman print. Oh why didn't I have enough sense to make my recreation photo a black and white image before doing the overlay. Only a keen eye like yours gave me away. I hope you feel as ridiculous as that sounds. Bill Miller speaking of being ridiculous -- do you need to post the same post three times? Playing the numbers game, AGAIN?

sure.... "... ALL DONE PRIOR TO THE WC HAVING DONE THE EXACT SAME THING! The provided drawing is the result of that work, and if one took basic trig, than they will find that the hypotenuse/slope distance for shot#1, as computed to the impact point as determined by the Time/Life Survey work of 11/25/63, was 174.80926 feet. Now, if only I could recall where I have seen a distance which was similar!" [...] has your memory recalled where, Tom? (I'm sure Bill Miller is sitting at the edge of seat, too.) Would this be close enough? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TUESDAY; MARCH 31, 1964 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm Mr. EISENBERG - I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired. Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances? Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us. Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself? Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however. Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm Personally! I always disliked a "cheater" who already had answers to the test before the test even came out. The provided drawing is the result of that work, and if one took basic trig, than they will find that the hypotenuse/slope distance for shot#1, as computed to the impact point as determined by the Time/Life Survey work of 11/25/63, was 174.80926 feet. great material, Tom....

sure.... "... ALL DONE PRIOR TO THE WC HAVING DONE THE EXACT SAME THING! The provided drawing is the result of that work, and if one took basic trig, than they will find that the hypotenuse/slope distance for shot#1, as computed to the impact point as determined by the Time/Life Survey work of 11/25/63, was 174.80926 feet. Now, if only I could recall where I have seen a distance which was similar!" [...] has your memory recalled where, Tom? (I'm sure Bill Miller is sitting at the edge of seat, too.)

Bill, Let's cut to the chase here.... You've over 12,000 posts to JFK boards (just under the BMiller moniker) so, when do you find the time to do "research"? I think you owe the lurkers at least an explanation... You clearly have no education in the film/photo compositing craft, no credentials so why on earth should anyone give weight to your film-photo opinions here? Simply because your Gary Mack's mouthpiece here? You need a life, son..... at least take a few classes so you have some basis for your opinions... Thinking everyone is a moron when it comes to specific subject matter you've not a clue about, is foolishness...

[...] Is it little wonder why these claims never got off the ground! Bill Miller Son, you've been responding regularly to those claims since (at least) 2002. Gary Mack responding to DP altered photos and films controversy long before that.... So, the "claims" have been off the ground for a long, LONG time -- you're not beginning to suffer that dreaded old age disease, are ya.... I see the James Gordon quip slipped right by ya too, eh? In keeping with the thread: just think, what having 1st generation dupe of those 4x5 LIFE trannies (of the Zapruder film frames) and all that would cure. All that speculation about altered films and whatnot.... poof, gone. Little forensic testing of a few alleged in-camera original Z-frames... Put you right out of a job..... Your not scared of that are ya? Furthermore, not one Lone Nutter (including you) has been able to touch John Costella's presentation. You ever see the DVD of his presentation? Fascinating material. p.s. you know, I understand Gary Mack's position, in fact I've told him so... he has a job to do, acquiring films and photos for the museum, being a PR buffer for the 6th floor not to mention representing the good city of Dallas Texas in the media. You on the other hand are a mystery out of no-where.... any comment, son?

A couple of questions come to mind any way you wish to cut it ... Who have you contacted about getting either the slides or 'trannies' that you now seek and what was their response? And oh yeh ... now you wish to separate the slides from the trannies which you didn't in the statement below ... David Healy: "Grow up son..... the slides and the trannies are at the 6th floor museum.... Been there for years! You didn't know that?" The next question is what explanation could you give for wanting these materials when you are constantly telling people that only the originals would do? David Healy: "Till you deliver the original camera masters and those versed in same can analyze them, ......................." Bill Miller son, just deliver the message (tsk-tsk I realize its been delivered, can't seem to sign in here lately without noticing GaryM and/or you are perusing these threads, evidently persistence has paid off).... so son, if you can't follow the bouncing ball, what can I tell you? Oh, I know what I can tell you... James Gordon was spotted here, remember him? The old Scottish math teacher... perhaps he can assist you in understanding John Costella's portion of HOAX -- its abundantly clear you haven't a clue, then again you weren't part of the target audience...

One can always tell when they are not to far off the mark because you'll not be able to respond with any data to the contrary, so you opt instead to go with the say-nothing-childish gibberish. we KNOW a conspiracy did JFK in. Damn near the entire worlds knows it! The longer you hold onto to first generation film/photo images, withhold them from the general public this will continue... You Lone Nuts got your man (LHO), got your report (WCR) and who knows what else.... why not release, for research purposes, the first generation films and photos of Dealey Plaza? Why are you scared? p.s. is it true, we understand the 6th Museum is the biggest attraction in Texas? Even bigger than the Alamo... keeping with the thread topic: did Marilyn Sitzman own a film camera?

There was no faking ... saying such a think is just the actions of some dimwit who doesn't know the facts. We didn't set out to overlay Moorman's photo - we took a photo of three people who stood at various locations above the wall and we did it from Moorman's location. Then in response to some off-the-wall post ... I placed my photo over the top of the same Moorman photo that you use. If your Moorman photo is a fake, then so is mine for it was YOUR photo. The overlay is a mixture of two opacities to show how close I was able to align the various reference points. One can act stupid all they like and it will not change that fact. Maybe if you'd consult and expert ... then possibly they can explain it to you. Anyone can look at the overlay and see some of each photo combined together. One image has less than 50% Opacity and the other greater than 50% and then visa versa. The color going from B&W and back to Color shows this, thus there was no attempt to fool anyone but a fool who cannot take the time to know what was done. Now where does Tony Cummings standing height in relation to the wall??? Bill you're really dancing now, aren't ya..... no one is fooled, but you of course.... ROTFLMFAO!

I always wonder when I read one of your responses that maybe this time you will have said something intelligent ... but not this time I see. Today is Saturday and I doubt that Mack is working today. I am in Harrison Hot Springs, BC. So your response starts out like the writing of someone who is delusional and uninformed. The answer to your question pertaining to the Life Magazine slides has already been posted several times now. The Museum doesn't have the slides ... they belong to Life Magazine. What you keep implying is as silly as me asking you to produce the materials in Jack White's office ... that line of thinking is so nutty that it hardly deserves a response. It's already apparent that all this time that you have trolled this forum so to promote paranoia about how the assassination images are being kept from experienced experts ... you have made this claim without first ever trying to get access to those images yourself. A sane person would detail their qualifications and explain their concerns to Life Magazine to see if they would allow what ever test to be done that you see fit. I feel that my asking Gary Mack for permission to see something that belongs to Life Magazine would make me look like a complete idiot ... that is something you should do yourself IMO. Bill Miller First son, you have to read, READ the post..... 35mm slides I'm NOT looking for... the 4x5 trannies is, got it, son? When you speak of sane folk first YOUhave to understand the English language.... now hurry on back to Gary, it's the 4x5 t-r-a-n-n-i-e-s, got it Sherlock? Get his comment, eh? (is it any wonder why I withdrew my recommendation to Adobe for you to work as a general all round flunky Photoshop gofer. A simple minded xxxxx working at the 6th Floor Museum now thats gotta be embarassing for the museums executive board....

Paul, I have asked you a few times now if you even know how long the press conference lasted ... do you know??? Here is some more information that I requested from Gary Mack ... maybe you will find something of benefit from it. Bill Miller Hi Bill, Interesting pictures and yes, I can identify every one of them. The Museum's collection of films and video tapes include every Parkland press conference except for the Clark-Perry one which, I am convinced, was never recorded. It is a fact that once JFK's death was announced, most reporters left the hospital for Love Field, Dealey Plaza and the Dallas Police station. According to the photographs, few reporters stayed at Parkland for the Clark-Perry appearance. The large photo, a Dallas Times Herald picture in the Museum's collection of that newspaper's 700+ original JFK assassination negatives, shows Mac Kilduff announcing JFK's death. The photographer holding the microphone is WBAP's Bob Welch; I don't know the name of the older gentleman to the right holding a larger microphone. Two other smaller photos also show Kilduff at about the same time; Kilduff made just one appearance at Parkland that day. While numerous reporters were present, only one sound recording has ever surfaced and that's the one filmed by Bob Welch. (The Kilduff announcement appearing in TMWKK is a composite of Welch's film and that of White House photograph Tom Atkins' silent color footage.) The picture of three men standing in front of a blackboard (which is actually green) shows Clark, Hawkes and Perry, left to right, at 2:18, according to Perry's watch. It is one of the 20+ pictures in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Collection at the University of Texas at Arlington Library - the same institution where Jack White's Fort Worth photo collection is housed. The picture also appears in Lifton's Best Evidence. NBC News, for example, quoting from wire copy at 2:32, reported highlights of Perry and Clark's comments. The TV news film still frame from behind a line of photographers shows the scene of Nellie Connally's remarks minutes before Oswald was shot. The other two stills show Oswald's chief surgeon, Dr. Tom Shires. The Connally and Shires Sunday appearances are, of course, irrelevant to understanding who said what and when on Friday. Gary While you sitting there in Gary's office, why not have him respond to the availability of the LIFE 4x5 trannies of the Z-film

Oh really ... this is a very interesting revelation that the photographic prodigy has made. Your Moorman image shows nothing but Dallas sky ... you call it a 'wash-out'. I take a photo 40 years later which shows what looks to be a tree trunk near that location and you somehow think that I brought that out of your alleged washed-out photo. That too is an impossibility. If the print you are using shows nothing there ... my overlaying my image over the top of it will not bring out something that you photo didn't have to start with. I am going to ask this for about the 5th time now ... have you cross referenced the assassination films and photos to see if a tree or any other object was present on 11/22/63 that could account for what appears to be a tree trunk in my photo. I assume that you are doing your best not to do this because if nothing is in the other films and photos ... you cannot claim wash-out on all the images - and it means that what ever you see in my photo has since been placed there whether it be a tree trunk - RR Yard bum - cigar store Indian - or what ever. Nice picture ... do you kknow that it was taken well after mine was. Have you checked on the history of the RR yard ... when it was paved and so on? You have admitted that the dark area in my photo is not your assassin at the fence some 40 years after the event .... you claim it is not a tree .... so if we accept that the photo you have used accurately depicts the RR yard within the last 20 to 25 years, then what ever is in my photo has nothing to do with Moorman's photograph. Now don't let it be said that I am not a fair man ... Would you like to try rehab and come back and discuss the matter at that time??? I will give you that opportunity if you so desire it. (grin) Bill Miller they're looking for you on that Towner thread, something about microphones and such -- appears GaryM got you in a mess there..... Get'em out of this one and I'm sure he'll make you a unpaid museum summer replacement docent. If you can find your way to Dallas....

Great post, B. But I rather suspect it's the curator of the Sixth Form Museum who needs the pictorial refresher rather more than me! Best, Paul microphones, tripods, cameras everywhere, bet there's even audio cables between them.....

OK! Give up on what the H*** it's all about? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Mr. SPECTER. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by Mr. Zapruder came into your possession? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service. The original and other copy he sold to Life The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film David

Information I requested from Gary Mack: In reply to your questions, the camera original Towner film has one splice about 2/3 of the way through the limo turn onto Elm Street. Since the film was never examined by government investigators, the splice was first noticed by Robert Groden, who served as a consultant to the HSCA photo panel in 1978. From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers. LIFE magazine borrowed the film in 1967? Amazing, and of course the film has a splice midway through the Elm Street turn.... fascinating! Where have we heard this story before.... And to think all those Lone Nutters-SBTers-LHO dunit that said the Towner film covers the entire Elm Street turn with no break.....

Chris, while I applaud your technical ability ... I must question your investigative ability. For instance, it has been reported that over a period of time ... the internal mechanisms of these cameras were changed so to run at 18 fps. Would it not be important to know if the camera you have came before or after these changes had taken place ... its surely something that I would wish to know. So if you please ... can you post the serial number of your camera so it can be compared to Towner's. The reason for this is important because if the camera you have was made BEFORE the changes had taken place, then the running speed of your camera is a moot point. Thanks, Bill you certainly have a tough time posting cites and/or proof, don't ya.? "it has been reported that over a period of time..." GREAT investigative skills -- LMFAO!

Do we need to go back into your past responses and put up where you have complained over and over that seeing copies tells us nothing ... that you need the originals??? So its not you that gets under my skin ... its the double-talk that you do so much of that gets ridiculous. And if you are going to oversee anything ... at least find out where the Life stills are or else you'll be going to the wrong location and then be posting how everyone conspired to keep you from being there when the work was done. LOL!!! Bill Miller Have Gary Mack make the request son, if you don't know ask him.... I've no further time for wannabes and/or self-proclaimed film.photo researchers....

Correct me if I am wrong, but experts can play a film at either of those two speeds and tell which one is the correct speed .... do you not agree and if not, then please explain why??? Bill Subjective once again. The CAMERA has to be capable of performing the feat. Show documentation it shoots at 24 FPS? Where does the 8 FPS increase materialize from, in a camera that films at 16 FPS. Or, if one is to believe 18 FPS, a 6 FPS increase from it's overextended speed capability. chris Is 16fps the only speed Towners camera ran at? If not, here's a scenario... Towner shot the film (accidently) at 12fps...Towner 8mm film bumped to 16mm at 16fps, a 8mm 16fps dupe was created from the above 16mm, the action was still to slow hence frame elimination (to speed up the film) rework by a film lab.... in other words ANOTHER altered film (before the 6th floor got it) What's strange about this entire exchange is no one will affirm and/or certify, not to mention prove that the film GMack oversaw and worked with are in fact (this case the in-camera Towner) certified original.... Ya need to get the questions to Mack so he and he only will respond. "BM" Miller is pure distraction hasn't a clue about films, speeds, gamma, emulsions... Hell, even Craig (the best the none alterationists Lone Nuts have) gave up on Miller -- to dense, evidently....