Zfilm Revisited

[Bill Miller]

I do not believe what you say Fetzer said. Give us the quote and let's see what he actually said.

Jack

Jack ... you believe and don't believe what you want ... neither of which has to be true. I seem to even recall this matter coming up not to long ago and other people acknowledged Fetzer's remarks. But I will find the thread if it is still available, but if I do, then what are you going to do to make my effort worth my while??? Are you so sure that Fetzer didn't say what I claim that you are will to stop pushing alteration claims if I show that I cited Fetzer's remarks correctly.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill Miller is a XXXXXX. I stand behind every contributor to HOAX. Jack has been the most creative and innovative student of the photos and films in the history of the study of the assassination. Although not all of his hunches have played out, I would bet that more of them have than is true of any other student of the case. Miller knows nothing of publishing. The point I was making is that editors cannot take credit for the work of their contributors. David Mantik, David Lifton, David Healy, and John P. Costella also contributed to that book. They, like Jack, made dozens of important observations and findings. I am responsible for bringing them together and organizing the work as a whole. But it would be improper for me to claim credit for their work. Similarly, if they make a mistake--and we are all vulnerable to mistakes--their mistake was their mistake and mine was mine if I overlooked it. None of us is perfect, but I would suggest that my track record with regard to quality publications in this field--among the most complex and controversial of all time--has been exceeded by no one else. I have edited many books and understand the ethics of the relationship between editors and contributors. Miller does not. He should know better than to take positions about matters he does not understand, but that is the nature of the man. I recommend HOAX to every serious student of JFK. It is a brilliant book, not because of me but because of the quality of the contributions. I am proud to have brought these authors together for the benefit of the JFK research community and as a major contribution to exposing the crucial role of the film in the cover up of his mode of death.

Well, Dr. Fetzer thought enough of the image to feature it on the cover of

THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. It has happened. Get over it.

And except for slight motion blur, the Bronson slide is an excellent image.

Get with it. Your fading credibility is sinking lower in the water.

Jack

Jack, for your information - Fetzer went on Lancer and came under fire for the unfounded, often times poorly thought-out claims you made, and Jim told the readers that he was merely the editor and didn't see himself responsible for the claims in the book.

David Healy is another person who had seen your goofy Zapruder Waltz claim and he has since said that he has seen "NO PROOF" of alteration.

Bill Miller

Post edited by moderator due to language.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Jack White]

Bill Miller is a XXXXXX. I stand behind every contributor to HOAX. Jack has been the most creative and innovative student of the photos and films in the history of the study of the assassination. Although not all of his hunches have played out, I would bet that more of them have than is true of any other student of the case. Miller knows nothing of publishing. The point I was making is that editors cannot take credit for the work of their contributors. David Mantik, David Lifton, David Healy, and John P. Costella also contributed to that book. They, like Jack, made dozens of important observations and findings. I am responsible for bringing them together and organizing the work as a whole. But it would be improper for me to claim credit for their work. Similarly, if they make a mistake--and we are all vulnerable to mistakes--their mistake was their mistake and mine was mine if I overlooked it. None of us is perfect, but I would suggest that my track record with regard to quality publications in this field--among the most complex and controversial of all time--has been exceeded by no one else. I have edited many books and understand the ethics of the relationship between editors and contributors. Miller does not. He should know better than to take positions about matters he does not understand, but that is the nature of the man. I recommend HOAX to every serious student of JFK. It is a brilliant book, not because of me but because of the quality of the contributions. I am proud to have brought these authors together for the benefit of the JFK research community and as a major contribution to exposing the crucial role of the film in the cover up of his mode of death.

Well, Dr. Fetzer thought enough of the image to feature it on the cover of

THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. It has happened. Get over it.

And except for slight motion blur, the Bronson slide is an excellent image.

Get with it. Your fading credibility is sinking lower in the water.

Jack

Jack, for your information - Fetzer went on Lancer and came under fire for the unfounded, often times poorly thought-out claims you made, and Jim told the readers that he was merely the editor and didn't see himself responsible for the claims in the book.

David Healy is another person who had seen your goofy Zapruder Waltz claim and he has since said that he has seen "NO PROOF" of alteration.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Jim...you are correct, of course. It is true that I, like others, have gone down several

false trails in the JFK study. For instance, my study of the yellow curb markings was flawed

because THE STRIPES HAD BEEN REPAINTED LONGER, which I eventually figured out.

I made several false starts based on DP lampposts because of different photos and moved

posts. Not every study proves anything. However, you and I have had no major disagreements

in the JFK case, true? Our only major disagreement is in the OJ case, where I believe Jason

was the culprit, and OJ was covering for him. One correction will be necessary in your post...

moderators will change your "XXXXX" to "XXXXXX" because on this forum, XXX is

considered an obscene word and XXX will be substituted, despite a-- being used frequently

in the Holy Bible...you know, Joseph and Mary rode to Egypt on her XXX.

Jack

Post edited by moderator.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bernice Moore]

Marilyn Sitzman in her own words.....

On "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series......re the Zapruder film .......Marilyn Sitzman states...

Quote

" He started filming about .....oh....just before they came around the corner......and then we heard what to me sounded like two firecrackers...it was starting to get a little confusing because you could see things happening in the car..." and on.....So she does in her own Quotable words, state that he did start to film the motorcade as they just started to turn the corner....

On the video "Image of an Assassination: Another Look at the Zapruder Film " Marilyn says.

Quote...

"when they started making their first turn, turning into the street, he said, o.k. here we go, or something to that effect ".

...so where is the rest of the film...??

B....

Edited May 6, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Chris Davidson]

Chris - thanks for that added technical information in post #94.

Jack - thanks for that still frame comparison of frames 131 & 133 in post #93 which is very clear. Looking at that, I would say the frames are not particularly locked-off. The framing is similar, but certainly not identical.

Does anyone have a link to the first 130 or so frames as moving image? Pretty much all of the moving versions - stablized and unstabilized - that I've seen don't include the footage of the first motorcycle.

Chris - if Zapruder is loosely panning the camera in the first 130 frames or so, I'm now really puzzled by what we're seeing in your post #1 here with regard to the near non-movement of "black-hat gentleman" in frames 101 & 167.

Jan,

I think "black-hat" man is problematic.

Here he is with constraints around him.

Does his size change (along with the people to his left) or is this an optical illusion?

chris

P.S.

If you contact me by email, I will send you a link to the Zfilm.

chris@3125.us

[Bill Miller]

Bill Miller is a XXXXXX. I stand behind every contributor to HOAX.

Yes, Jim ... you stand behind them ... so far behind them that you can tell people how you were not responsible for validity of the claims being made. I recall you saying something like you were just offering a different view.

Jack has been the most creative and innovative student of the photos and films in the history of the study of the assassination.

Agreed, but not in the area of Zapruder film alteration and it was on that subject on lancer that you started distancing yourself from.

Although not all of his hunches have played out, I would bet that more of them have than is true of any other student of the case. Miller knows nothing of publishing. The point I was making is that editors cannot take credit for the work of their contributors. David Mantik, David Lifton, David Healy, and John P. Costella also contributed to that book. They, like Jack, made dozens of important observations and findings. I am responsible for bringing them together and organizing the work as a whole. But it would be improper for me to claim credit for their work. Similarly, if they make a mistake--and we are all vulnerable to mistakes--their mistake was their mistake and mine was mine if I overlooked it. None of us is perfect, but I would suggest that my track record with regard to quality publications in this field--among the most complex and controversial of all time--has been exceeded by no one else

.

Jim, your spin here is a little different than it appeared on Lancer. But lets put that aside for a moment and talk about something you said above about how many of jack's claims played out. So to show that you are not just saying something for the heck of it .. what alteration claims has Jack made that are found in your book that you found not to have 'played out' as you say ???????

I have edited many books and understand the ethics of the relationship between editors and contributors. Miller does not. He should know better than to take positions about matters he does not understand, but that is the nature of the man. I recommend HOAX to every serious student of JFK. It is a brilliant book, not because of me but because of the quality of the contributions.

The book is a joke and none of its claims have even made it into the tabloids. Let me share something that one of your contributors said about the claims surrounding alteration of the assassination images in Dealey Plaza. This statement came years after the book came out and its claims had become old news ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

Edited May 6, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[David G. Healy]

[...]

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

I don't recall you requesting permission to use my material. Cease and desist

[Bill Miller]

I don't recall you requesting permission to use my material. Cease and desist

Please be more exact, David ... First of all, what material have you ever brought to a discussion for openers??? Secondly, I hope you are not saying that your responses on this forum are copyrighted and cannot be repeated with you permission ... Take that one up with the moderators and the owner of the forum. LOL!!!!!!

Bill Miller

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0

Post #8

David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years

Edited May 6, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Evan Burton]

David, is the material something you said in a post? if so, then to the best of my knowledge that is public domain.

If it was an image or something, we'll have a close look at it but unless it had your copyright symbol attached - and preferably a statement saying that it was not to be reproduced or used outside the forum without your express permission - then I don't think there is a lot we can do.

I'd have to check with John and Andy, but I think if you post an image in the forum, then it can be used within the forum if it is a quote, regardless of a copyright mark.

I have to stress I am unsure about what can and cannot be reproduced regarding images; that is my best estimate right now.

In the meantime, could you please remove the accusation in your signature line until we clarify the matter?

Thank you.

[Evan Burton]

Bill,

Likewise could you please remove David's quote for the moment? I don't see anything wrong with using it.... but whilst we are checking it would be prudent to remove it.

Thank you.

[Jack White]

Bill Miller is a XXXXXX. I stand behind every contributor to HOAX. Jack has been the most creative and innovative student of the photos and films in the history of the study of the assassination. Although not all of his hunches have played out, I would bet that more of them have than is true of any other student of the case. Miller knows nothing of publishing. The point I was making is that editors cannot take credit for the work of their contributors. David Mantik, David Lifton, David Healy, and John P. Costella also contributed to that book. They, like Jack, made dozens of important observations and findings. I am responsible for bringing them together and organizing the work as a whole. But it would be improper for me to claim credit for their work. Similarly, if they make a mistake--and we are all vulnerable to mistakes--their mistake was their mistake and mine was mine if I overlooked it. None of us is perfect, but I would suggest that my track record with regard to quality publications in this field--among the most complex and controversial of all time--has been exceeded by no one else. I have edited many books and understand the ethics of the relationship between editors and contributors. Miller does not. He should know better than to take positions about matters he does not understand, but that is the nature of the man. I recommend HOAX to every serious student of JFK. It is a brilliant book, not because of me but because of the quality of the contributions. I am proud to have brought these authors together for the benefit of the JFK research community and as a major contribution to exposing the crucial role of the film in the cover up of his mode of death.

Well, Dr. Fetzer thought enough of the image to feature it on the cover of

THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. It has happened. Get over it.

And except for slight motion blur, the Bronson slide is an excellent image.

Get with it. Your fading credibility is sinking lower in the water.

Jack

Jack, for your information - Fetzer went on Lancer and came under fire for the unfounded, often times poorly thought-out claims you made, and Jim told the readers that he was merely the editor and didn't see himself responsible for the claims in the book.

David Healy is another person who had seen your goofy Zapruder Waltz claim and he has since said that he has seen "NO PROOF" of alteration.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Jim...you are correct, of course. It is true that I, like others, have gone down several

false trails in the JFK study. For instance, my study of the yellow curb markings was flawed

because THE STRIPES HAD BEEN REPAINTED LONGER, which I eventually figured out.

I made several false starts based on DP lampposts because of different photos and moved

posts. Not every study proves anything. However, you and I have had no major disagreements

in the JFK case, true? Our only major disagreement is in the OJ case, where I believe Jason

was the culprit, and OJ was covering for him. One correction will be necessary in your post...

moderators will change your "XXXXX" to "XXXXXX" because on this forum, XXX is

considered an obscene word and XXX will be substituted, despite a-- being used frequently

in the Holy Bible...you know, Joseph and Mary rode to Egypt on her XXX.

Jack

Post edited by moderator.

I would like to know why the word HORSE is considered obscene. Big Brown won the

Kentucky Derby Saturday. The horse race was reported worldwide. A month ago I

attended the horse races at local Lone Star Park. None of these was reported as being

a XXXXX race. The Queen of England is a XXXXX race fan. In the US, the use of XXX

refers to SEX OR NUDITY. The use of XXX here is insensitive to Americans who use

XXX to refer to pornography. Isn't it carrying absurdity to the extreme to censor the

word HORSE?

Jack

[David G. Healy]

'Evan Burton' date='May 6 2008, 08:26 AM' post='144519'

David, is the material something you said in a post? if so, then to the best of my knowledge that is public domain.

dgh: I quote myself in posts, and give myself permission to use my material where and whenever (Miller wants to use my material, he can request permission through his staff)...NOTE the following:

a] Technical Aspects of Zapruder Film Alteration (original article) copyright 1999-2008 David Healy

b] On-camera/videotape/DVD... Segment 3: Technical Aspects of Z-film Alteration by David G. Healy Time: 1hour-40 minutes 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium Unv. of Minn -- copyright 2003-2008

for reference re series DVD's the 2003 Symposium series DVD cover

http://www.assassinationscience.com/UMinn_sym%20cover.jpg

I find it offensive and out-of-line [on a education forum no less], others may think Bill Miller authored a quote THEN attributed to me... thank you DHealy ***

If it was an image or something, we'll have a close look at it but unless it had your copyright symbol attached - and preferably a statement saying that it was not to be reproduced or used outside the forum without your express permission - then I don't think there is a lot we can do.

I'd have to check with John and Andy, but I think if you post an image in the forum, then it can be used within the forum if it is a quote, regardless of a copyright mark.

dgh: please do, thanks....

I have to stress I am unsure about what can and cannot be reproduced regarding images; that is my best estimate right now.

In the meantime, could you please remove the accusation in your signature line until we clarify the matter?

dgh: its removed....***

Thank you.

Edited May 6, 2008 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Bill,

Likewise could you please remove David's quote for the moment? I don't see anything wrong with using it.... but whilst we are checking it would be prudent to remove it.

Thank you.

now I read elsewhere (in this thread) you weren't SURE -- you in Miller's pocket, son?

Edited May 6, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Evan Burton]

No, I am not David - but thanks for asking.

As I said, I'm not sure but to me this appears to be a case of "fair use" for the purposes of criticism. It's attributed, only a small portion used, the poster (Bill) has not attempted to claim it as his own work, it's not being used for commercial purposes, etc. I'll let John and Andy know, and they can see if they disagree.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Evan Burton

[David G. Healy]

'Evan Burton' wrote on 'May 6 2008, 10:00 AM'

No, I am not David - but thanks for asking.

dgh: well good for you...***

As I said, I'm not sure but to me this appears to be a case of "fair use" for the purposes of criticism. It's attributed, only a small portion used, the poster (Bill) has not attempted to claim it as his own work, it's not being used for commercial purposes, etc. I'll let John and Andy know, and they can see if they disagree.

dgh: thanks for your opinion Evan. Just take it up the ladder to where it counts, eh?

..... my goodness look at all the lurkers..... ***

Edited May 6, 2008 by David G. Healy