David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
you've spent your entire new found career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO shot and killed JFK, alone!
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?
-
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
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.
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 hereAre you thinking of the Nix film?
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"....
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...
-
Stabilized version -
nice job, Frank...
brain matter and blood spray/mist disappears rapidly.
-
Gimme a break! We the people paid them 16 million bucks hush money to keep the "Zfilm"
perpetually HIDDEN from the public.
And yet "Miller" claims to be an expert on the Z film. Huh!!!
Jack
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
-
Don't expect in-camera original Zapruder film availability re analyses/comparison. I was ALSO told 4 years ago (by personwhom 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
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!
-
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?
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....
-
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
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
-
Chris, he does start his little jump that's seen in the other movies about at M end. Also I can see his head is straighter up in the second image. That's very good. Is that the discovery channel copy? It looks like a telecined (or whatever it's called) frame is included.
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
-
It appears to me that at the moment that Connally took a bullet through his shoulder, that his coat lapel flipped up, thus casting a shadow over the Governor's right white shirt cuff. As the lapel comes immediately back down - Connally's cuff and right hand are above and to the right of the exit wound in his chest, thus the SBT must be in error IMO. It also appears to me that JFK wasn't bringing his hands to his throat, but rather his hands to his mouth as if he was trying to cough so to expell something from his throat.
Bill Miller
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...
-
My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to
place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing
erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the
LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE
UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped
from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the
shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT
STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet.
His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple
principle to understand.
Jack
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?
-
The best defense re the tech aspects of the Z-film you Lone Nut dufuses can mount is Lamson,
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!
-
My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to
place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing
erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the
LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE
UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped
from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the
shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT
STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet.
His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple
principle to understand.
Jack
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!Not to be combative of course....
I learned it through the 6th Floor Museum. Do you have any information to the contrary?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?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?"Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would
say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip.
Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy
merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot
thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller"
or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO
THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a
transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE
SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure
deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies
as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER
LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies,
and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done
with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is
quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others.
Jack
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?"Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would
say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip.
Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy
merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot
thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller"
or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO
THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a
transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE
SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure
deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies
as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER
LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies,
and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done
with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is
quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others.
Jack
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?"Miller" has a total lack of comprehension of what he reads. Only an imbecile would
say that an 8mm film could be altered by painting directly on the tiny filmstrip.
Only someone uninformed would say that a film can be determined to be a copy
merely by looking at it WITHOUT COMPARING IT TO AN ORIGINAL. I have shot
thousands of slide copies using both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. I defy "Miller"
or any of his experts to identify them as copies WITHOUT COMPARING THEM TO
THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. There is nothing on the film emulsion that identifies a
transparency as "an original" or "a copy". More often than not, MY COPIES WERE
SUPERIOR IN QUALITY to the originals, because I could correct exposure
deficiencies and poor cropping. There is no automatic DEGRADING of copies
as "Miller" assumes. When you go to a theater to see a movie YOU ARE NEVER
LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL...you are always looking at multi-generational copies,
and you cannot tell the difference. No editing is done with originals; it is all done
with "rushes", "work prints," "release prints", " composite prints" etc. "Miller" is
quick to ascribe his own ignorance to others.
Jack
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!
-
dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter.
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?
-
[...]
If, f'r'instance, CIA had films manipulated, I somehow doubt they would have gone to the local college film school to pluck out a candidate.
Ashton
Agreed! The US government and LBJ's whitehouse had more than enough contacts with the film industry, starting with Jack Valenti
-
What has been accomplished here is that the original frame 2 is gone completely, replaced with a blurred version of frame 1 (it could even be slightly panned depending on available frame space). The original frame 4 is moved one frame later, with a blurred version of itself replacing it. I've removed the data from frame 2, yet managed to add time to the film. The question is -- how possible is it using optical technology to intentionally create motion blur?
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
-
No Revolver in Oswald's Room--Oswald Spoke to Foreigner
Good Day.... The grandaughter of GLADYS JOHNSON--the woman who co-owned with her husband OSWALD's tenant house at 1126 Beckley--claims in the following article that before the assassination, one of her grandmothers house rules was that no tenant could have alcohol in the house, at anytime.
To police that house rule, her grandmother and the house live-in maid would thoroughly snoop all of the tenants rooms, looking for forbidden alcohol bottles while cleaning, etc.
JOHNSON stated that she was sure that OSWALD never had a revolver in his room....
The article also mentions a living co-tenant who witnessed OSWALD speaking with a foreigner, and told the FBI about the meeting....
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...1.10692823.html
<QUOTE>
Oswald stayed in her grandmother's rooming house
11:36 AM CST on Tuesday, January 2, 2007
By MICHAEL GRANBERRY / The Dallas Morning News
This story first appeared in March 2006
Patricia Puckett Hall, in the room Oswald rented from her grandmother. Ms. Hall says she intends to restore the room to its 1963 condition
For Patricia Puckett Hall, there's “a whole lot more than a ton of history” wrapped up in the red-roofed house on North Beckley in Oak Cliff.
For more than half a century, her grandmother Gladys Johnson ran a rooming home there.
Ms. Hall remembers no fewer than 16 tenants standing by the piano singing hymns as Grandma “played her heart out,” and, of course, sharing meals at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter.
She remembers Katie Gage, a live-in maid who was “so wonderful,” she seemed more like a second grandma than hired help.
She remembers the dapper gentleman who brought his daughter to the house on weekends, giving Ms. Hall a treasured playmate. It was, she says, the time of her life, one shared happily with two excitable younger brothers.
Tenants would come and go, some staying days or weeks, others 15 to 20 years. Some were so lonely, says Ms. Hall, that the occupants of the rooming house were the only family they knew. Mimi was endlessly caring for such souls, prompting her granddaughter to feel that “Mimi treated strangers more like family ... than she treated family”
Most of the renters were kind, sweet even, including one who came to the house in 1963. One of the nicest and easily the most innocuous, he, of all people, left a lasting imprint on history.
His name? Lee Harvey Oswald.
Piece of history
There aren't many people left to tell the story of the red-roofed house on North Beckley Avenue. Ms. Hall's grandmother is deceased; her brothers died as young men.
Her mother, Fay Puckett, 82, Gladys Johnson's daughter, is legally blind, nearly deaf and recently suffered a broken hip.
But for Ms. Hall, now 53, her perspective on the house where family history and national history became forever entwined is clearer these days than it ever has been.
She was 11 in 1963. She, her brothers and her mom lived six blocks from the rooming house, near the corner of Lancaster and Colorado. Ms. Puckett was divorced, so the children spent much of their time with Mimi, who served as their after-school day-care provider.
On Oct. 14, 1963, her grandmother rented a room to a young former Marine who'd returned to the U.S. in 1962 after defecting to the Soviet Union. His Russian wife was living in Irving with a friend, while he searched for work in Dallas.
The rent at Mimi's was $8 a week. He lived there almost six weeks, registered as O.H. Lee. Near the corner of Beckley and Zang, he would take a bus to his new job at the Texas School Book Depository and head home to the rooming house at night.
Hugh Slough, 64, who now lives in Duncanville, remembers his fellow tenant as “definitely a loner, a very small man, very nervous. He had very small movements. When he moved, I'd call him a fidgety-type person, very nervous and very high-strung. We didn't see much of him.”
Mr. Slough remembers Oswald as popping out of his small room to watch the evening news, then “popping back in.” He remembers a male caller whom Oswald spoke to in a foreign language, which Mr. Slough later described to the FBI.
Even though she was only a sixth-grader, Ms. Hall also remembers the tenant as a cordial man of few words, who would, however, occasionally play catch in the front yard with Ms. Hall's brothers.
One afternoon, her brothers got into a fight with each other. A big one. Oswald rushed outside to break it up.
“He went down and pulled them apart” says Ms. Hall. “He sat them on the front porch and sat down between them. And he said, 'I want to tell you something: You need to love each other and always take care of each other, and you don't fight each other.'“
And then he said something that Ms. Hall and her family will never forget. With the boys at rapt attention, he said, “And don't ever do anything ... that would harm another human being.”
Ms. Hall gets a chill just remembering those words. For two weeks later, Oswald would be charged with a pair of homicides: the murder of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in Oak Cliff, preceded 45 minutes earlier by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on Elm Street.
Fear and trauma
“My mother and grandmother were so upset over the whole thing” says Ms. Hall.
“They were terribly afraid of reprisals against the family, because of him having lived there. They were also very concerned that we, as children, would be traumatized in some way.”
For days afterward, the Dallas police and the FBI pored over every sliver of the small room where Oswald slept. Ms. Hall laughs at how her grandmother never forgave the authorities for taking the bedsheets; sheets that belonged to her.
“They never paid for them, and she never got them back” says Ms. Hall.
“Her problem was, she could have used those sheets. It wasn't the historical significance. She kept saying, 'Those were my sheets! They took my sheets! And sheets aren't cheap!’”
Reporters from all over the world descended on the house. And even though she was often pressured to do so, Gladys Johnson never spoke ill of her infamous tenant, because, her granddaughter says, there was no ill word to speak.
“My grandmother was a very pragmatic woman” says Ms. Hall. “She judged people according to the way they treated her, her house and the other tenants. And how they paid. As far as she was concerned, he was a very nice man. He kept his room clean; not spotless, but clean.”
“There was only one bathroom in the main part of the house. So, it was important that the bath be kept clean at all times.”
Oswald made sure that the sink and tub were rinsed out after he used them, Ms. Hall says. “So, neither my grandmother nor the maid ever had to go in there and scour it after he used it.”
“He was very polite and considerate of other people, and ... he paid his rent on time,” Ms. Hall says with a laugh, placing emphasis on the words her grandmother kept repeating.
Soon, however, the rooming house's connection to the crime became increasingly disturbing to Ms. Johnson and her daughter, Ms. Puckett.
A professional photographer, Ms. Puckett was working in the studio she owned, then located on Jefferson, when police arrested Oswald at the Texas Theater. Ms. Puckett peered outside to see what the commotion was and was “horrified” says Ms. Hall, to see her grandmother's tenant being led away in handcuffs.
“She's the one who called Mimi and told her about it,” says Ms. Hall.
As shocking as that moment was, Gladys Johnson's refusal to paint an unflattering portrait of a presumed presidential assassin did not go unnoticed by Oswald's family.
The late Marguerite Oswald, his mother, called Ms. Johnson after the assassination from her home in Fort Worth and asked to meet her. She wanted to thank her, says Ms. Hall, for speaking well of her son, when everyone else was doing the opposite.
By then, Oswald was dead; gunned down in the basement of the Dallas police station by strip-club operator Jack Ruby, two days after the assassination.
“The truth is, my grandmother felt very, very sorry for that woman,” says Ms. Hall.
The witness
“Oh, lordy,”; she says; the news media did not leave a good impression. Gladys Johnson's family resented the fact that Oswald's room was described as a “small, dark, dingy room“ says Ms. Hall. “Yeah, it was small, absolutely. But there's no way it could be a 'dark, dingy room.' There were four full-size windows in that room!”
They also grew tired of hearing Earlene Roberts, their live-in maid for a few months in 1963, described as Oswald's “landlady.” She played no such role. Ms. Roberts was sitting in the front room watching television, when, soon after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, an agitated Oswald entered the house and headed straight to his room.
Gary Mack, curator of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, says Ms. Roberts told reporters that when Oswald came in, she said, “You sure are in a hurry“; to which he gave no response. She said he entered in shirtsleeves and left zipping up a jacket.
Ms. Roberts testified before the Warren Commission, as did Gladys Johnson and her husband at the time, Arthur Carl Johnson, whom Mrs. Johnson married after divorcing Ms. Hall's biological grandfather.
Ms. Hall says she and her family have long believed that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to assassinate the president, but with no real evidence to back it up.
Investigators later concluded that Oswald went to his room to fetch his pistol, which he used minutes later to gun down Officer Tippit.
“He did not keep a gun there,” Ms. Hall says flatly. “He may have had it at the book depository and taken it with him, but he did not have a gun at our house.”
And how does she know this? A sly grin crosses her face.
“My grandmother and that maid were in the room every day. When they did the laundry, they put it away. And they never saw it. I know my grandmother well enough. She knew what everyone had. Not to say that she was a nosy-posy ... but she didn't allow drinking or any of that, and if she found a bottle anywhere, they were out of there. Can you imagine how she would have reacted to finding a gun?”
Mr. Slough, one of Mrs. Johnson's 16 tenants at the time, remembers the landlady as “a real nice person, very businesslike. She owned a very well-known diner downtown, one of those trolley diners not too far from the courthouse. Earlene kept the rooms nice and neat and clean. It was a very nice place to have been.”
The aftermath
Ms. Hall often marveled at how her grandmother, who died in 1986, responded to her brush with fame.
“Before very long, Mimi had destroyed any piece of paperwork that had Oswald's name on it,” says Ms. Hall. “She wanted to erase him from the history of the family. It got to the point where neither she nor my mother would talk about it, to any great extent, with anybody.”
But the reminders kept coming.
“Oh, lordy,” she says, “the looky-loos!” Ms. Puckett grew weary of them over the years, of having them appear seemingly by the truckload, asking to be photographed in “the Oswald room.” Ms. Puckett was sitting on the porch one day in the mid-1990s when a curly-haired man approached from the sidewalk.
“You look like Norman Mailer,” she said.
“I am,” he replied. Ms. Puckett and Mr. Mailer shared a chat, but she'd agreed to much more with director Oliver Stone, who in the early 1990s filmed the interior of the house for the movie JFK.
Her mother became increasingly miffed, says Ms. Hall, over Mr. Stone taking “weeks instead of days“ and “totally ignoring“ details and descriptions she deemed important.
“Mother's not a real big fan of Oliver Stone,” says Ms. Hall.
Estranged from her husband six years ago, Ms. Hall returned to the house four years ago. To those who walk inside, it's mildly startling to see the same couch and the same coffee table that were there in 1963. The house has a bit of a Miss Havisham feel to it, as though it were somehow frozen in time.
But it's Ms. Hall's home now, the place where she cares for her mom, just as her mom cared for hers. Ms. Puckett's reputation as an Oak Cliff artist known for her work in photographic restoration is widely known, but at the moment, she's in frail health.
Ms. Hall has two children, sons 35 and 25, and both have told her they share her desire to preserve the house as a family heirloom. She has no intention of selling; “No interest in even hearing a price."
She has, however, considered leasing the house for tours, but only if the party involved was "impeccably honest, responsible and tasteful."
Mr. Mack at The Sixth Floor Museum hopes the family preserves the house forever.
"The more you destroy or tear down, the greater the mystery," says Mr. Mack. "What I tell people all the time is that part of finding out what happened to President Kennedy is also what didn't happen to him. If places are changed or torn down or rooms remodeled, you get confusion."
Years ago, Ms. Puckett tried to wipe away the memory of Oswald's sleeping quarters by filling it with her book and crystal collections.
But no amount of remodeling could diminish the fact that Oswald slept there; perhaps even hatched the plot there; spending hours reading and, always, being alone. Ms. Hall says he never had a single visitor.
After Oswald left, she spent many a night, she says, sleeping on the same bed, in the same small room, adding with a wry laugh, "Hey, I never thought anything weird about it."
She intends to restore the room to its original look and says even now she keeps in storage, in an undisclosed location, Oswald's bed, mattress, chest of drawers and nightstand.
So why have she and the family rented rooms almost continuously since 1935? Income, she says. Even now, she has two tenants and hopes to add, in the basement and garage, an additional 11, whose rent will range from $275 to $300 a month (bills paid).
Does she feel a need to tell prospective tenants about the quiet man who once rented a room, who, allegedly on his own, changed the course of American history?
"No," she says. "Most are too young to remember it anyway. We do get a few that say they want a room to rent, but as soon as they're inside, they say, 'Is this the house where ... ?' And we know immediately that they have no interest at all in renting a room.
"They just want to get inside the house, because of who lived there and what happened so long ago. And when you think about it, who can blame them?"
E-mail mgranberry@dallasnews.com
<END QUOTE>
Best Regards in Research. Honored to be yours in the pursuit of The Truth,
Don
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly
ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Towards the "Grassy Knoll"
BOND Photos Do Not Timestamp Gordon Arnold
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
"Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE the President." (my EMPHASIS)
----CHARLES F. BREHM, a combat gunfire experienced, United States Army Ranger, World War II, D-day veteran, & Dealey Plaza very close attack witness, quoted only minutes after the attack, and while he is still standing within Dealey Plaza (11-22-63 "Dallas Times Herald," fifth & final edition)
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?
Zapruder film alteration expertise examples
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
as they say: yee who squeals the loudest has something to hide..... now, your film/photo qualifications are?