David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 Top Post chow, south of the border -- you've only been a slight nusiance, served a purpose, thanks binLadden???? where you posting from loser, Terhan? Save it! Nice company you keep, Miller! Where's the varsity? to the 'tard pit with dear ole Len -- <plonk> ---------------------- Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum. He made more sense than Healy in "Bedtime for Bonzo" too! Healy avoids answering questions he doesn't have a glib answer to like bin-Ladden avoids pork chops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others here were, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation? A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site, and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB. Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Old retired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job. Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels". These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Top Post If I have to see a cite that -- you have even less knowledge about optical film printing and cinematography special effects than I thought -- ALL titles, every film has special effects -- Miller get rid of this guy -- he's pure embarassment for you..... Yeah sure re Zavada -- get him over here, why's a little ole editor, one he's spoken with before scared off -- we had great conversations -- now speed on down to the last post I addressed from you -- I'm finished with you, your dismissed.... In case you don't read that last post <plonk> I think you know what that means Mr. Colby wroteCould such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. [...] ______________ then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here: put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time! Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk... help this guy out Craig..... Throwing around these guy's names like you do can get nasty stateside.... where are you again? So let's start will Roland do you need his phone number, email address?..... Dave if you had been paying attention you would know that I am in touch with Zavada. He OKed the text of the post in which I cited his and Feilding's position concerning alteration of the Z-film. Zavada's position that the Z-film sould not have been faked is online I posted the link several times already. As for Fielding's opinion, I reported what Rollie Zavada told me, do think I'm making it up or he is? If you think I'm making it up e-mail Rollie and ask him to confirm it. If he says I made it up you have scored quite the coup. On ther other hand if he confirms what I said you have to admit Fielding disagrees with you or assert that Rollie is being deceptive. So go ahead e-mail Rollie today and ask him if my post reflected his views, if he says otherwise post his reply here. What do you say, is a week enough for you to hear back from him? If you remain silent on the subject we can all assume he confirmed what I said. He doesn't really want to get involved in this absurb debate, can't say that I blame him. Speaking of being deceptive Rollie was not happy about your insinuation that be backed away from his position that the Z-film is a camera original. He told me he was going to e-mail you about that, did you get the message yet? Your double standard is amusing, you ask me for cites but keep insisting that Fielding's book backs you position without providing any quotes. I quoted Sobel as an after though along with Zavada, Fielding and Stone, his resume is quite impresive and imagine far more so than yours, his IMDb listing has 30+ movies/TV series on it I imagine many of those use optical printing, have you seen everything his made? As for bonafides we're still waiting for us to tell you about your experience. Can you explain to us how the "forgers" were able to composite the "altered" z-film without any errors when Disney was unable to? Jack and Costella cited Mary Poppins and other Disney classics as evidence that such fakery was possible - until your mention Citizen Kane IIRC all the films you side cited were Disney productions. How were they able to do so without any matte lines when George Lucas was unable to do so almnost 20 years later. Let's not forget that would have had only a few hours to do the initial alterations. PS - Any luck on explaining how they secretly developed a roll a Kodachrome at 3 AM? EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects I'll need a cite for that, Every film made since 1926? Are you sure? Earlier you said every film made from the 20 - 70 used them. So if we are to believe you every film made 1920 -present has optical special effects In that case Sobel should be quite the authority he directed about 13 and editted 3 of those. Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others herewere, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation? A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site, and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB. Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Old retired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job. Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels". These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work. Jack they're figments of their wild imaginations, Jack Zavada teamed up with a guy from Brazil? Next we'll hear this guy is a charter member of SMPTE roflmfao I'll email Rollie the post.... Gary's busy again.... Lamson wrote: Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork. __________________ It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! "No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork." You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO! Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer. Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL! well Craigster -- you really mean its THE art? That same art utilized by optical film printer technicians, that art? Can't quite get around to discussing the issue, can you? By the way, what do you know about art? --the whiners moan and moan and MOAN -- tell me all about 8 and 10 bit color Craigster -- I need a lesson? Why not post a swimming motorhome or a flying boat -- got any stock footage your selling along those lines.... ROFLMFAO! Edited January 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others herewere, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation? I repeat the same questions because you ang Healy don't answer for them. As for obnoxiousness I'll leavce that up to you and David. We're still waiting for you to cite a movie not made by Disney to support your theory. There are a few problems with those Disney films 1) As Bill pointed out they have many flaws - they probaly were noticed by most movie goers 2) Most if not all look fake to the naked eye 3) None of them use compositing as intricate as alleged in Z-film. 4) I assume but am not sure that matte lines would show up if they were closely examined What exactly is pro CIA about my posts or thise of others who wish to debunk your BS why are you people so "passionate" about promoting it. I~m motivated by my distaste for nosense prading as truth and other forms of BS, as for the others I imagine it is to find out the truth about what happened in DP Nov. 22 '63, your bunk is a distraction from that. Do you think Ron, John Dolva and Pat etc. are CIA agents too? LOL A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site,and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB Who did the time study Jack you? Did you use the same methodology as you silly Apollo "time/motion" studies? I'd like to see a citation for the study Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Oldretired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job. Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels". These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work. Fetzer also insiuated that I was a CIA agent - don't kid yourselves it doesn't take that much time to debunk you! As you pointed out I have to do is repeat myself since you refuse to adreess the points I raise. Jack. I also seriously doubt that the CIA/NSA etc would waste their time keeping track of you and try to debun k you again you give yourself too much credit. You seem to be sufffering from paranoid delusion of grandure. Top PostIf I have to see a cite that -- you have even less knowledge about optical film printing and cinematography special effects than I thought -- ALL titles, every film has special effects -- Miller get rid of this guy -- he's pure embarassment for you..... Dave you don't get it you're an emarrasement to yourself. I'll email Rollie the post.... Gary's busy again... I'm eagerly awaiting for you to tell us what he tells you. I have sneeking suspicion that won't be happening anytime soon LOL. Edited January 28, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Top PostIf I have to see a cite that -- you have even less knowledge about optical film printing and cinematography special effects than I thought -- ALL titles, every film has special effects -- Miller get rid of this guy -- he's pure embarassment for you..... Yeah sure re Zavada -- get him over here, why's a little ole editor, one he's spoken with before scared off -- we had great conversations -- now speed on down to the last post I addressed from you -- I'm finished with you, your dismissed.... In case you don't read that last post <plonk> I think you know what that means Mr. Colby wroteCould such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of oth er movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. [...] ______________ then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here: put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time! Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk... help this guy out Craig..... Throwing around these guy's names like you do can get nasty stateside.... where are you again? So let's start will Roland do you need his phone number, email address?..... Dave if you had been paying attention you would know that I am in touch with Zavada. He OKed the text of the post in which I cited his and Feilding's position concerning alteration of the Z-film. Zavada's position that the Z-film sould not have been faked is online I posted the link several times already. As for Fielding's opinion, I reported what Rollie Zavada told me, do think I'm making it up or he is? If you think I'm making it up e-mail Rollie and ask him to confirm it. If he says I made it up you have scored quite the coup. On ther other hand if he confirms what I said you have to admit Fielding disagrees with you or assert that Rollie is being deceptive. So go ahead e-mail Rollie today and ask him if my post reflected his views, if he says otherwise post his reply here. What do you say, is a week enough for you to hear back from him? If you remain silent on the subject we can all assume he confirmed what I said. He doesn't really want to get involved in this absurb debate, can't say that I blame him. Speaking of being deceptive Rollie was not happy about your insinuation that be backed away from his position that the Z-film is a camera original. He told me he was going to e-mail you about that, did you get the message yet? Your double standard is amusing, you ask me for cites but keep insisting that Fielding's book backs you position without providing any quotes. I quoted Sobel as an after though along with Zavada, Fielding and Stone, his resume is quite impresive and imagine far more so than yours, his IMDb listing has 30+ movies/TV series on it I imagine many of those use optical printing, have you seen everything his made? As for bonafides we're still waiting for us to tell you about your experience. Can you explain to us how the "forgers" were able to composite the "altered" z-film without any errors when Disney was unable to? Jack and Costella cited Mary Poppins and other Disney classics as evidence that such fakery was possible - until your mention Citizen Kane IIRC all the films you side cited were Disney productions. How were they able to do so without any matte lines when George Lucas was unable to do so almnost 20 years later. Let's not forget that would have had only a few hours to do the initial alterations. PS - Any luck on explaining how they secretly developed a roll a Kodachrome at 3 AM? EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects I'll need a cite for that, Every film made since 1926? Are you sure? Earlier you said every film made from the 20 - 70 used them. So if we are to believe you every film made 1920 -present has optical special effects In that case Sobel should be quite the authority he directed about 13 and editted 3 of those. Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others herewere, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation? A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site, and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB. Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Old retired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job. Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels". These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work. Jack they're figments of their wild imaginations, Jack Zavada teamed up with a guy from Brazil? Next we'll hear this guy is a charter member of SMPTE roflmfao I'll email Rollie the post.... Gary's busy again.... Lamson wrote: Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork. __________________ It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! "No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork." You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO! Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer. Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL! well Craigster -- you really mean its THE art? That same art utilized by optical film printer technicians, that art? Can't quite get around to discussing the issue, can you? By the way, what do you know about art? --the whiners moan and moan and MOAN -- tell me all about 8 and 10 bit color Craigster -- I need a lesson? Why not post a swimming motorhome or a flying boat -- got any stock footage your selling along those lines.... ROFLMFAO! Lets define the ART shall we David. It seems you do need a lesson. A matte is art, a glass painting is art, an animation cell is art, a masked continous tone image is art...and all of it must be perfect to create a composite that is undetectable as a composite. It matters not a witt if said composite is created on an optical printer, an animation stand, under an enlarger or even a lightbox and a brownie camera. Humans create this art and as such its prone to errors. Hell even your two attempts at composites have been riddled with error and you produced them on a computer. Have you ever assembled the art reguired to create a composite ON FILM and actually put them together ON FILM and had them stand up at high magnification? I did'nt think so. 8 bit color? 10 bit color? My are you backwards....my camera raws convert to 16 bit color...can work in 32 bit color if I want too....8 bit color? LOL! you vidoe guys living in a cave? My website is filled with computer comps, my pbase page as well...have at it David...I'm an open book on my work. You on the other hand...well lets just say we've been waiting a long time to see some of your film composites, but after seeing how poor you are WITH A COMPUTER I can understand why you have yet to post any....you don't have any! LOL! Pretty weak here as well: www.netstarproductions.com I can see why you would want to keep that a secret! ROTFLMAO! Back to the bench David, you wiffed again. Edited January 28, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Mr. Colby was never booted off of JFKresearch Forum. But several others herewere, for repeatedly posting repetitive obnoxious crap about their pro-CIA lone nut "the govt is pure" stances. Mr. Colby certainly fits the mold. Why are these people so "passionate" about protecting the official lie? What is their stake in perpetuating the myth? What is their motivation? A time study was done of their lengthy postings on the JFKresearch site, and it was found that to read, write and post the lengthy messages some of them were posting 24 hours a day, their messages took more than 8 hours a day...LIKE THEY WERE WORKING AT A FULL TIME JOB. Some wonder about the actual identity of some of these people. Old retired guys like me can spend all day doing this. But young guys like Colby surely have work or better things to do...unless this IS their job. Some say all these messages are written in a basement in Langley where the nameplate on the door says "Family Jewels". These people may not actually exist. Somebody monitoring JFK forums 24 hours a day may be the ones actually doing all the work. Jack LOL! Whenever Jack White and his "boys" find their tit in a wringer they drag out the ...must be cia... routine. Its pretty sad really that a grown man like White has to run around like this with a tinfoil hat on his head! Grow up Jack! Edited January 28, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) LOL! Whenever Jack White and his "boys" find their tit in a wringer they drag out the ...must be cia... routine. Its pretty sad really that a grown man like White has to run around like this with a tinfoil hat on his head! Grow up Jack! Jack is a babbling fool suffering from paranoia ... best to ignore him these days. On a more important matter ... I brought up David Healy and his optical printer claims to Groden today and needless to say Robert didn't have anything good to say about their alleged knowledge of the subject. Groden's main theme is that they don't know squat about film, which is the other half of the argument. Robert said that Kodachrome II film has very poor duplicating capabilities. Groden went on to say that these guys do not understand that the small 8mm Zapruder film frames would have first to be turned into 35mm film so to have a large enough image to work on it. Then that film would have to be turned back into 8mm film once again. Robert said that an expert would see the lost contrast in that type of film in just one transfer, he said two transfers would be even more noticeable and undeniable. Groden went on to say that in 1976, he and another guy was working for a company that went to Life to see the film. Robert said that he was allowed to look at the original Zapruder film. Robert said he held the film and examined it thoroughly under magnification. He mentioned the tell tale signs of that particular film being the camera original right down to the actual splices still being on the film where they mended it. Groden said that there was no question that he held the camera original Zapruder film and that it had not been transfered from another film in any way shape or form. Bill Miller JFK asassination researcher/investigator Edited January 29, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Here are some interesting remarks made about the Mary Poppins movie of 1964 ... "To those who are skeptical that photographic techniques could have been equal to the task at the time, I am fond of pointing out that the film, Mary Poppins, with it's many special effects, was released in 1964."- James Fetzer, Assassination Science, 1998, p. 371. Note that the examples I posted, and many more, show that the special expertise Fetzer thinks existed were, in fact, not good enough to fool even the most novice viewer. "A classic use of the traveling matte, appeared in the movie, Mary Poppins, in which a similar process was used, frame by frame, to insert animated figures into live action scenes." - David Mantik, Assassination Science, 1998, p. 334. But all of the frames I posted show that in those days, the insertion of figures was easily detectable by even the most novice viewer. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 David; If I may interject a few facts, perhaps they may open a door or two for others. 1. In Z349, one can see that the handrail post on the Nellie Connally side of the Presidential Limousine has just come into alignment with the leading edge of the yellow stripe in the background of the film, which was painted on the concrete curb of Elm St. 2. If one follows the film until such time as this same alignment comes into sequence for the next yellow stripe, they will find that this occurs at approximately Z379. Therefore, accordingly, we have 30 frames of the film exposed through this distance. This distance, down the center of Elm St. equates to a travelled distance of approximately 38 feet Therefore, we can state that, according to the Z film, the vehicle traversed this distance at a rate of 1.266666 feet per exposed frame of the film, which ultimately comes to approximately 15.8 MPH. Now, if we continue on with these calculations we find: 3. In Z379, we pick up with the handrail post on the leading edge of the yellow curb mark in the background of the film. 4. In Z390, we see that the handrail post has come into alignment with the leading edge of the concrete curb drain inlet cover in the background, for an exposure of 11 additional frames of the Z film. However, the distance travelled by the Presidential Limousine down the center of Elm St for this 11 frame exposure is approximately 19 feet in the 11 exposed frames. Which of course comes to 1.727272 feet of distance covered for every frame of the film. Which ultimately equates to a speed of approximately 21.55 MPH through this less than 1 second period of time. Therefore, one must again question the acceleration capabilities of the Presidential Limousine, and especially why acceleration of this intensity did not throw Jackie completely off the trunk of the vehicle. Tom We have discussed some of this previously. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0entry34951 By the way, to the best of my recollection, was't the curb inlet removed and completely covered over? Tom, I've checked your calculations and come up with something different. (Obviously mine needs checking as well.) One must take into account the foreshortening or whatever its called when judging where the limo actually is. Estimating where it is perpendicularly opposite the land marks paints a different picture. 350 to 381 31 frames in 38 feet 38 feet in 1.66 seconds x feet in 3600 seconds 15.54 mph 381 to 394/395 0.75 seconds to travel 19 feet 3600 seconds to travel x feet 17.2 mph I bump this one just in case Tom missed it, it needs checking I think. My calculations puts it in a different light. I may very well have made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I brought up David Healy and his optical printer claims to Groden today and needless to say Robert didn't have anything good to say about their alleged knowledge of the subject. Groden's main theme is that they don't know squat about film, which is the other half of the argument. Robert said that Kodachrome II film has very poor duplicating capabilities. Groden went on to say that these guys do not understand that the small 8mm Zapruder film frames would have first to be turned into 35mm film so to have a large enough image to work on it. Then that film would have to be turned back into 8mm film once again. Robert said that an expert would see the lost contrast in that type of film in just one transfer, he said two transfers would be even more noticeable and undeniable.Groden went on to say that in 1976, he and another guy was working for a company that went to Life to see the film. Robert said that he was allowed to look at the original Zapruder film. Robert said he held the film and examined it thoroughly under magnification. He mentioned the tell tale signs of that particular film being the camera original right down to the actual splices still being on the film where they mended it. Groden said that there was no question that he held the camera original Zapruder film and that it had not been transfered from another film in any way shape or form. Zavada also closely examined the original Zapruder film and came to the exact same conclusion, but Healy, Costella etc. think they know more about the subject than the inventor of Kodachrome II! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) dgh01: then surely you have a reference of someone, ANYONE that did the same inspection of the Zapruder frames, I'll give you a break here anytime after 1968 and before 2000? Why before 2000? When exactly did Zavada examine the Z-film? Now if you actually have a piece of altered film that was created by an optical printer in 1963/64 that doesn't show any signs of flaws under close scrutiny when the frames are run in sequence, then by all means - PRESENT IT! dgh01: Get the original Citizen Kane, run it -- you tell me if you can see any flaws when the film is running normal speed on VHS or DVD (pulldown added for 29;98fps) hell, try and run it at 18.3fps and see if you can see any flaws [/quote} Where exactly in Citizen Kane was comopiting used to make the actors arms and legs move differently then when they were filmed? Until then, IMO you are just making claims pertaining to the realm of possibilties that have no evidence to support them.dgh01: of course they're claims, based on special effects compositing experience Dave, as Craig and I keep pointing out you have yet show any evidence of your FILM compositing experience. So tell us what and where those Disney frames came from AND were they in the film final release? -- For all I, or anyone hereabouts including lurkers; those may of been test strips -- do you understand why optical labs do that sort of thing? None of those problems would of made a answer print or release print, none of them -- unless you can prove otherwise, of course Of course even highly experienced compositors like those at Disney are prone to mistakes, what about those CIA types at the NPIC how much experience could they have had? Yet they faked the Z film in about 5 hours (minus 1 3/4 hours for developing) that didn't leave them enough time to make test prints and correct any errors. They must have gotten it perfect on their first try! Come up with any evidence that they could develop Kodachrome at the NPIC? The assistant manager of the color lab who Fetzer uses as a source said they did not. There are no documents on the Web saying they did. Edited January 29, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 David; If I may interject a few facts, perhaps they may open a door or two for others. 1. In Z349, one can see that the handrail post on the Nellie Connally side of the Presidential Limousine has just come into alignment with the leading edge of the yellow stripe in the background of the film, which was painted on the concrete curb of Elm St. 2. If one follows the film until such time as this same alignment comes into sequence for the next yellow stripe, they will find that this occurs at approximately Z379. Therefore, accordingly, we have 30 frames of the film exposed through this distance. This distance, down the center of Elm St. equates to a travelled distance of approximately 38 feet Therefore, we can state that, according to the Z film, the vehicle traversed this distance at a rate of 1.266666 feet per exposed frame of the film, which ultimately comes to approximately 15.8 MPH. Now, if we continue on with these calculations we find: 3. In Z379, we pick up with the handrail post on the leading edge of the yellow curb mark in the background of the film. 4. In Z390, we see that the handrail post has come into alignment with the leading edge of the concrete curb drain inlet cover in the background, for an exposure of 11 additional frames of the Z film. However, the distance travelled by the Presidential Limousine down the center of Elm St for this 11 frame exposure is approximately 19 feet in the 11 exposed frames. Which of course comes to 1.727272 feet of distance covered for every frame of the film. Which ultimately equates to a speed of approximately 21.55 MPH through this less than 1 second period of time. Therefore, one must again question the acceleration capabilities of the Presidential Limousine, and especially why acceleration of this intensity did not throw Jackie completely off the trunk of the vehicle. Tom We have discussed some of this previously. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0entry34951 By the way, to the best of my recollection, was't the curb inlet removed and completely covered over? Tom, I've checked your calculations and come up with something different. (Obviously mine needs checking as well.) One must take into account the foreshortening or whatever its called when judging where the limo actually is. Estimating where it is perpendicularly opposite the land marks paints a different picture. 350 to 381 31 frames in 38 feet 38 feet in 1.66 seconds x feet in 3600 seconds 15.54 mph 381 to 394/395 0.75 seconds to travel 19 feet 3600 seconds to travel x feet 17.2 mph I bump this one just in case Tom missed it, it needs checking I think. My calculations puts it in a different light. I may very well have made a mistake. YELLOW MARKS 1. At Z349, the post is directly in alignment with the leading edge of the yellow mark. At Z350, the post is at the mid-point of the yellow mark. 2. At Z381, the post is again almost at mid point of the yellow stripe, whereas at Z380, it has just come to the leading edge. Which can be verified by comparison of the distance (centerline) from the background persons to the edge of the yellow mark and then transferring this distance to Z379. Therefore, one could go from Z349 to Z379, or from Z350 to Z-380, either of which = 30 exposed frames. INLET COVER When the Limousine post comes into direct alingment with the leading corner of the manhole cover which is along the curb, appears to fall between Z390 and Z391. In Z391 it can be seen that the post is well down past this point and in fact virtually in the center of the concrete cover at that point where the cover is along the street curb. In Z390, one can observe the back corner of the cover as it extends into the grass, which is an indicator that the post is almost directly to the leading (curb) corner of the cover. YELLOW STRIPE: 30 exposed frames/38 feet distance travelled = 1.2666666 feet of distance per exposed frame of film. 1.2666666 X 18.3 frames per second (assumed speed of film) =23.179998 feet of distance covered per second 23.179998 X 60 seconds = 1,390.7998 feet per minute 1,390.7998 X 60 minurel = 83,447.988 feet per hour 83,447.98 divided by 5280 =15.804543 MPH MANHOLE COVER: 11 exposed frames/19 feet distance travelled = 1.7272727 feet of distance covered per exposed frame of the film. 1.7272727 X 18.3 frames per second (assumed speed of film) = 31.60909 feet of distance covered per second. 31.60909 X 60 seconds = 1,896.5454 feet per minute 1,896.5454 X 60 minutes = 113,792.72 feet per hour 113,792.72 divided by 5280 = 21.551651 MPH Certainly subject to make an error, due to age, oversight, and general attitude. I always convert the exposed frames to the distance covered per frame, then to distance per second. Landmarks! The given distances are the exact (as exact as is possible) distance directly down the center of Elm St, and have no bearing on the background distances. As example: The true distance between the leading edge of the yellow curb mark at Z379/380 and the leading edge of the yellow curb mark at Z90/391 is (if recalled correctly) in reality 41 feet, whereas the centerline Elm St. distance is only 38 feet. And, just as the 38 represents the actual distance down the centerline of main street travelled, the 19 feet distance from the yellow curb mark to the manhole inlet cover represents the same actual distance traversed in the 11 frames of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) suggested projection of post to edge of concrete z394 "One must take into account the foreshortening or whatever its called when judging where the limo actually is. Estimating where it is perpendicularly opposite the land marks paints a different picture." Edited January 29, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 suggested projection of post to edge of concrete z394"One must take into account the foreshortening or whatever its called when judging where the limo actually is. Estimating where it is perpendicularly opposite the land marks paints a different picture." 1. For clarification, the "post" to which is referred, is not the handrail which Clint Hill has grasped, and is located on the trunk of the Limousine. 2. The "post" is that railing which is located directly behind the front seat/directly in front of the Connally's, which runs from one side of the vehicle, across, and had hand grips. This "railing" was utilized when a person rode in the vehicle in the "standing" position and required some stable platform on which to grasp. 3. The "alignment" as utilized to compute distance, is the direct Zapruder line-of-sight, from the Z-postion, across the left hand side vertical post of the limousine handrailing, to the object in the background. When one has the drawings, with a scale of 1 inch = 10 feet, most of these positions can be platted to within one tenth of a foot (+ or -) And, in addition to his survey measurements and calculations, Mr. West was good enough to actually draw in the exact locations of the yellow curb marks as well as the curb inlet & cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 "...foreshortening or whatever its called when judging where the limo actually is. Estimating where it is perpendicularly opposite the land marks paints a different picture" 1. For clarification, the "post" to which is referred, is not the handrail which Clint Hill has grasped, and is located on the trunk of the Limousine. 2. The "post" is that railing which is located directly behind the front seat/directly in front of the Connally's, which runs from one side of the vehicle, across, and had hand grips. This "railing" was utilized when a person rode in the vehicle in the "standing" position and required some stable platform on which to grasp. 3. The "alignment" as utilized to compute distance, is the direct Zapruder line-of-sight, from the Z-postion, across the left hand side vertical post of the limousine handrailing, to the object in the background. If you look carefully on the photo you can see that the line projected to the vertical line from the edge of the drain cover is not the hand hold but "that railing which is located directly behind the front seat/directly in front of the Connally's, which runs from one side of the vehicle, across" "across the left hand side vertical post of the limousine handrailing" 3. is a mistake. it gives a false reading. The angle increases as the limousine woves down the street. I think it is possible to get a much more accurate estimate by a projection as indicated. Please also look at the second image. 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