David G. Healy Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 So what do we have, HERE? Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street. Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/? Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes.... the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage.... Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine] Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so.... I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here -- I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..." Hey Mr. Colby, EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same..... To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347.... note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 So what do we have, HERE?Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street. Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/? Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes.... the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage.... Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine] Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so.... I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here -- I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..." Hey Mr. Colby, EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same..... To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347.... note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience -- And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... Right! So it appears that David Healy is saying that film alteration could be done so well back in 63/64 that it basically put experts out of business ... that motion blur between frames could not be detected when spliced into one another ... that Zapruder's constant up and down tilting of the camera which bends the vertical lines between frames could be altered by mere splicing in such a way that no one could tell that it was ever done ... and that the cut lines such as those around Clint Hill which stick out like a sore thumb against Altgens clothing would go unnoticed - did I get that right? Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator Edited January 26, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 So what do we have, HERE? Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street. Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/? Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes.... the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage.... Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine] Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so.... I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here -- I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..." Hey Mr. Colby, EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same..... To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347.... note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience -- And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... I expected as much from you, evidently artisty is a misconception for you -- I await Roland Zavada -- and Raymond Fielding's comments -- those that may have a modicum of knowledge regarding the film printing craft. I'll also say with utmost of respect -- I think both these gentleman will have to consult others they know in the optical film printing craft. I'll also hasten to remind you, in particular -- because Roland Zavada is/was Kodak's go to guy regarding 8mm film properties, doesn't mean he knew how to thread a 35 mm projector.... As for my computer skills --- done me pretty good for the last 20 years -- I doubt you even know what Painter IX, not to mention After Effects nor MOTION nor 3D Studio nor POV-Ray and YES, Lightwave GOD bless those toaster folks truck on Photog - truck on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... Right! So it appears that David Healy is saying that film alteration could be done so well back in 63/64 that it basically put experts out of business ... that motion blur between frames could not be detected when spliced into one another ... that Zapruder's constant up and down tilting of the camera which bends the vertical lines between frames could be altered by mere splicing in such a way that no one could tell that it was ever done ... and that the cut lines such as those around Clint Hill which stick out like a sore thumb against Altgens clothing would go unnoticed - did I get that right? Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator _______________ David Healy is observaing and stating; yes, alteration could be done to the point of being non-detectable, and CERTAINLY not detectable (by the uninitiated) when a film is running at 10fps, 18.3 fps, 24 fps, 29.98fps and 30fps Thanks for recognizing the 15 minute achivements... imagine what would happen in todays timing with 45 minutes and a computer... we'd be arguing over the grass texture, that's a easy fix too! Lest you or anyone else around here forgets, NO one, least that I know or have heard of has done any, ANY forensic testing on the alledged Z-film, nor has there been report of same. Nor has any individual that I know of held the alledged Z-film in their hands, including those at the 6th floor museum, much less put it to the test that which Moe Weitzman [sp.?] suggests in his HSCA testimony.... You do know who Moe Weitzman [sp.?] is, correct? 1st, what experts were put out of business in 63/64? 2nd, as a artist/cartoonist I suspect you know what travelling mattes are? 3rd, Are you suggesting *feathering* around a mattes edges was impossible in 63-64? Be careful, this isn't your typical cartoon cell animation! Makes no differences, what's in the way of incoming images -- incoming replace all outgoing imagery Tell me, WHO praytell would be looking for motion blur in 63/64? WHO considered that the Zapruder film was altered, or hinted it was during the time period between 63/64 till 1967? No one I suspect.... You're premise is faulty, you assume, ASSUME the alledged Zapruder camera original is just that THE original, of course if you're a WC defender... -- I'm not hindered with either of those burden -- I assume little regarding this murder, other than Kennedy's was shot dead in Dealey Plaza -- and that includes the evidence of same -- ALL of it As for shakey Abe's camera work? Makes the job that much easier, not harder -- Post me and the rest of the lurkers; a clear and concise time line of ownership re: the Zapruder camera original film, the exact place it was stored, who handled it from 22 November 1963 thru TODAY (with affidavit) . Should be pretty simple, the most viewed film, in the history of FILM.... Make that job a little easier -- I'm more interested up Nov 22nd till LIFE turned the film back over to the Zapruder family... Everyone knows the Z-film was altered after that date, thanks to MPI! Not to forget -- who was the LIFE film operator that was responsible for the two breaks in the alledged Zapruder camera original film.... Edited January 26, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) So what do we have, HERE? Simple, we have a composite COMP frame 347/357 posted last, Z-347 and Z-357 are the first two images posted here. Effectively, what took place in the limo (Z-347] has been moved ahead by 1/2+ of a second, 10 frames to [Z-357]....what took place place in the limo is moved further down Elm Street. Z-fram Images came from Fetzer's site, see: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/? Z347 and Z-357 have been included in the upload for reference purposes.... the object of this task is to SHOW foreground imagery (this case, BELOW Elm Street curb *plus* occupants/limo parts) the lower matte can be slid up OR down Elm Street) through the use of optical film printing, matte and or glass painting circa. 1963-64 vintage.... Using Painter IX on a Apple G5 dual 2.0Ghz computer with 2.5 gig of RAM this simple exercise took 15 minutes for processing (cutting matte lines - preparing counter matte) no tweaking was done to the layers i.e., feathered edges. Touch up matte painting would of been required in '63 -- but then that's what studio artists were for, after all, to quote someone hereabouts -- "...photography IS a art form..."... [emphasis mine] Contrary to what newbies to film post-production, for that matter ANY type of motion media post-production understand -- matte painting and glass painting was perfected and used for FIXING a multitude of problems within the confines of film frames. Individual frames, or thousands of frames The combined image (Comp frame 347/357 shows the result - a composite of foreground Z-347 background Z-357 -- now, nay-sayers will say: "hey, anyone can do that today, what about 1963-64?" Well of course anyone can do it today, if they know how -- so.... I'll claim right here, in black and white: it was possible in 1963 to accomplish same through optical film printing, traveling matte and glass painting exactly what has been digitally recreated here -- I invite Roland Zavada -- Raymond Fielding and/or ANYONE else in or out of the commercial film industry to **CITE**, for the record, "1963-64 optical film printing crafts people, including the matte painters and glass artists could NOT accomplish this simple feat - then explain WHY..." Hey Mr. Colby, EVERY movie during the 20's - 30's - 40's - 50's - 60's - 70's and most of the 80's used optical film printing techniques -- all YOU gott'a do man, is open up Fielding's 1st edition 1964-65 book. Cover to cover, it show circa '63 and earlier examples -- not to mention the index lists SMPE/SMPTE examples, quotes, studio debates, lawsuits regarding industry optical film printing secrets concerning the same..... To recap: comp frame 347/357 image: top half (grass area above curb) comes from Z-357 -- bottom half (Elm Street curb and below) comes from Z-347 note: body and limo parts extending into the grass area comes from Z-347.... note: obviously this comp needs a bit of work, there's 4 places that need a brush -- and yes in 1963 you can feather a image lines -- just gotta read Fielding -- but hey today, it's the internet-- all the three included files were downloaded in .jpg format, saved and reworked in .pict format then re-saved in .jpeg format at 85% -- The Warren Commission isn't seated so I no longer have the intended audience -- And this brings what to the table David? Other than to show that your computer comp skills are crap? And of course the BIG question is when are you actually going to do this ON FILM? What you posted is meaningless and very poorly done I might add. I'm glad this was not for a paying customer..... I expected as much from you, evidently artisty is a misconception for you -- I await Roland Zavada -- and Raymond Fielding's comments -- those that may have a modicum of knowledge regarding the film printing craft. I'll also say with utmost of respect -- I think both these gentleman will have to consult others they know in the optical film printing craft. I'll also hasten to remind you, in particular -- because Roland Zavada is/was Kodak's go to guy regarding 8mm film properties, doesn't mean he knew how to thread a 35 mm projector.... As for my computer skills --- done me pretty good for the last 20 years -- I doubt you even know what Painter IX, not to mention After Effects nor MOTION nor 3D Studio nor POV-Ray and YES, Lightwave GOD bless those toaster folks truck on Photog - truck on So lets recap..you show as a very poorly done comp created on a computer and tell us this indicates its possible to alter the zapruder film on film in a manner that will not be detectable when studied as still frames. Good grief David you really are grasping for straws. Your silly claim is like me taking a drink of orange juice and proclaiming diet coke is sweet. What a stupid argument. No wonder you are precieved as a tinfoil hat kind of guy. As for your computer skills, all I can say, based on the only examples you have posted in regards to the zapruder film, is that you suck. This last piece is horrid. I've seen better work by my 15 year old neice. So go ahead and toss around all the big sounding terms you think makes you look like an authority...your actual work as posted makes you look like a hack. You sure did your dads company proud on this one LOL! Maybe you should stick to cowboys and horsies.... Edited January 26, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 David Healy is observaing and stating; yes, alteration could be done to the point of being non-detectable, and CERTAINLY not detectable (by the uninitiated) when a film is running at 10fps, 18.3 fps, 24 fps, 29.98fps and 30fps Thanks for recognizing the 15 minute achivements... imagine what would happen in todays timing with 45 minutes and a computer... we'd be arguing over the grass texture, that's a easy fix too! I think that most everyone is more interested in what "easy fix" tools they had in 1963/64. Besides, if you are going to promote how easy altering a film was in 1963/64, then you should do a half way good job in 2006 just to make what you are saying appear somewhat credible. Tell me, WHO praytell would be looking for motion blur in 63/64? WHO considered that the Zapruder film was altered, or hinted it was during the time period between 63/64 till 1967? No one I suspect.... But this is 2006 and still as you have said ... there is no proof that you've seen that the Zapruder film has been altered. All we have is someone claiming that it was possible 43 years ago and not showing a very good job of doing it himself with todays tools. You're premise is faulty, you assume, ASSUME the alledged Zapruder camera original is just that THE original, of course if you're a WC defender... And you assume that the Zapruder film is possibly altered though you cannot pinpoint any evidence to support your thinking. As for shakey Abe's camera work? Makes the job that much easier, not harder -- Yeh right ... it makes it so easy that you failed miserably at it. Post me and the rest of the lurkers; a clear and concise time line of ownership re: the Zapruder camera original film, the exact place it was stored, who handled it from 22 November 1963 thru TODAY (with affidavit) . Should be pretty simple, the most viewed film, in the history of FILM.... Make that job a little easier -- I'm more interested up Nov 22nd till LIFE turned the film back over to the Zapruder family... Ahhhh ... back to 'I think it is possible that the moon is made of cheese, so prove to me it is not' way of thinking. So it appears that we waited for you to do as you always do and that is to say you are going to show us something and it turns out being a joke. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) David Healy is observaing and stating; yes, alteration could be done to the point of being non-detectable, and CERTAINLY not detectable (by the uninitiated) when a film is running at 10fps, 18.3 fps, 24 fps, 29.98fps and 30fpsThanks for recognizing the 15 minute achivements... imagine what would happen in todays timing with 45 minutes and a computer... we'd be arguing over the grass texture, that's a easy fix too! I think that most everyone is more interested in what "easy fix" tools they had in 1963/64. Besides, if you are going to promote how easy altering a film was in 1963/64, then you should do a half way good job in 2006 just to make what you are saying appear somewhat credible. Tell me, WHO praytell would be looking for motion blur in 63/64? WHO considered that the Zapruder film was altered, or hinted it was during the time period between 63/64 till 1967? No one I suspect.... But this is 2006 and still as you have said ... there is no proof that you've seen that the Zapruder film has been altered. All we have is someone claiming that it was possible 43 years ago and not showing a very good job of doing it himself with todays tools. You're premise is faulty, you assume, ASSUME the alledged Zapruder camera original is just that THE original, of course if you're a WC defender... And you assume that the Zapruder film is possibly altered though you cannot pinpoint any evidence to support your thinking. As for shakey Abe's camera work? Makes the job that much easier, not harder -- Yeh right ... it makes it so easy that you failed miserably at it. Post me and the rest of the lurkers; a clear and concise time line of ownership re: the Zapruder camera original film, the exact place it was stored, who handled it from 22 November 1963 thru TODAY (with affidavit) . Should be pretty simple, the most viewed film, in the history of FILM.... Make that job a little easier -- I'm more interested up Nov 22nd till LIFE turned the film back over to the Zapruder family... Ahhhh ... back to 'I think it is possible that the moon is made of cheese, so prove to me it is not' way of thinking. So it appears that we waited for you to do as you always do and that is to say you are going to show us something and it turns out being a joke. Bill __________________ Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch... So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? "Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples.... All this nonsense from those that have no conception what I'm talking about -- I suppose I should apologize for not making myself clear enouugh -- considering the sources and nearly 3 years since HOAX, I won't --- Have you got in touch with Mr. Zavada or Mr. Fielding either one? Either will do... -- maybe Pat Speer can dig up someone in LA that has a *optical* credit or two -- Certainly naysayers currently posting to this thread haven't any credibility re the subject matter. It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there -- As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember? so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game... Edited January 27, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch... So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? Your position is so idiotic that it is little wonder that you are the only person I ever hear carrying on about it. I don't see fraud in the some of the worlds most priceless art, so should I expect them to hand some pieces over to me for inspection so I can validate what I don't see - that's plain 'stupid talk' IMO. "Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples.... That book (The Great Zapruder Hoax) was crap! I wasted good money on a book claiming all this film and photo alteration when there was none there to be found. It appears that after reading the book - you also came to the same conclusion as well ... so why keep telling people to read something that didn't do what it claimed it would. It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there -- As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember? If you want to know about the Zapruder film ... read Richard Trask's new book. As far as waiting for you ... I believe that is what you who asked us to do just that in a previous post ... should I go back and read it to you? so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game... You have yet to show anyone anything - so what are we supposed to dispute? Your examples were so bad that a half blind chimp would have reasoned through the differences in just minutes. Now who has wasted who's time? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited January 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) TOP POST CRAP? Oh, my. Does this mean, yes or no: you HAVE educated yourself regarding Optical film printing - you can speak with authority and address the subject matter --- an aside: it's been my experience when it comes to anything JFK, those that wail the loudest about publications are those that have not read the publication -- Your professional qualifications as a "photo researcher are? Somehow that's never been discussed in public -- why is that? I'm sure lurkers would like to know... referring to me as "idiotic" does not endear you with those researchers that are looking for answers nor simple endorsements of the status quo-- most researchers here [and elsewhere] know how the discredit game is played.... your providing the perfect example.... crap - idiotic (whats next) so professional Oh, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? you forgot to answer that one Hi Gary! How's the new job going? ______________________________________ Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years -- I haven't seen, touched or inspected the alleged camera original film much to my chagrin, why would I claim otherwise -- WAS it possible? Now THAT'S another story -- of course it was POSSIBLE.... makes one wonder what all the howlings' about whenever Z-film possible OR outright alteration is brought up.... $16 million dollars for a film no one can see or touch... So, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? Your position is so idiotic that it is little wonder that you are the only person I ever hear carrying on about it. I don't see fraud in the some of the worlds most priceless art, so should I expect them to hand some pieces over to me for inspection so I can validate what I don't see - that's plain 'stupid talk' IMO. "Easy fix tools"? Why Bill, you haven't read the book HOAX have you? Very complicated tools and some, not so complicated tools, all to do easy fixes, if one knows how.... Hundreds of examples.... That book (The Great Zapruder Hoax) was crap! I wasted good money on a book claiming all this film and photo alteration when there was none there to be found. It appears that after reading the book - you also came to the same conclusion as well ... so why keep telling people to read something that didn't do what it claimed it would. It's very simple, Bill you're the expert in Dealey Plaza films .gif-.jpeg thumbnail animations....and all the compression artifacts that goes with it, -- post the official Z-film time line, we'll procede from there -- As for, "Wait for me?" Should I be impressed that you and Lamson wait for me? ROFLMFAO.... You actually think I'm doing you bidding -- get real man, you're defending the Z-film, AND why it wasn't altered, remember? If you want to know about the Zapruder film ... read Richard Trask's new book. As far as waiting for you ... I believe that is what you who asked us to do just that in a previous post ... should I go back and read it to you? so, for the last time: get someone with post film credits here that will tell me I'm talking the impossible -- post haste! You and Lamson have wasted enough LURKER time - there's a few around here that have caught on to the game... You have yet to show anyone anything - so what are we supposed to dispute? Your examples were so bad that a half blind chimp would have reasoned through the differences in just minutes. Now who has wasted who's time? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited January 27, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 TOP POST CRAP? Oh, my. Does this mean, yes or no: you HAVE educated yourself regarding Optical film printing - you can speak with authority and address the subject matter --- an aside: it's been my experience when it comes to anything JFK, those that wail the loudest about publications are those that have not read the publication -- Your professional qualifications as a "photo researcher are? Somehow that's never been discussed in public -- why is that? I'm sure lurkers would like to know... referring to me as "idiotic" does not endear you with those researchers that are looking for answers nor simple endorsements of the status quo-- most researchers here [and elsewhere] know how the discredit game is played.... your providing the perfect example.... crap - idiotic (whats next) so professional Oh, when was the Zapruder film last laced up on a projector, again? you forgot to answer that one Hi Gary! How's the new job going? It doesn't take a genius to address the garbage illustrations that you posted, but to answer your question - yes, I have been educating myself over optical printers by speaking to experts who have used them. I hope to be able to make some captures from a movie Disney did in an effort to show that even the best in the land could not do what you have suggested. I should know if it I can do it by later today. By the way, are you suffering from some mental disorder? You take my post and then address me as Gary ... I assume you mean Gary Mack who everyone knows that DOES NOT post on these forums, but regardless, why make such stupid remarks for all it shows is that you are either constantly suffering from confusion or you are just a paranoid nut case. So in the future ... try to address the correct poster and not be playing the role of the forum idiot. If you cannot take this case seriously, then why be here at all. Bill Miller JFK asassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don’t think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the “Four Questions” one. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...771entry51771 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Duncan, apart from the color adjusrtments, sooner or later someone would notice the duplication of the mc cop. The feathering isn't all that precise either. Also the perspective and the location of it in front of the SS guys and so on gives it a 'doesn't make sense' quality that's quite different from the frame by frame changes from just tilting the camera lens slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Duncan, I don't mean the feahering is bad, I just mean it extends unevenly into the surround and is not undetectable. However it's the 'illogicality' that particularly makes the change stand out. There's no room for the twin cop there. Sizing and overall sense makes it an easy 'fake' to spot. Perpective/size/shading and light changes that occur with just slight changes of position of an object like that is hard to duplicate in a thoroughly convincing way. I think it's agood idea to try though. It helps to refine processes and understanding for spotting real fakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Poor Healy was doing so poorly on the other thread he started a new one as a distraction. Nice try Dave I don’t think it will work. I propose that no one else responds to this thread and we instead continue debate on the “Four Questions” one. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...771entry51771 a prime example of shuck and jive -- Mr. Colby da dufus be back .... you might want to place your bonifides right below here -- we'd like to know you INexperience re motion picture film and processing and manipulation of same, if you have any experience please let us know... till you demonstrate your *expertise* just step over there and play in Bill Miller's sandbox.... 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