David G. Healy Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 (edited) BMiller wrote elsewhere recently [...] You strongly maintain a very long standing point? You have no point! You are trying to claim that an alteration took place in 1963/64 to not just any film, but Kodachrome II film, that cannot even be accomplished today in the year 2006. You cite the IMPOSSIBLE in order to make what your are saying appear logical and that is illogical IMO. The Zapruder film is made up of several layers of emulsion grains and you are basically stating that someone painted an image onto that film (I assume with a microscope and a paint brush the size of the point on a sewing needle) and somehow painted it under those grains ... that is absurd and shows that you have not bothered to even investigate the possibility of such a feat. And if that is not bad enough, Zapruder frames were published in the Newspaper within days following the assassination and the same images are still seen on the Zapruder film as we know it. So not only are you trying to make a case for an 'impossibility' to have occurred, you are implying that the alleged alteration was done to frames all the way up to around Z362 which still shows the bone plate. You are also suggesting that not only did someone paint an image under the emulsion grain, which is an impossible thing to do, but they also did it to such perfection as to create the exact degree of motion and panning blur that occurred between each film frame which can be scientically and mathematically tested. I guess we will never agree on this matter for I refuse to allow myself to be pulled down to such a level of incompetence. It is like having someone say that a stone appeared to have been thrown through a glass window without so much as even breaking the glass ....... or like saying because someone saw a ship sail over the horizon that people who think the world is flat must be correct. The whole thing becomes so totally ridiculous in lieu of the total evidence that its not even worth further consideration. I am sorry if this reply seems harsh, but I know of no other way to express the reality of the evidence and to point out the mistake that is being made by the alteration supporters when they do not first investigate all the other avenues to see if they were even available in this case. You may recall a poster once being critical of the limo driver for not just traveling on out Houston Street instead of turning onto Elm. I had to smile because this individual didn't seem to know that not only was there a line of people standing across the north side of the intersection blocking any path without people being run over, but Houston also dead ended a few hundred feet beyond the TSBD. So some ideas may sound interesting upon first hearing them, but are soon discovered to be dead ends upon further investigation. The alteration of the Zapruder film is just one of them. Bill ___________________ Hey Bill Miller ... this was foward to me this morning. The majority of the post appears same ole BM nonsense and immaterial, the remainder of the post (above) is *material* -- what kind of nonsense are you spreading around the net --- do you think Roland Zavada feels matte painting was performed direct to 8mm film??? you wrote to CB: start "... You have no point! You are trying to claim that an alteration took place in 1963/64 to not just any film, but Kodachrome II film, that cannot even be accomplished today in the year 2006." end Have you EVER compared *ALTERED* 8mm Kodachrome II film with unaltered 8mm Kodachrome II film? Has ANYONE made the comparison? -- A cite if the test has been performed.... Do you understand matte painting AND glass painting...? Might check with Ray Fielding for a definition -- he sure knows, you know the guy the giving Roland Zavada a hand with his presentation or redo of the Zavada report -- you have read: HOAX of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film by Harrison Livingstone Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX? Are you sure you understand film emulsion? The impossible happened in Dallas.... You say you know Groden -- have him define rotoscoping, your sawing a limb off behind you, and Who tested the Z-frames scientifically for "blur" and where are the detailed findings located and WHO verified same findings? You guys FINALLY find a Physicist, I certainly hope so been what, 5 years now? And what does the following mean? "It is like having someone say that a stone appeared to have been thrown through a glass window without so much as even breaking the glass..." huh? You starting to see things in trees, AGAIN? The temperature is....? lmao David Edited May 6, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now