Denis Pointing Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Excellent work Bill and so amazingly simple and logical when explained. Yourself, Craig and others are doing a real service debunking this nonsense. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Excellent, Bill. So simple ... well done and your loop makes it quite clear. Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Excellent, Bill. So simple ... well done and your loop makes it quite clear.Bests, Barb :-) The Great Zapruder Film HOAX appears to have many lone nut's working overtime these day's. And after 6 years all that I'm hearing here is Wild Bill Miller and his merry band of laws of nature and enforcement (whatever the hell that is suppose mean). This has got to be an embarassment for Craig Lamson.... Relax Barb.... google is your friend! Film camera pan rate and effects/results panning a film camera to fast.... Professional cinematographers have been battling pan smear for 100 years.... Even old Abe Zapruder.... never mind! Where's the varsity, I ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Excellent work Bill and so amazingly simple and logical when explained. Yourself, Craig and others are doing a real service debunking this nonsense. Thanks. relax Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace. You'd think he'd just buy a B&H414 Producers double 8mm camera, get a few roles of film and spend an afternoon in Dealey Plaza shooting a bit of film.... but NOOOOOOO, he's going to put lurkers through a harrowing experience of viewing 50 new .gif animations, another 5000 posts <sigh>. Simply run some raw film 24 ASA through the camera, find out what we found out years ago... Any of you lone nut's ever wonder why Zapruders camera wasn't made available to Roland Zavada during his investigation, I bnet you didn't even know that did ya, Denise? Hey, if you can convince Wild Bill Miller to do the above, you can play Wild Bill's production assistant for the day, a Marilyn Sitzman stand-in (complete with pedestal) if you will..... Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement.Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls... But yet after all Costella's addressing of concerns - YOU posted that 'you have seen no proof of Alteration ... something you claimed you had been saying for years'. Did your comment make you a LNr or a CTs ... or as most think - just a nut! I hear another .gif animation calling you........ and after 2000 of them what does that make you, son? ROTFLMFAO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 (edited) the best the Lone Nutters have challenged the Great Zapruder Film Hoax (all the names a familiar to those that post here regularly). And yeah old Craig is getting weary and tired, we've been running him in circles since his retirement.Dr. John Costella address everyone of their concerns, they've been looking at undermining him ever since (all they need is a competent Physicist to respond to John, till then I doubt Costella will waste his time with Lone Nut trolls... But yet after all Costella's addressing of concerns - YOU posted that 'you have seen no proof of Alteration ... something you claimed you had been saying for years'. Did your comment make you a LNr or a CTs ... or as most think - just a nut! I hear another .gif animation calling you........ and after 2000 of them what does that make you, son? ROTFLMFAO.... And yet all we get is another empty and meaingless post from David Healy, the guard dog of the GZFH morons here on the ED Forum. You EVER gonna do any actual research or study other than the publishing that cribbed artwork like you did in hoax? BTW, you DID get copyright approval to use all those images...right? Where did you get it? Proof? Edited April 4, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [ name=David G. Healy' date='Apr 4 2009, 09:58 AM' post='165096] And after 6 years all that I'm hearing here is Wild Bill Miller and his merry band of laws of nature and enforcement (whatever the hell that is suppose mean). An example of a law of nature is when things happen because its the way they are supposed to work. 'Gravity' is a law of nature. 'Perspective' is a law of nature ... you move from point A to point B - things shift ... thats a law of nature. Here is one you can relate to ... If someone plays the role of a disgruntled idiot who only complains about not ever getting to examine the Zapruder film and won't take the time to file a formal request to do so, thats a law of nature gone bad. Where's the varsity, I ask? Is that the varisty you always claim to be a part of? If so, then I think they have moved on after you said you have 'seen no proof of alteration, something you had been saying for years.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 relax Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace.You'd think he'd just buy a B&H414 Producers double 8mm camera, get a few roles of film and spend an afternoon in Dealey Plaza shooting a bit of film.... but NOOOOOOO, he's going to put lurkers through a harrowing experience of viewing 50 new .gif animations, another 5000 posts <sigh>. Simply run some raw film 24 ASA through the camera, find out what we found out years ago... Any of you lone nut's ever wonder why Zapruders camera wasn't made available to Roland Zavada during his investigation, I bnet you didn't even know that did ya, Denise? Hey, if you can convince Wild Bill Miller to do the above, you can play Wild Bill's production assistant for the day, a Marilyn Sitzman stand-in (complete with pedestal) if you will..... Carry on! Dave, you must realize by now that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson are making you look more and more ridiculous every time they post. Even I'm beginning to pity you. Do yourself a favour and stay at ALT CONSPIRACY for a few days, at least over there you are allowed to do what you really excel at...insult and swear at people. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 (edited) Here is yet another claim alleging alteration of the photographic record. This one comes by way of a grainy photograph filled with noise. The new claim is that what was once a tripod seen standing in the doorway of the shelter near the pedestal that Zapruder and Sitzman stood on is still visible to those who know how to read the image. (see below) Having seen 100s of grainy photographs, I did the first thing that came to mind and that is to cross reference Betzer's photo with another taken from nearby at the same instant by Phil Willis. The Willis photo is cleaner and in color. When examining the Willis photo, I discovered that there is absolutely nothing standing in the doorway. The next thing I did was evaluate whether anyone would even care if a tripod was standing in the shelter doorway. An unmanned stationary tripod cannot run a camera by itself - it cannot track a moving vehicle from left to right across its field of view without assistance - and I am wondering with it being so low to the ground if it would even be able to see over the tops of the crowd lined along the north side of Elm Street. None of these considerations are mentioned in the claim, thus I was left wondering if much thought was even put into this theory. The value of removing an unmanned camera being atop of a tripod doesn't seem to be justifiable in my view when so many other witness had just packed up walked out of the Plaza unmolested and into history. It would seem more logical to me that anyone who could make fake Secret Service badges well enough so to fool police officers could also come up with good disguises for people to blend into the crowd and take all the souvenir footage they liked of the assassination. In summary: The text from the illustration that accompanied the allegation of alteration comes the words ... "Independent verification is obtained from the lower quality print of the Betzner #3 photograph contained on page 161 of Trask's 'Pictures of the Pain' in which the shape is just barely discernible to the naked eye." In all the years since, I have not heard anyone involved in 'Hoax' come out and say that they should have relied less on looking at grainy lower-quality prints and focused more on the cleaner sharper prints for all their interpretation needs. I personally found this to be yet another claim that should not have ever made it past a preliminary investigation, but it did. Nowhere is it written that any of the Ph.Ds that contributed in the book have since spoken up about the shortcomings in accepting that claim. As I have stated before, only David Healy saw through their claims and has since stated that he has 'seen no proof of alteration, something he had stated for years'. Bill Miller Edited April 4, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 (edited) The 'Moorman's white shoes' proof of alteration claim This particular claim looks on the outside to appear as if little thought went into it ... that someone just made a cursory glance at the evidence and misinterpreted the information within the image, but was that case? 'Hoax' took what started out as a color frame and made it into a B&W image. They then chose a film frame that showed Moorman's foot partially hidden because of the passing limo's glass molding. The choice to go to B&W and to use that particular film frame seemed very peculiar to me. When I looked closer at the Zapruder film, I found that had they of left the image in color and had advanced the film just a few frames, then a far sharper and clearer image of Mary Moorman's black shoes seen against the grass would have been staring its author in the face. (see below) By adding motion blur so to demonstrate that lack of sharpness in Zapruder's film to Moorman and Hill's shoes at the car, I saw that even the detail pertaining to both Hill and Moorman's shoes looked just as they should. In Summary: Someone for some unknown reason had taken an already color image showing Mary Moorman's black shoes against the green grass of the south pasture where she had stood and they turned that image into a black and white image, thus removing many of the color tones and blending others. Then its author chose a film frame where the the passing car's window strip hides a portion of Moorman's foot from view. This resulted in what would have been a gross error that would have possibly gone unrealized by anyone who didn't have access to a color copy of Zapruder's film so to study it in more detail. Regardless of the reasons and motivation, it was shown to be the misreading of a poor choice of film frames to study if wanting to concentrate on Moorman's shoes. To date I have not heard or read where a single one of the Ph.Ds who participated in 'Hoax' have said that this was a bad claim based on a flaw in the way it was researched. Bill Miller Edited April 5, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Here is yet another claim alleging alteration of the photographic record. This one comes by way of a grainy photograph filled with noise. The new claim is that what was once a tripod seen standing in the doorway of the shelter near the pedestal that Zapruder and Sitzman stood on is still visible to those who know how to read the image. (see below) Having seen 100s of grainy photographs, I did the first thing that came to mind and that is to cross reference Betzer's photo with another taken from nearby at the same instant by Phil Willis. The Willis photo is cleaner and in color. When examining the Willis photo, I discovered that there is absolutely nothing standing in the doorway. The next thing I did was evaluate whether anyone would even care if a tripod was standing in the shelter doorway. An unmanned stationary tripod cannot run a camera by itself - it cannot track a moving vehicle from left to right across its field of view without assistance - and I am wondering with it being so low to the ground if it would even be able to see over the tops of the crowd lined along the north side of Elm Street. None of these considerations are mentioned in the claim, thus I was left wondering if much thought was even put into this theory. The value of removing an unmanned camera being atop of a tripod doesn't seem to be justifiable in my view when so many other witness had just packed up walked out of the Plaza unmolested and into history. It would seem more logical to me that anyone who could make fake Secret Service badges well enough so to fool police officers could also come up with good disguises for people to blend into the crowd and take all the souvenir footage they liked of the assassination. In summary: The text from the illustration that accompanied the allegation of alteration comes the words ... "Independent verification is obtained from the lower quality print of the Betzner #3 photograph contained on page 161 of Trask's 'Pictures of the Pain' in which the shape is just barely discernible to the naked eye." In all the years since, I have not heard anyone involved in 'Hoax' come out and say that they should have relied less on looking at grainy lower-quality prints and focused more on the cleaner sharper prints for all their interpretation needs. I personally found this to be yet another claim that should not have ever made it past a preliminary investigation, but it did. Nowhere is it written that any of the Ph.Ds that contributed in the book have since spoken up about the shortcomings in accepting that claim. As I have stated before, only David Healy saw through their claims and has since stated that he has 'seen no proof of alteration, something he had stated for years'. Bill Miller Some would have you believe there is nothing to be gained by enhancing less than desirable images. Yet, in applying the same tonal correction method which reveals Mr.Hester in motion, from out of the Bell film shadows, it also reveals someone in the pergola. Also, the animation with Z in it, apparently shows a figure which blocks the light coming through the pergola opening. If you choose to believe that's Zapruder, that's your prerogative. No hat and a lot of hair. imo chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 relax Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace.You'd think he'd just buy a B&H414 Producers double 8mm camera, get a few roles of film and spend an afternoon in Dealey Plaza shooting a bit of film.... but NOOOOOOO, he's going to put lurkers through a harrowing experience of viewing 50 new .gif animations, another 5000 posts <sigh>. Simply run some raw film 24 ASA through the camera, find out what we found out years ago... Any of you lone nut's ever wonder why Zapruders camera wasn't made available to Roland Zavada during his investigation, I bnet you didn't even know that did ya, Denise? Hey, if you can convince Wild Bill Miller to do the above, you can play Wild Bill's production assistant for the day, a Marilyn Sitzman stand-in (complete with pedestal) if you will..... Carry on! Dave, you must realize by now that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson are making you look more and more ridiculous every time they post. Even I'm beginning to pity you. Do yourself a favour and stay at ALT CONSPIRACY for a few days, at least over there you are allowed to do what you really excel at...insult and swear at people. LOL we call that shuck-n-jive Denise..... none-the-less the role of a Marily Sitzman stand-in is still open if Wild Bill Miller chooses to actually do a bit of REAL research. I'll even concede a Craig Lamson to hold jackets what with the rarefied air on top of that DP pedestal... guys are a joke! But don't let me hold you from your fun..... LMFAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 relax Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace.You'd think he'd just buy a B&H414 Producers double 8mm camera, get a few roles of film and spend an afternoon in Dealey Plaza shooting a bit of film.... but NOOOOOOO, he's going to put lurkers through a harrowing experience of viewing 50 new .gif animations, another 5000 posts <sigh>. Simply run some raw film 24 ASA through the camera, find out what we found out years ago... Any of you lone nut's ever wonder why Zapruders camera wasn't made available to Roland Zavada during his investigation, I bnet you didn't even know that did ya, Denise? Hey, if you can convince Wild Bill Miller to do the above, you can play Wild Bill's production assistant for the day, a Marilyn Sitzman stand-in (complete with pedestal) if you will..... Carry on! Dave, you must realize by now that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson are making you look more and more ridiculous every time they post. Even I'm beginning to pity you. Do yourself a favour and stay at ALT CONSPIRACY for a few days, at least over there you are allowed to do what you really excel at...insult and swear at people. LOL we call that shuck-n-jive Denise..... none-the-less the role of a Marily Sitzman stand-in is still open if Wild Bill Miller chooses to actually do a bit of REAL research. I'll even concede a Craig Lamson to hold jackets what with the rarefied air on top of that DP pedestal... guys are a joke! But don't let me hold you from your fun..... LMFAO! Oh davie, you are not qualified to hold a lenscap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 (edited) [ name=David G. Healy' date='Apr 5 2009, 07:19 AM' post='165162] Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace. David, I said that I do not do first base with guys, so don't expect me to even show up at that game. Now that hopefully you have that straight finally (no pun intended) ... can you keep your mind on the evidence of the JFK assassination - Thanks! we call that shuck-n-jive Denise..... none-the-less the role of a Marily Sitzman stand-in is still open if Wild Bill Miller chooses to actually do a bit of REAL research. I'll even concede a Craig Lamson to hold jackets what with the rarefied air on top of that DP pedestal... guys are a joke! But don't let me hold you from your fun..... LMFAO! As I recall, David ... you harped on for a long time about there being no evidence of Sitzman being on the pedestal. Then I replied one day by showing a clip of Sitzman that Zapruder shot just before the motorcade showed up. What a coincidence it was that she was dressed just like the woman seen on the pedestal and standing at the base of it just as Zapruder hopped off of it. Now speaking of harping ... you also harped on about you needing to be allowed to have the Zapruder film for examination so YOU could authenticate it being the in-camera original. You have been asked repeatedly why you have not sent that request off to the NARA detailing what you need so to put an end to all the nonsense one way or another to the alteration allegations. Now my question to you is ... Why are you not taking this request for you to examine the film seriously? Why are you purposely misspealling Denis's name?? And where can we view your test film using the same type of camera and film Zapruder used. You see, it makes someone like yourself look like your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor when you behave the way you do. You wish to be heard as an authority and you don't do squat to demonstrate that the things you say are true. Do you have an explanation for this??? Bill Miller Edited April 5, 2009 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now