David G. Healy

The last part of your question was answered in your post when you stated that the head of Oswald wasn't looking right in the clip overlays I presented. I recall that the clip I did showed how one Backyard picture was obviously taken somewhat closer to the subject than the other for the body had grown in size considerably, while the heads between the two photos remained the same size. I also believe that Jack White and Gary Mack's badgeman work is legit. I believe that Badge Man shot over Gordon Arnold's shoulder just after the head shot and that his bullet made the furrow in the grass that Mrs. Edna Hartman said led back to the big tree above the knoll. I believe that the smoke that the witnesses saw come through the trees was the result of the kill shot to JFK's head. I believe that the smoke can be detected in the Wiegman and Zapruder films. I believe that Dillard caught the head of another man in the SW corner of the 6th floor soon after the shooting, which makes me have reservations about Oswald ever shooting anyone. I believe that no less than four shots were fired at the President. I believe the first came between Z186 and Z202, which corresponds with JFK waving at the women next to Mary Woodard as she said he was then hit. I believe that Connally was hit between Z223 and Z224. I also believe as Kellerman described ... that there was a sonic boom sound at the time of the President's head shot. I believe that the man Hoffman saw (Hat Man) fired the fatal shot, while Badge Man missed causing the furrow in the grass. I also feel that there is evidence that a bullet hit the chrome strip between the limo's sun visors and that at least one bullet hit the street causing witnesses to see it. I believe that at some point that a missed shot struck the curb near James Tauge. And lastly, I believe that anyone saying that because I do not believe in Zfilm alteration that it somehow makes me a lone assassin supporter is an idiot!!! Bill as they say: yee who squeals the loudest has something to hide..... now, your film/photo qualifications are?

I have been reading Bill Miller's posts for the past couple of years or so, here and on the Lancer forum. I have never seen ANYTHING to suggest that he supports the Warren Commission argument. It is clear to me that Bill is arguing that the film/photo evidence shows that JFK was killed by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll, and no such argument appears in the Warren Report, as most everyone in the world knows by now. It is illogical to suggest, as David Healy appears to be doing, that someone supports the WC conclusions just because they see no reason to doubt that the Zapruder film is authentic. Is Josiah Thompson a Lone Nutter? What about Sylvia Meagher or Harold Weisberg? None of them ever seriously doubted that the Z-film is authentic. all the posturing isn't getting Miller's film/photo qualifications posted. I could care less whether he, Miller or Thompson, Meagher, Weisberg believe that JFK was murder via a conspiracy. Frankly I find it a supreme insult that Miller's name is grouped with those esteem investigators -- What's your excuse for that, Carroll?

I think Mike Hogan already addressed your inquiry. most people donlt pay any attention to you. I hope the lurkers have been reading your conflicting statements that I have archived and will keep posting from time to time. Are you thinking of the Nix film? I believe I posted that I cite the experts. Would you like to see Fieldings bio or Zavada's and compare it to yours? By the way, didn't you say that Fielding was on your side or something stupid like that? Should I post his letter to Len once again? Bill Miller what the hell does Mike Hogan know about photos/film? Does he have similar qualification concerning the film/phot media alteration arena as you? NONE! Either one of you can change my mind by posting your film/photo resume-expertise.... feel free. That the same Fielding who wrote the first book in the english language concerning the Art of Special Effects Cinematography, he the one I brought to the attention of the entire Zapruder film cottage industry? Hell, Bill I know his resume.... problem is, no one knows YOURS -- help us out here Sorry to interrupt your thread here John Dolva...

nice job, Frank... brain matter and blood spray/mist disappears rapidly.

Jack, you cannot produce one post where I have ever claimed to be an expert on the Zapruder film, instead I cite the experts. Once again you have misrepresented the facts and have made something up that never existed. And I do not know about everyone else, but I personally would be pissed if it was allowed that just anyone could just walk into the NARA and start handling the Zapruder film because then if they damaged the film even more ... someone like yourself would be claiming it was done purposely. They have allowed people of expertise to study the film and it is now in preservation. It would take more than some old babbling idiot who talks about Elm Street midgets and sex changes on the Zapruder film to get access to the camera original. This is why you people cannot get such a person of expertise to go look at it because anyone with such expertise won't buy the crap you are always claiming and it would take a valid reason for that film to be needed to be taken out of storage and examined again. Such a person would have to submit a request clarifying why new testing needed to be done. Do you know anyone with such expertise? Have you sought out anyone with such expertise that finds any of your claims valid so they can present a request to have the camera original Zapruder film re-examined? Of course you haven't sought anyone. It has been no secret that peer review is something you guys shy away from and we both know the reason for it. End of story! Bill Miller If there was EVER a post that shouted you getting dumped from this forum -- it's the above! A disgrace!

'Bill Miller' wrote: David ... there can never be an even playing field for a xxxxx. dgh: I am absolutely crushed, CRUSHED at that news! LMAO! I suspect if you poll the JFK related lurkers on this board, they know all, ALL about you and your games.... but don't let that stop your efforts As far as Muchmore's film ... I would contact the Muchmore family if you really want to see it for as I recall .... I read or heard that when the UPI division that had it closed down, it was said to have been given it back to the Muchmore family. dgh: didn't a family member comment, the film returned was NOT the film turned over to the commission? Or was that ANOTHER one of the Nov 22nd 1963DP film of record -- can't keep all these descrepencies in a row.... can you help us out here I hope that helps - now don't ask me to go and actually retrieve it for you. dgh: help? you can start helping by telling me and the rest of this forum your professional experience in the film/photo industry, can you retrieve THAT? we'll start there.... From what I've read today there's others not quite impressed with your "opinion".... This morning I did see James Gordon here though, perhaps he can provide comfort.... hope this helps ............ Bill Miller

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] Let me remind you of one vital point, David, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but one wouldn't be going after the NARA to produce the film for they are only storing it. It would be the Zapruder family who would be held accountable to the legal process and it would be them who says what is done with the camera original film. Am I not correct? ************* Remind me? I don't need a teacher Bill..... No one at NARA would know a in-camera original film from a 1st generation dupe. The Zapruder family no longer owns the alleged in-camera Z-film. The United States owns it Bill Miller

How evidence gets into court depends on its evidentuary value to the case. As you must know ... the Zapruder film is kept in air-tight cold storage for preservation purposes. Even to get it out of storage would take a couple of days for it to be allowed to be warmed back up to room temperature in order to examine it. I am sure that if someone with the proper credentials was to present a valid reason why the previous report concerning the Zapruder film was in error that could rewrite history, then a team of good lawyers could force the film to be brought out of storage. One thing I learned from working with some lawyers I knew was that one never knows how a court will rule. Bill having spent considerable time at a specific SoCal US military controlled film vault facility [having to do with Vietnam War era film footage 8mm-16mm-35mm-70mm], I'm quite familiar with film vault environmental control standards. NARA follows the same environment standards for film stored in their facility. The JFK Assassination Zapruder film MPI DVD covers the NARA Z-film storage issue quite clearly, I'm sure you're well aware. One lesson all can take when it comes to civil litigation; he/they who control opinion and evidence, control the outcome! Evidence be damned!

The Discovery Channel DVD is a cluster foxtrot, no doubt. From what I can deduce from looking at the constituent fields of this DVD, the copy they were provided was in one the *interlaced* formats that PAL supports, and was de-interlaced (not IVTCed), THEN converted to NTSC Interlaced... Yes... MPEG2, our old lossy friend. This is really the least of the issues with this DVD. Result? Cluster Foxtrot. Oh -- and it looks like some cropping and/or zooming (god knows if it is digital or optical) also took place. I SAY AGAIN!!! UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS WE CAN RECOVER or HAVE PROGRESSIVE FRAMES FROM THIS DVD, DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS! *Some* of the frames ARE purely progressive. Others are not. I'm working on it. There are 4 showings of various muchmore clips on this DVD. I'm about 3/4 through ONE of them (step by step analysis of 127 frames (254 fields) thus far...). Frank, You and John Dolva are doing a hell-of-a-job -- a thankless task, I know, I was involved with a similar JFK project.... When all is said and done, and you can, through your best anaylitical analyses state this or OTHER DP related films is/was altered -OR- NOT altered, the final question will be posed: How does your claim stand up againt the "in-camera" film originals? Don't expect in-camera original Zapruder film availability re analyses/comparison. I was ALSO told 4 years ago (by person whom shall remain unnamed) the Zapruder film will never, EVER see the inside of a courtroom. I suspect, what I was told THEN re the *alleged* in-camera Zapruder film, is TRUE .tiff/.tga format of PAL Progressive frames, MPEG2 compressed are better than NTSC interlaced frames, obviously. The best? **verifiable** 4x5 trannies (of individual ) in-camera original film frames. Hang in there....

One would think, David, that if everyone here who uses the available asassination images is wasting their time, then what is your motive for wasting your time trolling forums like this where its members are wasting their time? Bill Miller dgh: ahh..... perhaps you think some here undertake this analysis challenge on the sly? The truth is a bitter, BITTER pill to swallow isn't, Bill? All that .gif animation work that neither confirms nor denies DP film/photo alteration. Without the real deal for source material, yes Bill, a complete waste of time. An interesting exercise no-less. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's the simple reality Now, if you'd like to explain to me and the others here that are QUITE familiar with the inherent problems re utilizing MPEG-2 based imagery for analysis I'm certainly open to hear your definition of those technical problems, do you have an answer for us? Thousands of film/photo posts on quite a few forums/boards and no one, NO ONE knows your Bill Miller's photo/film background, now THAT sounds like a successful xxxxx ....what are we mere mortals (who know the business) to believe? Your EXPERIENCE [based on fact] or your BELIEF-OPINION[based on assumption] when it comes to these perplexing film/photo analysis? And your answer IS.....? Ever trully your's David

Here is some information that Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me when I discussed this particular Muchmore print ........... http://www.aparchive.com/aparchive/pages/p...news/ln_jfk.htm The work was done on an "Archangel" machine (not a Spirit as I told you) in England, then converted to US broadcast standards. The conversion introduced visual artifacts and it was also transferred at the wrong speed. The "restored" version runs much faster than normal. Slowing down the tape introduces even more confusing visual artifacts. Gary Mack dgh: Again, unless you have the original film -or- individual 35mm film transparencies of same (from which you can reassemble the film at the verified CORRECT speed, you're rolling, headlong down a slippery slope of visual confusion -- which I'm sure the DP film purists love to see..... Now we're talking about a PAL 25*progressive*fps video production standards conversion to NTSC 29.97*interlaced*fps (for broadcast in the USofA [in what digital format, again?]), all of which can NOT be confirmed.... on top of this we're told: "the restored version runs much faster than normal" -- what the hell does that mean? Perhap's, in the conversion process frames were added? Isn't that how you spell *a-l-t-e-r-e-d* film? I'm sure Gary was "kind" enough to share this information.... eh, Gary? oh and, "...transferred at the wrong speed..."? A finishing post house transferring a piece in 2/4bit high-rez at the WRONG speed, that I doubt is true. What house did the transfer, I should be able confirm that? Any precise measurement on these images is a "waste of time" -- unless of course folks are developing a process to be used on original frames when and IF they become available to researchers. Don't, DON'T hold your breath

I'm constantly amazed at what you see in images that no one else here does. Shadow from the lapel, oh-wee... and JFK was trying to cough? Where'd you find these images? btw, your buddy Davie Von Pain, er Pein was quoting you on the alt.conspiracy.jfk board this morning. You can tell when I really tick em off, he starts quoting Bill Miller...

Jack I'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search. Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point. How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory! To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more. Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results. This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture. Once more, how to take the image. Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows. Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible. Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax! DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results! Hate to butt in, why don't you show your expertise and do the test YOURSELF, overwhelm the lurkers.... LMAO. I understand Jack can't post images so, DO THE TEST CRAIG! and post the results! Why daive, I HAVE DONE THE TEST and posted the results on this very forum. Try to pay attention. Jack can post images, IF he wanted to do so. He has been given the instructions on how to post from a a secndary source and of course he could upgrade his computer to OSX...why don't you send him an old copy of Tiger and help him out.... well a url to your pretty images might help... and sending out a copy of Tiger is illegal, Craigster. why would I do such a thing?

David, you have taken a position that there is no proof the Zapruder film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the left side of your body or the right? Bill Miller dgh: listen up little guy, No one here or on any other board needs you to reinforce the long held Lone Nut mantra: the Zapruder film was NOT altered, you've spent your entire new found career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO shot and killed JFK, alone! We AREN'T fooled! Nor is it necessary to delve into a long diatribe describing your unaltered faith to the CT cause, no one believes you, Bill. hence, you're a lone nut dufus. Your JFK related comments and illusionary moments of grandeur are meaningless to me and many other's. Now why don't you do something constructive and tell us what Groden had to say about the Z-frame (170) I posted afew day's back? Can't you Z-film experts do ANYTHING? Best guess the generation, you ole film EXPERT, you!

Jack I'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search. Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point. How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory! To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more. Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results. This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture. Once more, how to take the image. Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows. Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible. Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax! DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results! Hate to butt in, why don't you show your expertise and do the test YOURSELF, overwhelm the lurkers.... LMAO. I understand Jack can't post images so, DO THE TEST CRAIG! and post the results!

'Len Colby' dronned on..... [...] Bill thanks for pointing that out but you missed the greater irony. Healy has never clarified what his experince regarding movie film and cameras and more importantly post production techniques is. Yes we all know he knows his stuff regarding VIDEO cameras, tape and post production but they're hardly the same thing. dgh: "greater irony?" tell me the 1963 post-production differences between the two, Len'ster, right below here, between the brackets { } let's see your stuff, LMAO! I never claim such expertise which is why I normally avoid technical issues other than to quote people (unlike Jack and David) have proven expertise. dgh: "...claim such experience..." uh-huh LMAO -- I should clarify my experience to who? YOU, MILLER, LAMSON The world? ROTFLMFAO! You normally avoid technical issues, cut the crap Len'ster. I don't talk craft with anyone Len, unless of course they've **proven credentials**, that makes you a non-entity Len, by your OWN definition herein.... The best defense re the tech aspects of the Z-film you Lone Nut dufuses can mount is Lamson, a still photographer (and not a bad one either, certainly no Lebovitz, but not bad), however, not one tv/film production credit to his name that I know of.... BUY and READ HOAX, my experience is there, till then import/export something, you have my continued permission to hold Miller's hand if you wish!

Oh, of course not, David ... not Baghdad Bob Healy ... never! I learned it through the 6th Floor Museum. Do you have any information to the contrary?Bill Miller and the 6th floor museum, do they have this 1st generation Muchmore print? Where's the original, btw?

Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... *********** dgh: wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ... can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome? No, its WRONG to claim that FILM has nothing to do with sharpness...Learn to read davie. As for the Kodachrome relief pattern...DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE!, then I'll continue your lesson davie. LMAO, Craigster what's a old trailer photog gonna show me? How to devolpe pan-X? LMAO! School's been out for a long, LONG time, Craigster! You ought to know better.... can't provide any examples Craig, what is one suppose to think of your research capabilities?

Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller Stick to subjects you know. There is no such thing as special "movie film"; Kodachrome is Kodachrome whether in 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 4x5, or whatever...regardless of the camera format. I have shot THOUSANDS of Ektachrome and Kodachrome exposures...JUST NEVER IN A MOVIE CAMERA. The film is identical. The camera format makes no difference. You continue to show your ignorance about film. SHARPNESS is a function of the lens and focus...NOT THE FILM. Kodachrome is said to be virtually grainless. Ektachrome has a slight grain at huge HUGE enlargements. You should leave discussion of photography to those who know what they are talking about. Have Zavada come here and discuss film. You cannot even understand what he says. Jack Again EVEN MORE BULLCRAP Jack. One of the main reasons for the sharpness of Kodachrome is the extremely thin emulsion comparied to a film like Ektachrome. Kodachrome also has a distinctive 'relief pattern" on the emulsion side. Ektachrome nor any of the e3 or e6 procesws films have this relief pattern. Also a thin based film like a 120 or 220 roll film is SHARPER than the same emulsion of film coated on the thicker based film like 35mm or 4x5. In addition, the overall shaprness of a photograph (in other words depth of field) DECREASES as the size of the film gets larger. For example an 8mm frame exposed with an f-stop of 8 will have more DOF that a 35mm frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 120 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 4x5 frame at f8, which in turn will have more DOF than a 8x10 frame at f8....all considering the a lens on each camera with the same FOV. You are SIMPLY WRONG to claim that sharpness is a function of lens and focus and not the film. As usual you don't have a clue.... *********** dgh: "...wrong to claim sharpness is NOT a function of a lens, nor focus..." -- I suspect that's true for a pin-hole camera ... can you provide an image of this emulsion side "relief pattern", and show the differences of same between 8mm and 35mm Kodachrome?

Jack, I did not say one could merely paint on 8MM film and have it go undetected ... I agree with you on that point. That means that the copying process back onto film has to be done. You say you don't know anything about movie film in one breath and you are trying to talk with film expertise in the next breath ... which is it?Go read the following ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45 Post #57 David Healy said, “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...” What david has said is that if you look at a film and the best frames are slightly fuzzy, then it is a copy and the further away from the original it is - the fuzzier those best frames will be. Now go to the archives and ask to see the original film so you can come back and describe their sharpness or fuzziness - what ever you find the case to be. Groden has done this - Zavada has done this ... I suspect that Jack White has not done this. The point David made is valid and it is what Groden has been saying all along. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is the guy who claims to have no experience with Movie cameras and film. Bill Miller dgh: of course they'll be fuzzy at the 35mm level, the in-camera 8mm film is inherently SOFT, get the dupe back to 8mm you won't see any more or less "fuzziness-softness" than the original. The 35mm to 8mm version will be much sharper than what we see on the MPI DVD... (8mm - 35mm neg - 35mm pos - 8mm on a good system with a good tech/printer, you can't measure the changes, nor can Groden or Zavada and Zavada knows it) What has Groden done? Post a few frames so we can determine what he's done!

Hey David ... you forgot to mention this to Jack when he said and I quote: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30 Post #41 “I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” D-U-H! Jack has ALWAYS maintained THAT (he knows nothing about motion picture film or cameras) still photography is his bag...., he's posted that many, many, MANY times that I'm aware of.... Wake-up, Champ! LMAO! Hi Gary!

Bill Miller' wrote: [...] The Discovery DVD doesn't hide anything. It contains a first-generation print that was made long before the Muchmore film was damaged. The only thing being seen is a pitiful attempt by UPI to cellophane tape the original broken film back together.[/b] Not to be combative of course.... how are you going to prove that the Muchmore film on the Discovery DVD came from a 1st generation print? Who told you it was a 1st generation print, Groden?

I can't respond narrowly to the exact question, and the information I have that may or may not have relevance is from the mid-late 1970s, but I worked with a retoucher in L.A. who for some projects would have very large transparencies made from any original (I believe Ektachrome—8x10 and bigger) and retouch directly on those with transparent dyes. John Dolva's blur creation process in this thread reminded me of it. It seems that such large transparencies could be made from film frames, even introducing blur in an enlarger, retouched, and possibly overlaid to create a variety of effects if re-shot one frame at a time as film on a pin-registered light table. At one shop where I worked we did very elaborate photo composites for movie posters by getting color prints made of the various elements (backgrounds, heads, bodies, buildings, whatever), carefully cutting them out and assembling them any way we saw fit, having a photo lab make a large continuous print—or, more rarely, transparency, depending—from that assemblage, then sending it out to a retoucher to eliminate the seams. This was business as usual. All of these techniques might have some application to methods of fudging, but each would introduce generational loss and color shifts, so I think every frame, fudged or unfudged, would have to be subjected to the same process to create the "new, improved" version of a film for continuity. Ashton film matte painting, glass painting and pin-registered rotoscoping are covered extensively in The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Raymond Fielding, 1964-65. The techniques date back to the early 1930's

thanks for the post, Don.... also thanks for you extra large DP overlay (great reference)..... while you're here; do you have any comment on the possibility of alleged two Oswalds were in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963?