Zfilm Revisited

[Jack White]

Also of interest, we now have to take for granted (at least some do) the last time the in-camera original Zapruder Film was laced up in a projector. That was during the Garrison fiasco in NO..... not provable, other than taking the FBI's word for it..... I doubt, seriously doubt this historical "original" piece of celluloid ran in the courtroom that day... perhaps one of the four, excuse me, one of the three Jamieson optical prints.... certainly not the in-camera original. Now, if that is accurate, then the last known (alleged known) time the in-camera original was laced up in a projector, was during a WC gathering in Washington D.C., late Feb 1964.... and finally, before that, Nov 22nd at KODAK and Jamison Dallas labs....

David,

Are you even aware that you contradict the things you have said in the past. You have posted, and truthfully so, that with each generation copy print from the original comes a loss of clarity. The original film will be sharp and the colors correct for the type of film being used. But with multi-generation copies comes a noticeable loss of clarity and color shifting. I have never seen you address these processes that would allegedly cause an expert to not spot the differences. Groden, a well known conspiracy supporter, has said that the film he examined and studied was in his opinion the camera original. Zavada, who invented the type of film being discussed has also validated the Zapruder film as being the camera original. So is it your position that an expert in Kodachrome II film would not first know the difference between an original film and a copy print? Is it your position that you know more than the experts do concerning Kodachrome II film??

Below is two alike film frames ... I think that even someone with the slightest understanding of this type of film could spot some of these changes.

Bill Miller

I believe that graphic was posted to show a comparison between a LIFE reproduction and a Zfilm frame.

Miller is using it in a deceptive manner.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

as for Miller's nonsense concerning: "Of course there's NO proof of film alteration" That is something I've stated for years", simply dumb to go on the record saying the film is altered until the extant Z-film undergoes forensic testing.

I find it funny that nowhere in the Hoax book did you mention that position.

As for Kodacolor II film gamma issues? Pure nonsense! Not one person with optical film printing experience buys into gamma problems when the process goes from 8mm-35 then back down to 8mm for final (especially if the original in-camera Z-film was destroyed after alteration)... Not an issue, a Lone Nut canard -- I mention that to Roland Zavada too!

Zavada disagrees with you ... Groden disagrees with you ... the many experts that Mack has met and worked with have not agreed with you .... maybe you can just tell us what experts agree with you on your data concerning Kodachrome II Film? How about at least telling the forum where the data can be found in support of what you just said???

all you have to do is have Gary Mack provide the name of one, ONE expert he's spoken to concerning the issue. One who can define what gamma properties exist in the 8mm Zapruder film. Including examples and comparisons re the in-camera original Zapruder film (better known as the extant version housed at NARA). Till then son, your blowing smoke. I doubt Gary Mack knows your bouncing his name around here.....

I recall at one time you set out to provide examples of generational film gamma differences, unfortunately you failed to even define what film gamma is, much let alone show examples of same. As a result you were laughed right out of the box, what has changed since then, son?

So do us all a favor, find one of these Gary Mack experts (with posted credentials) and his "KodacolorII gamma examples" You've been pulling this chain for so long, you fail to realize this, my article has been on the web for over 7 years and you lone Nutters have yet, YET to find one expert willing to publicly (or privately) dispute it. Where are those film gamma experts? But you sure do whine about it.....

So why is film-gamma a Lone Nut canard? No Lone Nutter (including Bill Miller) can define what film-gamma is let alone explain Z-film gamma properties....

Try again son....

Edited May 4, 2008 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Are you even aware that you contradict the things you have said in the past. You have posted, and truthfully so, that with each generation copy print from the original comes a loss of clarity. The original film will be sharp and the colors correct for the type of film being used. But with multi-generation copies comes a noticeable loss of clarity and color shifting. I have never seen you address these processes that would allegedly cause an expert to not spot the differences.

And that expert is? Groden, perhaps? LMAO! ! ! For 7 years you Lone Nuts haven't been able to discount my scenario, why should anyone believe you could pull a film expert out of your as....er, ear now?

How do you spell film-gamma, eh? Please define it for the lurkers... tell us the comparative differences and gamma properties re the in-camera extant Z-flm and the Z-film 1st generation-1st day Jamieson prints..... Then we'll be getting someplace...

Call Roland Zavada, son.... Perhaps he'll get you up to speed. Hurry.... time is running out! And above all, think 'S' curve!

[Chris Davidson]

Better call in Lamson and Thompson for help. Maybe Larry Peters also.

Try to keep your head above water.

Jack

How about some factual data in support of your claim ... you and Healy both will make claims as if based on fact, but you have not any data to support what you say.

I want to share what another researcher said to me about the foolishness some of you bring to the topic ....

"Poor Jack White, he thinks Bill Newman should be visible in the Z film, yet he has no idea how tall or short the man is. Bill is alive and well " " " " and he's even listed in the telephone book where he lives within about 50 miles of Jack. A real researcher would ask Bill for his height and then test people of various heights in Newman's position. But of course no real researchers support the alteration theory.

Then there's Chris Davidson, who selects from among a few hundred frames just two frames that happen to show similar views and then claims similar views cannot possibly happen. Circular logic at its most ridiculous. Then Chris compares his own test film with Zapruder's and finds they don't match; what he actually found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection."

Is it any wonder that the tabloids won't even touch the claims found from the alteration crowd.

Bill Miller

Bill,

That's very interesting.

Would you or your source care to inform the rest of us what len's setting the Zfilm actually was set on.

No, I tell you what.

I'll show you what happens when it's on a wider angle setting.

Oops!!!!

What happened to the FOREGROUND? Bill

I guess Jack, David, countless others and I were all wrong when assuming the camera was on telephoto.

BUT,

We sure were right about the ALTERATIONS that were done.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Here's another comparison with the lens not on telephoto.

The red arrow points to the X in the road.

Lot of area missing in that Zframe.

chris

[Chris Davidson]

Multiple Exposure Areas - Perforation-Like Images

Within the perforation area, adjacent to a perforation above or below or both, an image occurs that resembles a perforation. The images simply represent multiple, i.e. double exposure of the area of the "excess" aperture cutout for the intermittent claw action. Above the upper and below the lower perforation hole, the excess aperture cutout allows an image to be formed concurrent with the primary image. When the succeeding image is formed it adds light to that previously formed causing multiple or double exposure. The shape that this image area takes, and importantly whether it exists at all, is directly dependent on the size of the exit window of the lens based on the chosen focal length together with the influence of scene content. Not all exposure conditions produce the phenomena, however telephoto in bright lighting conditions does. With blank frames between some test target exposures, the phenomenon is visible and multiple exposures adjacent to the perforations are easily seen. (See photo below.)

Bill, this is from Zavada's report on the B/H 414.

I hope you or your source can supply us with ghost imaged frames from something other than a telephoto shoot.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Here's another comparison with the lens not on telephoto.

The red arrow points to the X in the road.

Lot of area missing in that Zframe.

chris

The only thing you have found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection. And if you want to learn more about the ghost images ... do a search on an article I believe that Anthony Marsh wrote on the matter.

Its irresponsible and most reckless in my opinion for you to make such alleged earth shattering claims of alteration without consulting a single expert(s) so to be sure that YOU have your facts straight. You do realize that there are just as many smart people in the world who believe there was a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy as there are who think it was the work of one man, so I look forward to see who all you are able to sell your great finds to. I mean, if you are so sure of alteration, then you should have no problem getting such a great find out to the appropriate experts so they can validate your claim. I predict that not one expert will agree with you, but also that they will quickly spot your flaws and this is why such nonsense only lives on a forum such as this.

Bill

Edited May 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Here's another comparison with the lens not on telephoto.

The red arrow points to the X in the road.

Lot of area missing in that Zframe.

chris

The only thing you have found was that Zapruder's memory of having his camera set on full zoom was not an accurate recollection. And if you want to learn more about the ghost images ... do a search on an article I believe that Anthony Marsh wrote on the matter.

Bill

I suggest this for learning about ghost images: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

[Bill Miller]

Bill Miller[/b]

I know how tall Bill Newman is. Why do you say I don't? He is not a tall person, probably no taller than 5'9".

I have talked to him on several occasions, and I'd say he's about five inches shorter than I am.

Jack

Here is why I didn't believe that you know how tall Bill Newman is .... " A real researcher would ask Bill for his height and then test people of various heights in Newman's position." When I tested Hudson's location with the pyracantha bush ... I placed Groden on the steps and created the same field of view as Zapruder had. You immediately start calling for alteration without doing one of the simplest test to see if Bill Newman should have been seen in Zapruder's film or not.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I suggest this for learning about ghost images: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Jack, with all due respect ... Costella believed that there was this big window of time where Moorman's photo could have been altered so to put two people on the pedestal (presumably to support all the other films and photos showing them up there) ... without first checking to see when Moorman's photo was first seen publicly. So I think that until Anthony Marsh starts believing that the CIA has tampered with his cordless razor or that a rain sensor in the Plaza is a listening device ... I'll get my information from a more reliable source.

Thanks,

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

ts irresponsible and most reckless in my opinion for you to make such alleged earth shattering claims of alteration without consulting a single expert(s) so to be sure that YOU have your facts straight. You do realize that there are just as many smart people in the world who believe there was a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy as there are who think it was the work of one man, so I look forward to see who all you are able to sell your great finds to. I mean, if you are so sure of alteration, then you should have no problem getting such a great find out to the appropriate experts so they can validate your claim. I predict that not one expert will agree with you, but also that they will quickly spot your flaws and this is why such nonsense only lives on a forum such as this.

Bill[/b]

"All indications are that the image on the existing Zapruder film were filmed with the camera set to maximum zoom, the Telephoto setting of the camera. Not only does the angle of view support this, but also the fact that the images extend so far into the inter-sprocket area."

"The lack of focus in the leaves is consistent with the lens set at Telephoto."

"If Zapruder had the lens set to a 15 mm focal length, and with an f-stop between f8 and f11, anything farther than 3 to 4 feet away from the film in his camera would be in focus. Since the nearby bush, 6 feet away, was not in focus when the background objects were, it indicates Zapruder must have set the lens to a longer focal length than 15 mm."

DEPTH OF FIELD COMPARISON

BELL & HOWELL 414PD MOVIE CAMERA

WITH LENS AT UNIVERSAL FOCUS SETTING

NEAR DISTANCES

FOCAL LENGTH

9 mm 13 mm 27 mm

F-STOP Wide Angle Normal Telephoto

------ ---------- ------ ---------

f1.8 5' 5" 8' 9" 15'

f2 5' 2" 8' 5" 15'

f2.8 4' 6'10" 14'

f4 3' 5' 4" 12'

f5.6 2' 2" 4' 2" 11'

f8 1' 7" 3' 1" 8' 9"

f11 1' 2" 2' 4" 7'

f16 10" 1' 8" 5' 8"

f22 7" 1' 3" 4' 5"

"Anthony Marsh claims that the continuity of ghost images between the sprocket holes makes it virtually impossible for frames to be deleted without detection. Related work by Roland Zavada demonstrate that the intersprocket image anomalies are the natural result of filming with a Bell & Howell 414PD camera, the model Zapruder used."

First you tell us Zavada is the expert on the workings of the B/H 414. And his conclusion is the film was not altered.

Well his conclusion also is: ghost images appear only on TELEPHOTO setting. (Might reread post 55)It's from Zavada's report.

Now you tell us that the telephoto setting was not used in the Zfilm, but we have ghost images.

And lastly, you now refer to Anthony Marsh for reading about the workings of this camera. Did Zavada fall to the back of the line?

I'll just keep posting my comparisons, and let others make up their minds.

You consult the experts and get back to us. Preferably with a visual comparison.

Someday, maybe you'll supply us with a non-telephoto ghost image frame, but I'm not holding my breath.

Talk about irresponsible!!!

chris

P.S.

Anthony Marsh quote:

"And I have no idea what kind of lens was used for this photo, while Zapruder's camera was set on telephoto"

Edited May 4, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Bill Miller]

And that expert is? Groden, perhaps? LMAO! ! ! For 7 years you Lone Nuts haven't been able to discount my scenario, why should anyone believe you could pull a film expert out of your as....er, ear now?

How do you spell film-gamma, eh? Please define it for the lurkers... tell us the comparative differences and gamma properties re the in-camera extant Z-flm and the Z-film 1st generation-1st day Jamieson prints..... Then we'll be getting someplace...

Call Roland Zavada, son.... Perhaps he'll get you up to speed. Hurry.... time is running out! And above all, think 'S' curve!

David,

You live in 'delusions of grandeurs'. You cannot even get it right who the CTs are Vs. the LNs. All the physical properties of Kodachrome film II are known inside and out by the various scientist who invented it ... not to mention other experts such as Groden. As I recall, it wasn't that long ago that you were posting something to Lee Foreman about Zavada and Lee shared an email from Zavada that proved you to be a little less than informed. You're just the Baghdad Bob of the JFK assassination field, thus let us hear where you have taken apart Zavada's findings so to show how he got it wrong. This should be really short and sour!!!

Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Part 2 of the segmented film.

Remember, the car is going Downhill.

chris

[Bill Miller]

Part 2 of the segmented film.

Remember, the car is going Downhill.

chris

What's your point?

[David G. Healy]

Part 2 of the segmented film.

Remember, the car is going Downhill.

chris

What's your point?

perhaps its one of those: Zapruder (while filming the Elm street limo) should be panning left-to-right downhill right. It appears his pan was [left-to-right UPHILL right.

Going to fast for you?