Frank Agbat Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Thanks, John, for taking a look. My girlfriend threw the presentation up onto her free Mac page. I was gonna get my own webpage for the sucker, but I kept delaying it due to my concerns over some of the stuff that's crippled this Forum from time to time. I decided a Mac page would be safe. What I didn't realize until it was too late was that the Mac page uses a template that shrinks the page and makes the text even smaller. So I'm sorry for any inconvenience to your eyes. I had 20/20 vision going into this two years ago and now, 50,000 or so pages later, I need glasses. I'm still thinking of creating the webpage. I'm told there's a program that will change Power Point presentations into a web article. I was hoping to get some feedback and make some changes before I do something that drastic, however. Once again, thanks. Pat, I find myself a bit in the same situation as John. Before I can make intelligent comments, I have more to learn. Any lack of response on my part is certainly not from lack of interest! I downloaded the pdf files from your link, and am working my way through them. (Honestly, I have to read it when my wife and kids aren't around the computer. Some of the pictures are a bit much for them.) Bernice, There are two aspects upon which you touched that I find myself unable to reconcile. 1) The witness testimony/recollections from Parkland. While they do vary a bit on the location of the major skull defect, the majority place it far less anterior than the autopsy photos/x-rays. I admit to a lack of experience and knowledge in this area, but when I overlayed the x-rays with the Z-film, to my eye, they match quite well and consistently. Yet this does NOT match up with the majority of Parkland testimony, as I understand it. 2) The back-and-to-the-left motion still bothers me. With a background in physics and engineering, forces acting on objects, action/reaction considerations and the like are right up my alley. Yet, I have never heard an explanation that seems suitable or consistent. Intuition tells me that a shot from behind would tend to drive him more forward, directly down into Jackie's lap and that the ejecta would travel a slightly different path than it appears to. On the other hand, I've never seen an actual study of the back brace -- specifically, what direction of motion it allows, which it prevents, and the magnitude of the forces it can produce. Some explanation might lie in the "rubber-band effect" that the back brace may produce. That said, I've never understood why, if the film was altered, why this confusing motion wasn't removed, made less violent and noticeable, or changed completely to leave no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 (edited) Roland or Rollie Zavada spent many years working for Kodak as a product engineer,and film chemist, he was infact the scientist who innvented the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used to film the Kennnedy assassination. Below is an excert from his 6 page report concluding that the Zapruder film could not have been a forgery. Healy who apperently only knows how to do compositing on a computer will undoubtably claim Zavada doesn't know what he is talking about. ...Simply stated "There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-cameraoriginal" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto." The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc. Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03 http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf More to follow. How da ya like dem apples Dave? Edited December 19, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Interesting reading about the sprocket-hole area on the z-film, the mechanism of the camera, the "ghost images" and how they impact claims of alteration: http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/zapruder.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 (edited) Roland or Rollie Zavada spent many years working for Kodak as a product engineer,and film chemist, he was infact the scientist who innvented the Kodakcrome II film that Zapruder used to film the Kennnedy assassination. Below is an excert from his 6 page report concluding that the Zapruder film could not have been a forgery. Healy who apperently only knows how to do compositing on a computer will undoubtably claim Zavada doesn't know what he is talking about. ...Simply stated "There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-cameraoriginal" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto." The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc. Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03 http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf More to follow. How da ya like dem apples Dave? roflmfao! roflmfao Read HOAX - everything Rollie has to say was covered in the book, why do you think he deceided to pass on the UofMinn symposium? -- You're about 3 years late when it comes to possible Z-film alteration. So forget GaryM as a source.... rofl As soon as you tell me you've spoken to Rollie [as I have] we'll have something to talk about, till then you're just noise, Len. Not irritating, just noise! Your apples are mush, much like Agent Mush, er, Tony Marsh---- roflmao Edited December 20, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 David...it is ludricrous the way some people show their ignorance by criticizing a book THEY HAVE NOT READ!!! The shortcomings of the Zavada report are thoroughly discussed in TGZFH. And Tony Marsh admits his dad was an intel agent. ROTFACIUIABARDTHLOL! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) David...it is ludricrous the way some people show their ignorance by criticizing a book THEY HAVE NOT READ!!! The shortcomings of the Zavada report are thoroughly discussed in TGZFH. And Tony Marsh admits his dad was an intel agent. ROTFACIUIABARDTHLOL! Jack I just consider the source, Jack -- that's why I'm never disappointed.... :-) DVD's ship tomorrow PM Merry Christmas Edited December 20, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 20, 2005 Author Share Posted December 20, 2005 I just consider the source, Jack -- that's why I'm never disappointed.... :-)DVD's ship tomorrow PM Merry Christmas Is this an indication that you fellows have a financial interest in promoting these theories? (Just teasing--I know there's not much dough to be had on the conspiracy side. At least not these days... If you'd only created some animation "proving" that Oswald acted alone, then you'd be rolling in it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 I just consider the source, Jack -- that's why I'm never disappointed.... :-) DVD's ship tomorrow PM Merry Christmas Is this an indication that you fellows have a financial interest in promoting these theories? (Just teasing--I know there's not much dough to be had on the conspiracy side. At least not these days... If you'd only created some animation "proving" that Oswald acted alone, then you'd be rolling in it.) What sort of lame attack is this??? David at great personal effort videotaped the Duluth conference on the Zapruder film as a favor to Jim Fetzer. In his spare time, he edited all the video of the presenters into a continuous film, and after considerable time has finally finished the work. David and I neither have your presumed FINANCIAL INTEREST! However, I presume the DVDs will be available at a reasonable cost thru Dr. Fetzer, WHO ALSO WILL NOT PROFIT FROM THEM, since all income from JFK research is put back into further research. Accusations by the uninformed only reveal the paucity of their opinions. Shame! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 20, 2005 Author Share Posted December 20, 2005 What sort of lame attack is this???David at great personal effort videotaped the Duluth conference on the Zapruder film as a favor to Jim Fetzer. In his spare time, he edited all the video of the presenters into a continuous film, and after considerable time has finally finished the work. David and I neither have your presumed FINANCIAL INTEREST! However, I presume the DVDs will be available at a reasonable cost thru Dr. Fetzer, WHO ALSO WILL NOT PROFIT FROM THEM, since all income from JFK research is put back into further research. Accusations by the uninformed only reveal the paucity of their opinions. Shame! Jack Holy smokes, Jack. If you think that was an attack, you have serious problems. I was teasing... I certainly don't believe you or Healy are after the green. As a matter of fact, I doubt there's anyone on this Forum whose interest in the assassination has anything to do with money. My reference to making some animation was a reference to Dale Myers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) That your crew would attempt to discredit the Zavada Report doesn't surprise me it contradicts the premise of your book. Zavada is one of the world's leading experts on the technical aspects of movie film esp. 8mm and 16mm and esp. of Kodakcrome II which he invented. As far as I know neither Lifton nor any of you have anywhere near the expertise of Zavada so his opinion is suspect. Zavada's highly technical study showed that the copy of the original Z-film now in the in the National Achieves had to be a camera original based on such aspects as grain structure and contrast range and that it had to have been developed at the Dallas plant (and IIRC is time stamped at the time the Z-film was developed).Lifton shows his ignorance by stating that the altered film might have been processed at "Hawkeye works" . Zavada wrote, "I know of no Kodachrome processing available at Hawkeye (an equipment division)." Actually the excerpt and link I provided were not from Zavada's original and extensive report but rather from his response to Lifton's "rebuttal" of his report, so I guess YOU are behind the curve Dave!! Anthony Marsh didn't write Zavada's report so if he or his father is or were "Intelligence operatives" is irrelevant. He did however write the sprocket hole study cited by Frank and his father's former employment with intelligence services (even if true) is still irrelevant. The I link I provided might not work I think this is because of the "parsing" by the Ed. Forum's server http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf If the link indeed does work try cutting and pasting this but remove the extra 'h'. (hhttp://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf ) Zavada's bio can be found at http://www.jfk-info.com/zbio.pdf His complete report is here http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Two questions still remain unanswered: When exactly did the "conspirators" have time to make their forgery and switch it for the original? What exactly are Healy's qualifications as an expert of film compositing? He has refused to post any examples of work he has done and the composite he made for TGZFH to prove that such alteration was possible back in 1963 was done on a computer using Adobe AfterEffects!!!! Edited December 20, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) Colby meanders... [...] What exactly are Healy's qualifications as an expert of film compositing? He has refused to post any examples of work he has done and the composite he made for TGZFH to prove that such alteration was possible back in 1963 was done on a computer using Adobe AfterEffects!!!! ________ I do declah, Martha -- the gem DOES read, ROFLMAO! Now if he could only discredit SMPE/SMPTE documents as to what was possible, in fact actually performed in the field of special effects film cinematography and optical printing (for which OSCAR awards were presented for technical achivement) during the late 50's and early 60's, we'd be in business. And, those images (all of mine DUH!) in TGZFH were created in Photshop5 and Painter5, NOT AfterEffects!! What a moron! As it happens, I happen to be quite experienced in Adobe After Effects. A commercial film/video compositing software, which by-the-way put many, MANY optical film printing houses out of business. Get your disinfo straight I told you not to depend on sources such as Lamsom, Mack and da Tinkster -- Nor Wimp or Durnavich... Next you'll be telling me all about Pov-Ray .... Have you called Rollie, yet? Need his e-mail address? ROFLMFAO? I just consider the source, Jack -- that's why I'm never disappointed.... :-) DVD's ship tomorrow PM Merry Christmas Is this an indication that you fellows have a financial interest in promoting these theories? (Just teasing--I know there's not much dough to be had on the conspiracy side. At least not these days... If you'd only created some animation "proving" that Oswald acted alone, then you'd be rolling in it.) Haven't made a dime, Pat! Can't say that Oswald wasn't involved, either..... Z-film dispute is a side show... David Edited December 20, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) Jack's sensitive because attacking students of the case for being in it for financial gain is a standard tactic, including in the CIA Dispatch, "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report", 1 April 1967, which has been published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), as Appendix M. You might want to review it and see if it "fits" anyone on this forum. If anyone can figure out how to make some money out of this, then I'd like to know, because I'm currently running about 6 grand in the hole. What sort of lame attack is this??? David at great personal effort videotaped the Duluth conference on the Zapruder film as a favor to Jim Fetzer. In his spare time, he edited all the video of the presenters into a continuous film, and after considerable time has finally finished the work. David and I neither have your presumed FINANCIAL INTEREST! However, I presume the DVDs will be available at a reasonable cost thru Dr. Fetzer, WHO ALSO WILL NOT PROFIT FROM THEM, since all income from JFK research is put back into further research. Accusations by the uninformed only reveal the paucity of their opinions. Shame! Jack Holy smokes, Jack. If you think that was an attack, you have serious problems. I was teasing... I certainly don't believe you or Healy are after the green. As a matter of fact, I doubt there's anyone on this Forum whose interest in the assassination has anything to do with money. My reference to making some animation was a reference to Dale Myers... Edited December 20, 2005 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Colby meanders...[...] What exactly are Healy's qualifications as an expert of film compositing? He has refused to post any examples of work he has done and the composite he made for TGZFH to prove that such alteration was possible back in 1963 was done on a computer using Adobe AfterEffects!!!! ________ I do declah, Martha -- the gem DOES read, ROFLMAO! Now if he could only discredit SMPE/SMPTE documents as to what was possible, in fact actually performed in the field of special effects film cinematography and optical printing (for which OSCAR awards were presented for technical achivement) during the late 50's and early 60's, we'd be in business. And, those images (all of mine DUH!) in TGZFH were created in Photshop5 and Painter5, NOT AfterEffects!! What a moron! As it happens, I happen to be quite experienced in Adobe After Effects. A commercial film/video compositing software, which by-the-way put many, MANY optical film printing houses out of business. Get your disinfo straight 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. 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 business, 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. 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 "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. 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." 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. - 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! - Was it possible to do such compositing with small 8mm film? Zavada doubts this too. - 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. - 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. - 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. Dave try replying to all my points for once instead of cherry picking one or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) 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. [/size][/font] dgh01: irrelevant -and- irrelevant - Raymond Fielding is the published expert - evidently you CAN'T read magazines SMPE/SMPTE magazine in particular, nor the book called HOAX -OR- The art of Special Effects Cinematography 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 business, 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 -- you that much of a moron? 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..... the imaghes in the book have NOTHING to do with film resolution NADA, Zippo -- By-the-way can you tell ME the resolution (in pixels) of film? 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 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... You're not on peer level with JCostella, hell, nobody knows who the hell you are! "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? 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) 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. 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? Was it possible to do such compositing with small 8mm film? Zavada doubts this too. dgh01: read the book, it wasn't done in 8mm format -- You know, really - your unfamiliarairity with the book and the process[es] is quite telling here.... 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 -- 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 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! Dave try replying to all my points for once instead of cherry picking one or two? dgh01: your running out of time, er Mr. Colby from Brazil ROFLMAO!Do some research, ORIGINAL research for a change! Have a nice Xmas, Craig Edited December 20, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 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 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