Zfilm Revisited

[Bill Miller]

Please cite all references in the WCR as to Zapruder suffering from "vertigo"... thanks

I don't recall Zapruder or Sitzman making references to the Commission about Zapruder having Vertigo ... did someone say they had??? I learned about it through Sitzman who I think it was in her Turner interview that she said Zapruder had vertigo.

It might also be worth noting that Sitzman said this to Josiah Thompson in 1966 ...

Sitzman: Yes. Well, he stood up there, and he asked me to come up and stand behind him, 'cause when he takes the pictures looking through the telescopic lens, he might get dizzy, and he wanted me to stand behind him, so in case he got dizzy I could hold onto him.

Another reference to Zapruder's vertigo problem ... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131658/trivia ... see the 4th triva answer down.

Here is a reference from the following article ...

Zapruder Film Likely To Restart Debate

By George Lardner Jr.

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 26, 1998

"At some other crucial moments, though, the video seems just as blurred and puzzling as the original, especially when Zapruder jiggled his Bell & Howell camera in apparent reaction to the gunshots and perhaps other distractions. Zapruder had the best vantage point in Dealey Plaza, standing on a concrete abutment at the crest of a grassy knoll, but he also had vertigo, which made him hesitant to climb up on the ledge."

Using search engines is an excellent tool. I know its also research, but don't worry ... it only hurts for a moment. LOL!!!

Bill Miller

Edited May 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

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

Hi Bill,

Having read Zapruder's WC testimony (which is one of the strangest conversations even in a world of confusion) he states on two separate occassions about having a telephoto lens. including

"Yes, they are frame by frame and they weren't very clear, for the simple reason that on the telephoto lens it's good to take stills--when you move did you ever have binoculars and every time you move everything is exaggerated in the move that's one reason why they are kind of blurred--the movement. Now, you want me to identify whether these are my pictures?"

Does it not seem a little odd that he misremembers the camera settings....yet with great clarity, explains exactly why he had those settings??

Furthermore, given Chris Davison's footage using a similar camera and settings, it seems that there are notable discrepancies in the film field of view (I'm sure there is a better term but I hope this makes sense)...do you know the settings used on the day or have any experts in the field determined these settings with any degree of accuracy.

Has anyone (expert or otherwise) been able to broadly recreate Zapruders film footage for field of view, centred areas, illusion of uphill etc. using the B/H camera? If so could anyone supply a link to view or download.

Thanks

Gary

Could everyone please review a lot of their recent posts in this thread and seriously consider whether that post is contributing or detracting from the thread? I think everyone has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the thread is maintained especially with respect ot those who have worked to positively contribute to it. Please.

Gary,

Thanks for bringing this up again.

Bill has said (or agrees) that Zapruder was wrong when he referred to having his camera lens on the telephoto setting.

Yet, he doesn't supply anything to support it.

I have provided statement's from Zavada's report and Marsh, along with one other and all say Z was shooting on telephoto.

Also provided examples from personal experience.

chris

[John Simkin]

That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand.

I agree. To sue someone over copyright infringement you have to show that it has denied the author of income from the work.

[David G. Healy]

"That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand."

ahh, WHAT call is that, Evan?

David ... did you get Evan's permission to quote him on this forum ... LOL!!!!!!!!! Have you stopped and noticed just how stupid your complaint was concerning quoting someone as a copyright infringement ... simply ridiculous.

Bill Miller

son, you removed the nonsense from you sig block -- I suspect you got the message..... also, I was speaking to Evan not you son.... your ego no bounds.

[David G. Healy]

That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand.

I agree. To sue someone over copyright infringement you have to show that it has denied the author of income from the work.

The forum is not clear on this.... You agree with/on WHAT, John? What exactly was Evan's call? And most importantly, who discussed suing anyone?

Praytell, how can one sue Miller for being a less than competent, unpublished JFK assassination photo researcher?

[Jack White]

"That's been done. Until I'm told otherwise, my call on the matter will stand."

ahh, WHAT call is that, Evan?

David ... did you get Evan's permission to quote him on this forum ... LOL!!!!!!!!! Have you stopped and noticed just how stupid your complaint was concerning quoting someone as a copyright infringement ... simply ridiculous.

Bill Miller

son, you removed the nonsense from you sig block -- I suspect you got the message..... also, I was speaking to Evan not you son.... your ego no bounds.

David...you mean this?

"I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case."

I always wondered about that. I studied the case since 1963 and discovered much new evidence.

I was a friend of Mary Ferrell, and she thought my work significant enough that she got me

appointed a consultant to the HSCA. Though I appeared on many JFK Lancer symposisums,

Lancer never awarded me anything. Just what is the significance of this award, and what is

the NEW EVIDENCE he discovered? Somebody please tell us. It must really be important.

I guess one must be a very close friend of Debra to get the award. I guess that is why Groden,

Lifton, John Judge and several others never got it either.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

What exactly was Evan's call?

That the principles of "fair use" apply on this forum.

"Fair use" of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Abridged version taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Essentially, if a forum member who is the owner of copyrighted material posts that material here, then if another forum member quotes that material here on the forum for the purposes of comment / criticism and attributes the source of the quote, then there is no breach of copyright and a tort has not been committed. My own opinion is that the principle of non-commercial use is paramount.

If someone feels the need to post their copyrighted material here, but does not want it reproduced or quoted in any form, then they should clearly state that with the post. If another party believes it is crucial they quote the posted material, then they can approach the John or Andy, who can discuss the matter with parties involved and then make a determination on the matter.

[Bill Miller]

David...you mean this?

"I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case."

I always wondered about that. I studied the case since 1963 and discovered much new evidence.

I was a friend of Mary Ferrell, and she thought my work significant enough that she got me

appointed a consultant to the HSCA. Though I appeared on many JFK Lancer symposisums,

Lancer never awarded me anything. Just what is the significance of this award, and what is

the NEW EVIDENCE he discovered? Somebody please tell us. It must really be important.

I guess one must be a very close friend of Debra to get the award. I guess that is why Groden,

Lifton, John Judge and several others never got it either.

Jack

Jack, I knew a guy who took 20 years to get through high school and he never got an award either. As far as my award, maybe part of it it was due to all the work I did showing the unbelievable mistakes that you made in all those alteration claims you did in Fetzer's book. In fact, I know that your alteration nonsense is what has kept you from speaking at another Judge or Conway conference. I mean, look at you guys now ... you all use quotes in many of your post ... you use copyrighted material without permission in your post ... and you jokers are now whining about people being quoted from this very forum. What a waste of space!!!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Gary,

Thanks for bringing this up again.

Bill has said (or agrees) that Zapruder was wrong when he referred to having his camera lens on the telephoto setting.

Yet, he doesn't supply anything to support it.

I have provided statement's from Zavada's report and Marsh, along with one other and all say Z was shooting on telephoto.

Also provided examples from personal experience.

chris

Its really a no-brainer IMO. Zapruder's camera zoom worked by setting it manually ... he believed that he had it set all the way out, but a simple check of another camera who is set on full zoom has told a different story. So let us think for a moment ... Zapruder films Mrs. Rogers at the office before going out to the plaza ... then Sitzman and the Hesters nearby in the Plaza ... all at different distances. Then Zapruder gets up on the pedestal and does some test pans and gets his camera prepared to film the President. Zapruder is asked at what setting he had his camera at and he thinks it was set at 100%, when it may have been let's say (95%). It seems insignificant to me. Let someone who claims to have a camera like Zapruder's test it and recreate the field of view if they like ... all I have heard so far is that when they filmed at full mode ... their film had a slightly wider field of view. Now rotate the zoom back a fraction of a turn and you may realize what Zapruder had done.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

son, you removed the nonsense from you sig block -- I suspect you got the message..... also, I was speaking to Evan not you son.... your ego no bounds.

I removed nothing from my signature block.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

David...you mean this?

"I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case."

I always wondered about that. I studied the case since 1963 and discovered much new evidence.

I was a friend of Mary Ferrell, and she thought my work significant enough that she got me

appointed a consultant to the HSCA. Though I appeared on many JFK Lancer symposisums,

Lancer never awarded me anything. Just what is the significance of this award, and what is

the NEW EVIDENCE he discovered? Somebody please tell us. It must really be important.

I guess one must be a very close friend of Debra to get the award. I guess that is why Groden,

Lifton, John Judge and several others never got it either.

Jack

Jack, I knew a guy who took 20 years to get through high school and he never got an award either. As far as my award, maybe part of it it was due to all the work I did showing the unbelievable mistakes that you made in all those alteration claims you did in Fetzer's book. In fact, I know that your alteration nonsense is what has kept you from speaking at another Judge or Conway conference. I mean, look at you guys now ... you all use quotes in many of your post ... you use copyrighted material without permission in your post ... and you jokers are now whining about people being quoted from this very forum. What a waste of space!!!

Bill Miller

That is untrue. Several years ago I voluntarily CHOSE to make no further presentations

at either Lancer nor COPA. One year, the two groups actually fought over me, with

one calling me a traitor because I said I would appear at the other. I actually chose

on the basis of Jim Fetzer being involved...not on the basis of either group. There was

no reason to appear at either group if I had NOTHING NEW to contribute.

It is inappropriate to ridicule my education. I will stack up mine against yours anytime.

In high school, I never was graded less than "A" in any course. I graduated "with honors"

from TCU, having made only one "B"...as an undergraduate taking a grad course in CHAUCER.

I had made A's on all tests and assignments, so I asked the professor why I got a B.

His reply...you were my best student, but I reserve all my A's for my GRADUATE students.

That makes as much sense as some of the things said here.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

David...you mean this?

"I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case."

I always wondered about that. I studied the case since 1963 and discovered much new evidence.

I was a friend of Mary Ferrell, and she thought my work significant enough that she got me

appointed a consultant to the HSCA. Though I appeared on many JFK Lancer symposisums,

Lancer never awarded me anything. Just what is the significance of this award, and what is

the NEW EVIDENCE he discovered? Somebody please tell us. It must really be important.

I guess one must be a very close friend of Debra to get the award. I guess that is why Groden,

Lifton, John Judge and several others never got it either.

Jack

Jack, I knew a guy who took 20 years to get through high school and he never got an award either. As far as my award, maybe part of it it was due to all the work I did showing the unbelievable mistakes that you made in all those alteration claims you did in Fetzer's book. In fact, I know that your alteration nonsense is what has kept you from speaking at another Judge or Conway conference. I mean, look at you guys now ... you all use quotes in many of your post ... you use copyrighted material without permission in your post ... and you jokers are now whining about people being quoted from this very forum. What a waste of space!!!

Bill Miller

That is untrue. Several years ago I voluntarily CHOSE to make no further presentations

at either Lancer nor COPA. One year, the two groups actually fought over me, with

one calling me a traitor because I said I would appear at the other. I actually chose

on the basis of Jim Fetzer being involved...not on the basis of either group. There was

no reason to appear at either group if I had NOTHING NEW to contribute.

It is inappropriate to ridicule my education. I will stack up mine against yours anytime.

In high school, I never was graded less than "A" in any course. I graduated "with honors"

from TCU, having made only one "B"...as an undergraduate taking a grad course in CHAUCER.

I had made A's on all tests and assignments, so I asked the professor why I got a B.

His reply...you were my best student, but I reserve all my A's for my GRADUATE students.

That makes as much sense as some of the things said here.

Jack

I just want this preserved for posterity.

[David G. Healy]

Gary,

Thanks for bringing this up again.

Bill has said (or agrees) that Zapruder was wrong when he referred to having his camera lens on the telephoto setting.

Yet, he doesn't supply anything to support it.

I have provided statement's from Zavada's report and Marsh, along with one other and all say Z was shooting on telephoto.

Also provided examples from personal experience.

chris

Its really a no-brainer IMO. Zapruder's camera zoom worked by setting it manually ... he believed that he had it set all the way out, but a simple check of another camera who is set on full zoom has told a different story. So let us think for a moment ... Zapruder films Mrs. Rogers at the office before going out to the plaza ... then Sitzman and the Hesters nearby in the Plaza ... all at different distances. Then Zapruder gets up on the pedestal and does some test pans and gets his camera prepared to film the President. Zapruder is asked at what setting he had his camera at and he thinks it was set at 100%, when it may have been let's say (95%). It seems insignificant to me. Let someone who claims to have a camera like Zapruder's test it and recreate the field of view if they like ... all I have heard so far is that when they filmed at full mode ... their film had a slightly wider field of view. Now rotate the zoom back a fraction of a turn and you may realize what Zapruder had done.

Bill Miller

dance, dance..... DANCE you're no good at this -- oh, and you did remove my name from your signature block, just as you were told..... no sense fudging about it....

Nice theory above btw, no proof, so simply more Bill Miller opinion.... "slightly wider fov...." you're killing us, son! LMFAO!

[David G. Healy]

delete -- duplicate....

Edited May 8, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Chris Davidson]

Gary,

Thanks for bringing this up again.

Bill has said (or agrees) that Zapruder was wrong when he referred to having his camera lens on the telephoto setting.

Yet, he doesn't supply anything to support it.

I have provided statement's from Zavada's report and Marsh, along with one other and all say Z was shooting on telephoto.

Also provided examples from personal experience.

chris

Its really a no-brainer IMO. Zapruder's camera zoom worked by setting it manually ... he believed that he had it set all the way out, but a simple check of another camera who is set on full zoom has told a different story. So let us think for a moment ... Zapruder films Mrs. Rogers at the office before going out to the plaza ... then Sitzman and the Hesters nearby in the Plaza ... all at different distances. Then Zapruder gets up on the pedestal and does some test pans and gets his camera prepared to film the President. Zapruder is asked at what setting he had his camera at and he thinks it was set at 100%, when it may have been let's say (95%). It seems insignificant to me. Let someone who claims to have a camera like Zapruder's test it and recreate the field of view if they like ... all I have heard so far is that when they filmed at full mode ... their film had a slightly wider field of view. Now rotate the zoom back a fraction of a turn and you may realize what Zapruder had done.

Bill Miller

Or, maybe it's a matter of correcting the pin-cushion effect, as I had previously shown with black-hat man and now with this post.

Would seem to make more sense.

I'm sure Bill knows, the B/H 414 lens selector is controlled by a thin metal rod which rotates clock/counterclockwise depending on which lens setting is chosen.

Of course, you could also tell us that Z used the power zoom button on top of the camera for control, but comparisons tells me it was still on telephoto.

And, when choosing the telephoto setting, you have to rotate that metal rod down until it STOPS, it's not as if it takes rocket science to accomplish this.

Bill, you were the one that brought up the theory of it not being on telephoto setting.

Now, back to the original post #1.

Somebody starts filming, somebody stops filming, starts filming again and approx 34 frames later, within 1 degree, he is back in perfect alignment.

Same guy who gets dizzy, might have vertigo and has his assistant supporting him.

Live rounds being fired, and he doesn't miss a beat, filming. O.K. !!!

chris

Edited May 8, 2008 by Chris Davidson