Zapruder Film Alteration

[David G. Healy]

dual post

Edited December 21, 2005 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

You know David, you are a piece of work.

I've been following the recent additions to this thread with interest.

First why not try spelling my name correctly...its Lamson, not lamsom. Given that our history spans a few years and also given your bitching about the way your name gets spelled the least you can do.

Second some of us have read your silly book and fond it lacking. More importantly some of us also have actual experience doing photographic composites ON FILM...can you say the same? If not, then STFU.

Third, some of us als understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base.

Forth, some of us know your "photographic expert" is a morn when it comes to his uderstanding of photography.

Is your paranoia running amok again? You think Colby and I are the same person? LOL! You are even more ignorant that I thought.

Merry Christmas, David

I have no doubt you (amongst others) were following this thread with "avid" interest...

Understanding photography? What a concept!! LOL, a business associate and partner here in Las Vegas has been following your foolishness for a few years, now he might be considered a expert in evaluating photog's and their work, not to mention THEIR skills. He, having worked in Ansel Adams darkroom for quite a period of time might be considered a true photographer and darkroom technician (unlike digital wonders of these day's - know what I'm saying?)

CL: [...] "Third, some of us also understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base."

offbase? then surely you can FIND a physicist that will take his story apart, piece by piece, right? Why haven't you been able to do that, Craig Lamson? (sp.?)

YOU, photo composites, on film? Then please post a URL for your latest and greatest, surely if you boast that you've done compositing work, you'll share it with all of us -- yes, please show us your expertise in the subject matter...

Regaring your second point:

CL: "[...] STFU [...]" Shut the xxxx up? That's very un-Christmas like, Craig! Why would the great preservers of the Dealey Plaza photographic record all of a sudden, cop a attitude?

I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology!

btw, send the varsity the next time, Colby can't make the frosh-soph team

Yes, Virginia -- there is a Santa Claus....

Edited December 21, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

and Colby continues...

I don't care which program you used but Dave have you ever done compositing without using a computer? Yeah we all know you've read about it, but have you ever done any? If not what qualifies you as an expert? Anybody can read a magazine.

dgh01: irrelevant -and- irrelevant - Raymond Fielding is the published expert

Your own experience (or lack there of) is relevant because you are cited as an expert in filmmaking and post production in TGZFH. If you haven't actually done anything like what you claim was done to Z-film your credentials and qualifications as an expert are far less impressive.

- evidently you CAN'T read magazines SMPE/SMPTE magazine in particular, nor the book called HOAX -OR- The art of Special Effects Cinematography

I have already explained that none of the books or magazines you cite are available here. Hoax isn't even available from the New York Public Library!* When you told me to get it from my library you really gave yourself to much credit. Obviously there isn't much interest in the book.

Normally when citing a source (esp. a book or magazine that isn't available online) in support of one's arguments people include quotes. Is it too difficult for you cite some paragraphs from Fielding and the SMPE/SMPTE magazines in support of your argument? Might you be bluffing? Fielding's book isn't available from the NYPL either** so if you are going to cite an obscure book you really should quote the appropriate passages. Of course what is written doesn't prove anything we will have to be able see stills of examples to guarantee that the compositing was seamless enough not to be readily apparent. That's crucial the alterations can't be obvious under close examination. I also find it curious that after being asked so many times you can't cite single movie and then Jack mentioned Mary Poppins which doesn't have manipulation as extensive as what you allege was done to the Z-film.

It's interesting that you use examples done on a computer as evidence that something similar could have been done in the early 60s. Even if it's true that compositing software put optical printing houses out of buisiness, that is at best irrelevant. Couldn't it just be possible that what's possible with a computer today wasn't possible back in '63? Your images look OK in low resolution in the book can high resolution copies withstand examination after being transferred to movie film? Obviously those images you made don't prove a thing.

dgh01: the entire book was published from computer files

My point was quite simple but seems to have gone over your head. Since you claim the type of compositing alleged to have been done to the Z-film was possible using 1963 technology your argument would be much stronger if you could produce examples using technology that was available back then. You then could have scanned stills made from the composite frames you had made "the old fashioned way"

-- you that much of a moron?

How old are you? In your sixties right? Your behavior is more befitting that of a child

roflmao! Looks like your going to have to find a few film compositing pro's to back up YOUR theory it wasn't possible, good luck -- other's have had a 3 year problem getting there...

No, the burden of proof is on your and your cohorts to prove that is was possible. The reversal of burden of proof is a crackpot tactic

the imaghes in the book have NOTHING to do with film resolutionn NADA, Zippo -- By-the-way can you tell ME the resolution (in pixels) of film?

Dave my point was quite simple but again it seems to have gone over your head. I wrote:

"Your images look OK in low resolution in the book can high resolution copies withstand examination after being transferred to movie film?" I don't know what you failed to comprehend. You used computer generated composites to illustrate your theory that this could have been done in 1963. Perhaps the most crucial question is "Could the 'forged' Z-film have been composited so well that the alterations are easily detectable?" Obviously it would be much harder to detect signs of forgery in a low resolution book illustration (How many pixels are those images in the book "smart" ass?).

The resolution of film varies of course depending on various factors including: film speed, type, manufacturer, date of fabrication and developing method. Modern 35mm film has a resolution of about IIRC 50 megapixels. 1963 8mm film obviously has lower resolution but is still several orders of magnitude greater than the images in Hoax.

Tell me all about film mattes, Mr. Colby, ANY kind of mattes. At the moment you've no leg to stand on regarding the technical aspects of film alteration, just noise! Oft repeated NOISE

I never claimed expertise in that area. I'll leave the noise up to you.

The fact that special effects and optical printing and compositing were all available back in 1963 or earlier are not in dispute. What is in dispute is

Could the types of alterations your clique alleged were made possible? Dr. Costella perhaps the only high school teacher with a PhD in science wrote

dgh01: again Mr. Colby find a film post production expert these day's a lot of them can be found in the Hollywood post boards -- most of whom are now After Effects users, sorry for that bit of bad news...

That's not bad news for me it's not even relevant. If you say most film post-production experts now use AfterEffects I'll take your word for it. The point was the validity of your proof. Using computer software to show how the z-film could have been composited is about as valid as blowing a hole in a suit or armor with an M-16 to show that it didn't offer protection against medieval weaponry. If you couldn't find a lab to do compositing on an optical printer that's your problem not mine

IT APPEARS THAT THE "WRAP IN QUOTE" FEATURE DOESN'T WORK WITH LONG POSTS - Therefore I divide my reply to dave in three Parts

* http://leopac1.nypl.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?se...x=13&y=11#focus

http://catnyp.nypl.org/search~/t?SEARCH=the+great+zapruder

** http://catnyp.nypl.org/search~/t?SEARCH=ar...+Cinematography

Edited December 21, 2005 by Len Colby

[Tim Carroll]

Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me!

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?

When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right?

First why not try spelling my name correctly...its Lamson, not lamsom. Given that our history spans a few years and also given your bitching about the way your name gets spelled the least you can do.

Shut the xxxx up?... I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology!

That's rich! David Healy talking about who owes the forum "a [sic] apology."

T.C.

[Len Colby]

Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me!

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?

When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right?

First why not try spelling my name correctly...its Lamson, not lamsom. Given that our history spans a few years and also given your bitching about the way your name gets spelled the least you can do.

Shut the xxxx up?... I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology!

That's rich! David Healy talking about who owes the forum "a [sic] apology."

T.C.

Healy and White don't hold themselves to their own standards. Didn't Jack start a thread complaining about how uncivil discourse had become here? Shouldn't he then have criticized Healy for calling me a moron and a stump etc?

[Len Colby]

My Reply to Healy Part 2

You're not on peer level with JCostella, hell, nobody knows who the hell you are!

He is obviously held in high esteem by his colleagues that's why he is a grammar school teacher! He must be as Fetzer claims a leading expert on various subjects. To be fair he is apparently highly intelligent, but he also is quite paranoid (to the point of believing his substitute teacher and (now ex) wife were CIA agents) and is over enamored with his own intelligence and knowledge base.

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

dgh01: you REALLY need to read the book, your display of igfnorance regarding the sub ject is pitiful

Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did.

dgh01: what are you smoking down there?

Dave I was quoting your buddy Costella – I guess you're right that did make me sound like I was crazy!

Tell me Dave what movies was anything like that done in? Don't tell us about Mary Poppins unless can you tell us what scenes had anything like that. C'mon Dave dig through those magazines and tell us in which movies were peoples limbs cut off and made to move around like marionettes.

dgh01: see SMPE/SMPTE journals (indexed in Fielding's book)

See above if you are going to cite obscure books you really should quote excerpts that support your theories. If there so many examples what don't you cite us some movies and scenes, then whomever was interested could rent those titles and judge for themselves if it was realistic.

If such alterations were made could they have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable? Zavada didn't think so and according to Gary Mack and Pat Speer, Oliver Stone and another movie director didn't think so either!

dgh01: I believe Zavada is on the record as saying he won't/can't comment on the content of the film.

I don't know if he ever commented on the content but he most certainly has gone o record as saying such alteration would have been easily detectable. He wrote:

It appears that here again, proponents of Z-film alteration believe

that the creation of all the required steps to achieve special effects in

theatrical motion picture are easily and equally applicable to 8mm film

taken with amateur consumer quality cameras rendered in such a way as

to replicate an original "in-camera" film without tell-tale image structure

characteristics. Nothing is farther from the truth and the author's choice

of the word "created" may well be significant.

…

The goal to create a "Kodachrome original provides further

insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are

designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way

that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author

wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced

technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome

original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination

and evaluation by multiple researchers. The "evidence" offered are scene

content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

And who cares what Mack Speer or Oliver think -- What makes you think Oliver Stone knew much of what happend in a film lab in the early 60's?

Stone started studying at NYU Film School (one on the best in the US) in 1969 so it's probable that he knew what was and wasn't possible a few years earlier. Maybe Stone laughed at the possibility that such effects were possible in the late 60's or later. If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Len Colby

[David G. Healy]

Colby ho-hum.... again

[...]

dgh02: btw, EVERY film created between the years of 1920 and 1975 had/have some sort of optical film special effects applied

<noise clipped>

See above if you are going to cite obscure books you really should quote excerpts that support your theories. If there so many examples what don't you cite us some movies and scenes, then whomever was interested could rent those titles and judge for themselves if it was realistic.

dgh02: Mr. Colby er, whomever you are.... I have no, I repeat NO intention of dangling on the end of your string If NONE of you "experts in film compositing" don't have the balls to read a few SMPE manual especially those indexed in Fielding's book. Don't waste my or any other members of the forum time. The Zapruder film is the focus. Either educate yourself, or find something in the jungle to play with....

<more noise clipped>

Stone started studying at NYU Film School (one on the best in the US) in 1969 so it's probable that he knew what was and wasn't possible a few years earlier. Maybe Stone laughed at the possibility that such effects were possible in the late 60's or later. If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it.

dgh02: and I thought my university was the best around that time, imagine that: a ex-pat import/exporter informing us what OStone MIGHT of thought -- re your comment stating Stone was not aware of Fielding? rofl........ Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len --

Now, for your specific attention: Roland Zavada was a member of the Execitive Committee at SMPTE at one time, he was attending a conference in California 2 years ago when I last spoke to him... so, obscure/organizations/documents? ROFLMAO! Come in out of the snow, Len.

And please, when I cite something, I'll deceide whether its *standard* reference or not -- thanks though for help putting words in my mouth -- dolts have a habit of doing that, why's that Len ole pal?

Edited December 21, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

You know David, you are a piece of work.

I've been following the recent additions to this thread with interest.

First why not try spelling my name correctly...its Lamson, not lamsom. Given that our history spans a few years and also given your bitching about the way your name gets spelled the least you can do.

Second some of us have read your silly book and fond it lacking. More importantly some of us also have actual experience doing photographic composites ON FILM...can you say the same? If not, then STFU.

Third, some of us als understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base.

Forth, some of us know your "photographic expert" is a morn when it comes to his uderstanding of photography.

Is your paranoia running amok again? You think Colby and I are the same person? LOL! You are even more ignorant that I thought.

Merry Christmas, David

I have no doubt you (amongst others) were following this thread with "avid" interest...

Understanding photography? What a concept!! LOL, a business associate and partner here in Las Vegas has been following your foolishness for a few years, now he might be considered a expert in evaluating photog's and their work, not to mention THEIR skills. He, having worked in Ansel Adams darkroom for quite a period of time might be considered a true photographer and darkroom technician (unlike digital wonders of these day's - know what I'm saying?)

CL: [...] "Third, some of us also understand that the major proof in your silly book was produced by a math teacher who has lost his clue. Simple emperical study proves him totally off base."

offbase? then surely you can FIND a physicist that will take his story apart, piece by piece, right? Why haven't you been able to do that, Craig Lamson? (sp.?)

YOU, photo composites, on film? Then please post a URL for your latest and greatest, surely if you boast that you've done compositing work, you'll share it with all of us -- yes, please show us your expertise in the subject matter...

Regaring your second point:

CL: "[...] STFU [...]" Shut the xxxx up? That's very un-Christmas like, Craig! Why would the great preservers of the Dealey Plaza photographic record all of a sudden, cop a attitude?

I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology!

btw, send the varsity the next time, Colby can't make the frosh-soph team

Yes, Virginia -- there is a Santa Claus....

So bring your "partner" on board here and lets go head to head...it might actually have some merit seeing how your team of "experts" don't have a clue about photography. I'll be happy to discuss the inside wokings of chemical based imaging, since its a very big part of my background. Hell we can ewven talk the old masters...I'm related by marriage to Cole Weston and have spend lots of quality time with him before he died. So bring him on....

No physist needed...just someone who understands how a camera works and what happens when you move it. Thats something Costella knows little about, not to mention that he has no clue how a simple shadow works....powerful "experts" LOL!

You will be waiting a long time for an apology....about as long as we have waited for you to post a sample of your film based composits.

And by the way I did post a link to a film based composite for you quite a long time ago at your request. I suggest you do some research if you want to find it again.

And just so your "partner" can make a qualified review of my skills....

www.infocusinc.net

Edited December 21, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Colby ho-hum.... again

[...]

dgh02: btw, EVERY film created between the years of 1920 and 1975 had/have some sort of optical film special effects applied

<noise clipped>

Probably true but irrelevant.

See above if you are going to cite obscure books you really should quote excerpts that support your theories. If there so many examples what don't you cite us some movies and scenes, then whomever was interested could rent those titles and judge for themselves if it was realistic.

dgh02: Mr. Colby er, whomever you are.... I have no, I repeat NO intention of dangling on the end of your string If NONE of you "experts in film compositing" don't have the balls to read a few SMPE manual especially those indexed in Fielding's book. Don't waste my or any other members of the forum time. The Zapruder film is the focus. Either educate yourself, or find something in the jungle to play with....

<more noise clipped>

Gee you do get testy!! Obviously the Z-film is the issue and one of the essential questions is were such effects possible? I'm in midsize city in Brazil which makes me a special case, the libraries here aren't very good esp. when it come to books and magazines in English. However as I already pointed out Fielding's book isn't available from the New York Public Library which has the largest collection in the US after the Library of Congress. So the book isn't as easy to find as you claim. It's not a question of having the balls but one of time and access.

The SMPE:SMPTE journals aren't available from the NYPL either ( http://catnyp.nypl.org/search~/s?SEARCH=society+of+motion ) so instead of citing some hard to find books and magazine that most members of this forum don't have access to it seems it would be so much easier for you just to name some movies with similar compositing. Do you have or have access to these book and journals? With all the energy you dedicated to avoid giving an answer you could cited various movies by now. My guess is that you know that there aren't any movies from that era that don't look obviously faked.

Stone started studying at NYU Film School (one on the best in the US) in 1969 so it's probable that he knew what was and wasn't possible a few years earlier. Maybe Stone laughed at the possibility that such effects were possible in the late 60's or later. If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it.

dgh02: and I thought my university was the best around that time, imagine that: a ex-pat import/exporter informing us what OStone MIGHT of thought --

I said NYU was 'one the best' not 'the best'

I'm basing that on Mack's statement which he based on speaking to Stone's research assistant.

re your comment stating Stone was not aware of Fielding? rofl.

Dave, do you have reading comprehension problems? I said "If Feilding's book is the standard reference that you claim it's hard to believe Stone didn't read it." If it's hard to believe someone didn't do something - then it's easy to believe they did it. In other word I believe he read it. They way you keep citing the book it seems like anyone who read it would know that such comopsiting was possible. Stone however who even you agree almost certainly read the book (or at least knew about it) didn't believe such compositing was possible. You are a genius Dave you undermined your own argument.

[quote]....... Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len --

Now, for your specific attention: Roland Zavada was a member of the Execitive Committee at SMPTE at one time, he was attending a conference in California 2 years ago when I last spoke to him... so, obscure/organizations/documents? ROFLMAO! Come in out of the snow, Len.[/quote[

Thanks once again for bolstering my case Dave! Zavada being on the executive committee of the society whose journal you cite adds to his status I imagine he read the journal too and he says what you claim was done was not possible!

I never said that SMPTE was an obscure organization. (Putting words in my mouth, funny you accuse me of that!) It's journals' it seems aren't that easy to find though, they can't be found at one of the 2 largest library systems in the US.

And please, when I cite something, I'll deceide whether its *standard* reference or not -- thanks though for help putting words in my mouth -- dolts have a habit of doing that, why's that Len ole pal?

You can decide for yourself if they're standard - hopefully you can come up with some that are more readily available.

When have I ever put words in your mouth. Since your foot is normally lodged there, leave little room for anything else. LOL

I forgot to post Part 3 of Healy's post from yesterday

Was it possible to have made the alterations before some frames appeared in Life? When exactly were the original and altered films switched? Was this before or after Zapruder made copies? Before or after he gave the copies and original to Life and the Secret Service? The contributors to TGZFH believe the frames that appeared in Life show signs of alteration and that more extensive alteration might have been done later so there would have been two switches actually several because there were various copies at that point.

dgh01: JCostella covers this quite nicely in the book

Does he? That's odd in light of your replies to me a few days ago

At first you claimed the work easily could have done in a few week but the forgers had months

2-3 weeks, 4 optical film lab techs, 2 matte painters, 1 glass painter and its done..... lest you or anyone forgets -- the intended audience for a forgery was the Warren Commission whom saw the film [some of them anyway] in February, late February '64....

Then when I pointed out that contributors to the book thought it was done that evening or weekend, you in disbelief asked me sarcastically for a citation.

Len Colby drones on

[...]

No, No scratch that you guys claim the whole thing was done that evening!!! So they must of had people poised!

[...]

Ah, who is YOU guys? And who said the film was edited that evening?

I need a cite for that, you do know what is, don't you?

I imagine you were quite embarrassed when I cited pages on Costella and Fetzer's site. Now after pressing you for four days you are telling us it was covered by Costella in the book!! So either

1. You didn't read Costella's chapters (until a couple of days ago) or you read them and forgot their contents OR

2. You're jiving us or both.

Assuming that it's true then I'm sure you could outline his((Costella's) theory for us. What qualifies Costella as an authority on what was and wasn't possible in film compositing in 63, the chain of possession of the Z- film?

How could the conspirators have been sure no one made copies with out them knowing it? If an 'unaltered' copied or less altered copy showed up it would have blown their conspiracy. Same goes for other home movies of the assassination, what if someone filmed it and released it to the media before they found out about it? From what I've read, that's what happen with the Muchmore film.

dgh01: many altered copies of the Z-film are in circulation, TODAY -- Take the MPI version for example, ask Gary about the problems with THAT version, VERSIONS actually

I read there are some differences between various versions of the Z – film. IIRC some are missing frames here and there etc. Do any of these versions show the kinds of adulteration that you allege were made while others don't? If so please cite specific examples and frames. Are any people or objects in different places or move differently? Does pincushion distortion vary from one to the other?

Also you only answered half my question – "Same goes for other home movies of the assassination, what if someone filmed it and released it to the media before they found out about it?"

What's wrong couldn't come up with any pat answers for that one?

Is there any reason to doubt Zavada's conclusion that the Z-film is a camera original and could not have been doctored?

Have you called Rollie, yet? Need his e-mail address? ROFLMFAO?

So are going to tell us he no longer believes the Z-film wasn't altered? If so don't be shy tell us about it.

dgh01: Whatever gave you THAT silly idea? I do believe your posting habits are familiar -- LOL!

Great non-answer Dave.

--I'll be away till Christmas so I might not be able to quickly reply to Healy or White's next posts--