Bill Miller Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) hello Chris -- your correct of course.... and shh -- no such thing as optical film printing David I thought the issue wasn't whether optical film printing couldn't be done, but rather could it be done where experts would not be able to see signs of it. One should try and remember that there is a difference. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 hello Chris -- your correct of course.... and shh -- no such thing as optical film printing David I thought the issue wasn't whether optical film printing couldn't be done, but rather could it be done where experts would not be able to see signs of it. One should try and remember that there is a difference. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Having few legitimate arguments Healy resorts to 2 strawman arguments 1-Saying that the anti-alterationist are all 'lone nutters', which is BS and he knows it. Some believe that Oswald was the only shooter but most don't. 2- Saying that the anti-alterationist deny that optical printing existed back in '63 which is absurd. What is in dispute is whether such alterations could have been done undetectably, whether alterations as complex as alleged were posssible back then and whether the 'initial' alterations could have been done in a few hours at the NPIC as alleged. Various experts said no only Healy says yes but as he freely admits he is NOT an expert. People who have the truth on their side don't need to resort to deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: I thought the issue wasn't whether optical film printing couldn't be done, but rather could it be done where experts would not be able to see signs of it. One should try and remember that there is a difference. ---------------- ROFL - Let me tell you about experts. Experts in Special Effects Cinematography -- Any 10 or 20 film/video compositing operator (read in 1963 terms: optical film printing technicians) can disassemble a special effects scene in most any film, then or now, without the aid of a script or outside influence. Primarily by watching the scene 5-10 times... Those same 10-20 will arrive at 5+ different ways of accomplishing the same filmic/screen effect sequence result. Regarding the Zapruder film one should ALSO remember the audience that viewed the film AND the intended audience of said film in 1963-64... There is not one, ONE physical reaction that Zapruder experienced on that pedestal that CAN'T be recreated in post optical printing, right down to how his breathing interacted with the panning and tilting of his camera. ANY latter day experienced Adobe After Effects artist can tell you that, and those that think operators/artists of 1963-64 vintage knew less, are fooling themselves... course they may WANT to fool themselves. Query your pal Groden -- anything less from him, and I'll tell you Groden does NOT know the art of optical film printing... he might stop by and chat a bit, eh? For those lurkers that want latter day info regarding the COMMERCIAL compositing art form, take a look (below URL) at whats been around for 7 years now and 7 straight OSCARS for special effects cinematography... sidebar: ALL of the Lord of the Rings episodes (and nearly every USofA theatrical release over the past 5 years utilizing special effects cinematography) were composed utilizing software that emulates optical film printing techniques created in the 1920's-30's, and earlier. http://www.apple.com/shake/ 8 years ago it ran thousands more, now $4 grand out the door, might want to load it on the new Quad 2.5Ghz Apple with 16Gig of RAM -- really sings especially if your staying in 16:9 Hi-Def video as opposed to 2.85:1 film -- Todays version of those Oxberry aerial image film printers of yore -- welcome to Hollyweird, right on your own desktop! Edited February 17, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested.... On this one full agreemnt. For now , thank's for the exchange David. Food for thought. No doubt will revisit items in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested....On this one full agreemnt. For now , thank's for the exchange David. Food for thought. No doubt will revisit items in future. More BS It has already been done by Roland Zavada the man who invented Kodachrome II. His conclusion was that the film is an "in camera" original and that any duplication would have been easily detected (a composited Z-film would have been a 2nd generation copy at the least) and that the alleged alterations were not possible at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote:I thought the issue wasn't whether optical film printing couldn't be done, but rather could it be done where experts would not be able to see signs of it. One should try and remember that there is a difference. ---------------- ROFL - Let me tell you about experts. Experts in Special Effects Cinematography -- Any 10 or 20 film/video compositing operator (read in 1963 terms: optical film printing technicians) can disassemble a special effects scene in most any film, then or now, without the aid of a script or outside influence. Primarily by watching the scene 5-10 times... Those same 10-20 will arrive at 5+ different ways of accomplishing the same filmic/screen effect sequence result. You didn't answer Bill's point. Being evasive is another sign that some one is on the loosing side of an argument. Regarding the Zapruder film one should ALSO remember the audience that viewed the film AND the intended audience of said film in 1963-64...There is not one, ONE physical reaction that Zapruder experienced on that pedestal that CAN'T be recreated in post optical printing, right down to how his breathing interacted with the panning and tilting of his camera. ANY latter day experienced Adobe After Effects artist can tell you that, and those that think operators/artists of 1963-64 vintage knew less, are fooling themselves... course they may WANT to fool themselves. Relevence???? Query your pal Groden -- anything less from him, and I'll tell you Groden does NOT know the art of optical film printing Do YOU? Without a computer I mean. For those lurkers that want latter day info regarding the COMMERCIAL compositing art form, take a look (below URL) at whats been around for 7 years now and 7 straight OSCARS for special effects cinematography... sidebar: ALL of the Lord of the Rings episodes (and nearly every USofA theatrical release over the past 5 years utilizing special effects cinematography) were composed utilizing software that emulates optical film printing techniques created in the 1920's-30's, and earlier. http://www.apple.com/shake/ 8 years ago it ran thousands more, now $4 grand out the door, might want to load it on the new Quad 2.5Ghz Apple with 16Gig of RAM -- really sings especially if your staying in 16:9 Hi-Def video as opposed to 2.85:1 film -- Todays version of those Oxberry aerial image film printers of yore -- welcome to Hollyweird, right on your own desktop! 1) LOL so you want us to believe that this program suffers from all the limitations that were in place in 1963? After 42 years of amazing technological improvements this program which only runs on a supercomputer can't do the job any better than a WW2 era optical printer!?!?!? You think they could have made Lord of the Rings in '63? Yeah right! If you really believe that David send me you life saving to invest for you down here, you interested in buying into an ostrich farm? ROTFLMHO!!! (PS I can't be extradited till my youngest child turns 18). 2) Nothing there about alterations being undetectable. Len Edited February 17, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Those of you following the Z-film alteration debate should remember that Healy after being asked repeatedly was unable to name a single movie made around the time of or before the assassination that use compositing as extensive as alleged in TGZFH*. He instead cited "Techniques of Special Effects Cinemaphotography" apparently the standard reference on the subject with out quoting a single word from the book itself. The book was written by Raymond Fielding, I got an e-mail from Mr. Fielding yesterday. Healy's own source says he is totally WRONG!! LOL!! From: RAYRfielding@xxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST Subject: Zavada To: lencolby@xxxxxxxxx Mr. Colby: I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence. I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me. Raymond Fielding Let's see: Robert Groden, considered by many to be the top photo and Z-film expert in the JFK research community, closely examined the original Z-film and says he has no doubt it was the original and show no signs of alteration. Roland Zavada the man who invented Kodachrome II, the type of film Zapruder used, closely examined the original Z-film. He said 1) it's definitely a cBottom of Formamera original 2) that any duplication or compositing would have been easily detected 3) the alleged alterations were not possible at the time. Oliver Stone who probably knows more about the assassination and the Z-film than any major film maker after consulting with his special effects people said the alleged alterations were not ´possible at the time and would have easily detected. And now Ray Fielding whose book Healy cited said the alleged alterations were not ´possible at the time and would have easily detected. Buy hey David Healy a VIDEOgrapher who refuses to discuss what film post production IF ANY he has, admits he is not a photo expert, refuses to answer numerous questions regarding holes in his theory, can't cite a single movie with similar compositing and uses strawman arguments say's it would have been a cinch, no problem. Hey they could make those alterations that appeared in Life in a few hours in a lab that couldn't even process Kodachrome, simple as pie!!! David unless you can come up with a source OTHER THAN YOURSELF who says such alteration was possible at the time and could escape detection your theory is in the words of the munchkins of Oz, "legally, morally, ethically, Spiritually, physically, Positively, absolutely, Undeniably reliably, and really most sincerely dead." Ding-dong! Ignore the load of BS between the covers!! Len *According to Costella the arms and legs of the limo's occupants were make to move around differently. Edited February 17, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 'John Dolva' wrote: All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested.... On this one full agreemnt. For now , thank's for the exchange David. Food for thought. No doubt will revisit items in future. _____________ Take care John.... seeya around! that incompetent Herr Colby still making mucho noise around here.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 'John Dolva' wrote:All lot of speculation and nonsense will be eliminated by having the currently national archives housed camera original Z-film forensically tested.... On this one full agreemnt. For now , thank's for the exchange David. Food for thought. No doubt will revisit items in future. _____________ Take care John.... seeya around! that incompetent Herr Colby still making mucho noise around here.....? Among other items which one might wish to fully examine: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0458b.htm It is hoped that no one is of the opinion that the Cop in the street is standing there due to having nothing better to do! NEXT: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0459a.htm I would also hope that no one is of the opinion that the re-enactment vehicle was actually moving this fast, and there is not a few things missing between this point and the previous SS re-enactment photo. No cop in street beside the car here, must be some reason for these actions of his standing next to the re-enactment vehicle. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0457b.htm Certainly appears that he is out in the middle of the street for some purpose! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0457a.htm So, if this is about the Z313 headshot, exactly what could this be for? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0458b.htm Certainly appears to be down there close to those steps to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. HUDSON: I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear. Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side? Mr. HUDSON - Right hand. Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether? Mr. HUDSON - Three. Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0458b.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I visited all the HISTORY MATTERS WCvolume exhibits recommended by Tom and was struck by the impression that we should see the Stemmons sign if it were still there. It was very close to the sidewalk. Either the trees hide it entirely, or it has already been removed. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Sorry, but since I have what I consider definitive proof that the Z film was altered, I’m going to post it here. Look at this crop from Z371: Obviously the person playing Clint Hill in this reenactment was running with nothing on his feet but black socks. (Possibly he had some new Florsheims that had started hurting his feet after several takes.) Not only that, but he appears to be in the very act of fracturing his left foot by hitting it under the bumper. Note how the foot is grotesquely bent. (There’s no way to bend a man’s dress shoe that way.) Obviously there would be no more takes after that. The bumper is not your ole run of the mill everyday bumper. It in fact is built with a "drop" section just under each tail light, in which a treaded type platform landing is made for the SS to have a place to position their feet when riding on the back of the limosine. Therefore Clint Hill's foot is not "under the bumper, but is in fact virtually on top of the landing/platform/constructed standing area which is built in as a part of the bumper. Nevertheless, the "Running Man" still has much to tell, and as he did when he jumped from the followup limo to catch the Presidential Limo, he will also "rise" to this occassion as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Sorry, but since I have what I consider definitive proof that the Z film was altered, I’m going to post it here. Look at this crop from Z371: Obviously the person playing Clint Hill in this reenactment was running with nothing on his feet but black socks. (Possibly he had some new Florsheims that had started hurting his feet after several takes.) Not only that, but he appears to be in the very act of fracturing his left foot by hitting it under the bumper. Note how the foot is grotesquely bent. (There’s no way to bend a man’s dress shoe that way.) Obviously there would be no more takes after that. Robin ... I cannot think of any socks that reflect sunlight, but shiny black mens dress shoes do. You did notice that the sun was shining off the shoe and it only made the foot look to be a different shape - right? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Sorry, but since I have what I consider definitive proof that the Z film was altered, I’m going to post it here. Look at this crop from Z371: Obviously the person playing Clint Hill in this reenactment was running with nothing on his feet but black socks. (Possibly he had some new Florsheims that had started hurting his feet after several takes.) Not only that, but he appears to be in the very act of fracturing his left foot by hitting it under the bumper. Note how the foot is grotesquely bent. (There’s no way to bend a man’s dress shoe that way.) Obviously there would be no more takes after that. Robin ... I cannot think of any socks that reflect sunlight, but shiny black mens dress shoes do. You did notice that the sun was shining off the shoe and it only made the foot look to be a different shape - right? Bill Question? Which foot (left or right) is on the bumper & which foot (left or right) is on the street? Inquiring minds (or at least partially senile ones) want to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Sorry, but since I have what I consider definitive proof that the Z film was altered, I’m going to post it here. Look at this crop from Z371: Obviously the person playing Clint Hill in this reenactment was running with nothing on his feet but black socks. (Possibly he had some new Florsheims that had started hurting his feet after several takes.) Not only that, but he appears to be in the very act of fracturing his left foot by hitting it under the bumper. Note how the foot is grotesquely bent. (There’s no way to bend a man’s dress shoe that way.) Obviously there would be no more takes after that. Robin ... I cannot think of any socks that reflect sunlight, but shiny black mens dress shoes do. You did notice that the sun was shining off the shoe and it only made the foot look to be a different shape - right? Bill Question? Which foot (left or right) is on the bumper & which foot (left or right) is on the street? Inquiring minds (or at least partially senile ones) want to know! Tom, I'll hazard a guess and say his left foot is on the bumper and his right foot is on the ground. That's how it looks to me. FWIW. 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