I count FOUR copies and the original Zfilm on 11/22

[David Josephs]

YOUR memory? that'll be as accurate as the WCR...

Sorry you can't come to grips with the reality of the evidence and what your EXPERT Rollie concludes...

In every instance of a stop/start on the Zfilm's side A, the FFO is obvious

In the transition from the "test" frames on side B to Z001... wuddya know... there is it again.

The only place where there is no significant change... or a change that resembles any of the other stop/starts... is at 131/2/3/4....

A few sentences above on page 39 he says 1 of his 5 cameras repeatedly produces FFO.

"Mr Z's camera seems prone to the problem" is what Zavada also says.

Finally... I only post the frames available to me... if I had the 6K scans Horne does, I would post those....

But I don't need to old man... Rollie did the work for us and on the supposed originals... and he explains quite plainly the anomolie does not appear as it did on all the other occurances...

as anyone can see from these frames... Z134 looks just like z001....

So tell us Big Brain... if it did not happen at any other Stop/Starts on either the A or B side of the film... why doesn't Rollie call it out to substantiate the randomness of it? To prove this one occurance at a location Zapruder himself says he never stopped filming... was simply that.. a random NON occurance... he doesn't, cause it wasn't... and he knew it.

Just like all the rest of the anomolies he can't explain or deal with... maybe you should refresh that aging memory of yours and read the Zavada report again. Count how many problems he explains away by saying... "well, it's on the SS copy of the film so it MUST have been on the original, even though it's not"

Consistently getting beaten at your own game must really suck for you old man... but I suppose you're getting used to it by now...

poor, confused old man....

Edited May 23, 2017 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

YOUR memory? that'll be as accurate as the WCR...

Wanna play memory games little boy? You will get soundly trounced like you have here with first frame overexposure.

Sorry you can't come to grips with the reality of the evidence and what your EXPERT Rollie concludes...

In every instance of a stop/start on the Zfilm's side A, the FFO is obvious

In the transition from the "test" frames on side B to Z001... wuddya know... there is it again.

The only place where there is no significant change... or a change that resembles any of the other stop/starts... is at 131/2/3/4....

Ah but you lose again. There IS first frame over exposure. So WHERE did it come from? Lets see. DO you even KNOW how the camera works? Do you even understand what a rotating shutter is or how it works? Of course not. You are just a whiner of a little boy who can't deal directly with reality.

A few sentences above on page 39 he says 1 of his 5 cameras repeatedly produces FFO.

"Mr Z's camera seems prone to the problem" is what Zavada also says.

Finally... I only post the frames available to me... if I had the 6K scans Horne does, I would post those....

Whine, Whine Whine. You are such a hypocrite, and that's being nice.

But I don't need to old man... Rollie did the work for us and on the supposed originals... and he explains quite plainly the anomolie does not appear as it did on all the other occurances...

as anyone can see from these frames... Z134 looks just like z001....

So tell us Big Brain... if it did not happen at any other Stop/Starts on either the A or B side of the film... why doesn't Rollie call it out to substantiate the randomness of it? To prove this one occurance at a location Zapruder himself says he never stopped filming... was simply that.. a random NON occurance... he doesn't, cause it wasn't... and he knew it.

Just like all the rest of the anomolies he can't explain or deal with... maybe you should refresh that aging memory of yours and read the Zavada report again. Count how many problems he explains away by saying... "well, it's on the SS copy of the film so it MUST have been on the original, even though it's not"

Consistently getting beaten at your own game must really suck for you old man... but I suppose you're getting used to it by now...

poor, confused old man....

poor ignorant little boy...

Lets beat you into a pulp once again, it seems such a shame to do it to such a little boy as you , but its gonna happen so man up and take it baby davie jo.

Lets go back to Zavada and see what he told Tink Thompson about this very issue. Opps, this is really gonna hurt davie jo.

"Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised.

What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked.

Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced on pages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. "

Meanwhile, the solution to the alleged mystery of first frame over-exposure is quite simple. Most often, it is caused by the inertia of the camera as it starts up. This leads to the first frame in a sequence picking up more light than later frames. In cases where the camera mechanism has been idle for some time, the first frame over-exposure is quite obvious. In cases, where the mechanism has been idle for only a few seconds, the over-exposure is minimal. As with the short time gap between Z-132 and Z-133, the backyard sequences shown below indicate that the camera has only been stopped for a few seconds or minutes.

(see it all here including the images )

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination

Yet another case of little boy davie jo wearing his reality filtering CT goggles and...well missing actual reality.

Not to mention yet another example of his complete ignorance of all things photographic.

You are DONE you silly little boy. NOTHING you can say will put this argument back on your plate. You are beaten to a pulp. Was that fun or what?

I fully expect you to post even more obtuse nonsense about things for which you have absolutely no clue nor understanding. Its just what you do, and your arrogance and ignorance shows through completely. Not that your arguments will make a lick of sense nor be technically correct. You are not mentally capable of playing here.

Time for you to slither back into your hole little boy.

[David G. Healy]

... you silly boy

my Gawd Lampoon, this is the best you can do? Then you drag Zavada into your tirade, Zavada who was firmly backed into a corner by Livingston concerning the Zapruder film report (have you read the interview transcripts of those face-to-face meetings?). The Zavada that refused to debate-discuss the technical aspects of the Zapruder film during the 2003 University of Minnesota Zapruder Film Symposium, didn't even show up? That Zavada?

That very same person the Gang of Eight protected in 2003-2004, of which you were part? So now, here you are, hiding behind Dr. Josiah Thompson and his name, personna and cred's, AGAIN, whilst calling out, "silly little boy" to one whom appears a very competent researcher? Your "product" selling here is failing dude.

Your old and cranky now, back then a mere pain in the rear, not worthy of Z-film authentication issue debate, simply another opinion (informed or NOT, but opinion none-the-less). Ya should stayed with your Moorman5/Polaroid-DP camera study.

The next generation is here dude, they aren't letting go... despite your "silly" protestations...

Edited April 27, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

... you silly boy

my Gawd Lampoon, this is the best you can do? Then you drag Zavada into your tirade, Zavada who was firmly backed into a corner by Livingston concerning the Zapruder film report (have you read the interview transcripts of those face-to-face meetings?). The Zavada that refused to debate-discuss the technical aspects of the Zapruder film during the 2003 University of Minnesota Zapruder Film Symposium, didn't even show up? That Zavada?

That very same person the Gang of Eight protected in 2003-2004, of which you were part? So now, here you are, hiding behind Dr. Josiah Thompson and his name, personna and cred's, AGAIN, whilst calling out, "silly little boy" to one whom appears a very competent researcher? Your "product" selling here is failing dude.

Your old and cranky now, back then a mere pain in the rear, not worthy of Z-film authentication issue debate, simply another opinion (informed or NOT, but opinion none-the-less). Ya should stayed with your Moorman5/Polaroid-DP camera study.

The next generation is here dude, they aren't letting go... despite your "silly" protestations...

Translated from the protect the" zfilm alteration claim at ALL costs guard dog."....blah blah blah, can't refute it so I'll just spew nonsense.

You guys are toast and you know it..and Livingston? That goofball!! ROFLMAO, when you stoop THAT low we all know you have NOTHING...and the little boy davie jo is COMPETENT! Now you have really done yourself in. He is pretty good at making lottery scratch off tickets I hear. LMOA!

Edited April 27, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Zavada on David Healy....oops...

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Zavada on David Healy....oops...

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

and who praytell wrote that for Rollie, you, Gary? Or a gruppe effort? And, nor does Roland Zavada have a clue as to optical film printing and its techniques and process. Ask Dino Brugioni for a bit of advice....

Who praytell is being naive here,dude? Sounds like you have been taken in under the 6th floor Mausoleum? Your unencumbered zeal to protect the lone nut-WCR-LHO did it all by his lonesome position, Zapruder film as an icon of fanatical belief is duly noted, AGAIN! Your "I don't care who did it" bs notwithstanding.

Now don't forget Lampoon, Roland Zavada left me on your 2004 "group of eight" e-mail list. And he, Rollie was perfectly willing to post his new and improved Zavada Report (which never happened) for comment right here on this forum. Of course Dr. Thompson and Gary were dead set against his revision to the original Zavada report. Hell man, Rollie even told me he went to Florida to check with my published source, see below link:

Author-Professor Raymond Fielding: http://www.amazon.co... cinematography (source: The ART of Special Effects Cinematography1st edition-1963 Ray Fielding)

re: Special Effects Cinematography. Rollie was not a happy camper, nor has his belated revision surfaced... and you know, old Rollie had no clue a 8mm film could be blown up to 35mm in 1963... what does that tell you.... did you? Imagine that!

p.s. do you really need that large font, does it make you feel large? You're reminding me of a certain high school bully type syndrome, rather un-flattering too.

Edited April 28, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

Zavada on David Healy....oops...

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED" at Jim Fetzer's

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding's book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David's analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer's May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED" and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: "You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

and who praytell wrote that for Rollie, you, Gary? Or a gruppe effort? And, nor does Roland Zavada have a clue as to optical film printing and its techniques and process. Ask Dino Brugioni for a bit of advice....

Who praytell is being naive here,dude? Sounds like you have been taken in under the 6th floor Mausoleum? Your unencumbered zeal to protect the lone nut-WCR-LHO did it all by his lonesome position, Zapruder film as an icon of fanatical belief is duly noted, AGAIN! Your "I don't care who did it" bs notwithstanding.

Now don't forget Lampoon, Roland Zavada left me on your 2004 "group of eight" e-mail list. And he, Rollie was perfectly willing to post his new and improved Zavada Report (which never happened) for comment right here on this forum. Of course Dr. Thompson and Gary were dead set against his revision to the original Zavada report. Hell man, Rollie even told me he went to Florida to check with my published source, see below link:

Author-Professor Raymond Fielding: http://www.amazon.co... cinematography (source: The ART of Special Effects Cinematography1st edition-1963 Ray Fielding)

re: Special Effects Cinematography. Rollie was not a happy camper, nor has his belated revision surfaced... and you know, old Rollie had no clue a 8mm film could be blown up to 35mm in 1963... what does that tell you.... did you? Imagine that!

p.s. do you really need that large font, does it make you feel large? You're reminding me of a certain high school bully type syndrome, rather un-flattering too.

Roflmao! You got your panties all in a bunch davie.

Fielding called you... Technically naive. And of course you are. You are a video technician..a repair man..and at best just an eng guy. Heck Fielding, who DOES know, tells us you have it all wrong and it's just not possible to do the alterations in 63 And have them withstand professional inspection. And gee, the darling of the ct looney toons alterationsits, Rod Ryan, agreed that the Z film was not altered after viewing it under a microscope. Fielding is quoted above telling the world just how bad you really are at this.

You and your bull crap got tossed by the very source you tried...and failed to use to bolster your silly claims.

That's reality davie. You got pwned. You got no game. You are just a toothless old guard dog, barking at the moon, in a vain attempt to salvage the Z film alteration claim nonsense.

That's your legacy.

Enjoy it, you earned it. ROFLMAO.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Craig Lamson