Jump to content
The Education Forum

BM testing the waters re RZavada update?


Recommended Posts

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 by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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??? "

David, I looked through your response and as usual you didn't address anything .... I assume because other than optical printing ... you haven't bothered to learn anything about the composition of Kodachrome II film. I also imagine that it was you lurking on Lancer's forum and not someone sending you an email of my remarks for the simple reason that you have never shown one once of an ability to address the points I have made, thus why would someone want your opinion over something you have not shown any knowledge of? Also, the term I used was "stereoscopy viewing" and not "rotoscoping".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

You are aware of stereoscopy viewing - right? Groden has done it with the Zapruder film, Mack and White, as well. One can use it with any of the Zapruder film frames and if someone has added a painted image to the film, then it will appear to float above the underlining image when viewed with this process. Didn't Mantik use this same technique when looking at the autopsy photos and that was how he came to the conclusion that they were forged ... I believe so!

Of course then there is the transfer problem by going from 8MM to 35MM and then back to 8MM film that would tell one that alteration may have taken place because the color and image loss would tell most anyone that they were not looking at an original image ...... and as I recall you have not addressed those points either!

So once again I read over your response and I see the same talking in riddles as you always do while never actually addressing any of the points. Oh by the way ... Aren't you the one who posted to this forum that after all that has been promoted on the side of Zfilm alteration that YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROOF OF ALTERATION either ... I believe it was. So again, why would someone send you my remarks concerning alteration when you have said yourself that you have seen no proof of it from the evidence to date, unless of course they enjoy hearing someone like yourself talk out of both sides of your mouth.

"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...."

As I said above ... there is a way of testing it. I personally have not examined the Zapruder film under the stereoscopy viewing technique, but those who have did not see any signs of alteration. Maybe you'd like to give it a go and see what you come up with.

"Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX?"

Yes, I read it just as you did and both of us are on record afterwards saying that we have seen no proof of alteration ... so what's your point other than showing your Baghdad Bob Healy side.

"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...""

Are you really so dense that you don't know what I implied? It is one thing to assert that something might have happened, but it is another when investigated and no proof was found to substantiate the assertion. The glass window is the Zapruder film and you are attempting to assert that a rock may have been thrown through the glass window while at the same time admitting that the glass remains unbroken and this is why you now have the nickname "Baghdad Bob Healy". Your double talk is irresponsible and shows your motive for making such say-nothing responses on what is supposed to be an education forum.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!"

Jack, I have not suggested that the alteration was done directly on the Zapruder film ... I only addressed those who have suggested that it was done in that manner. PLEASE PAY MORE ATTENTION IF YOU CAN!

"Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist."

Jack, have you just come out of a coma or what? I already addressed this by taking these claims to Groden and other photography experts. I posted the remarks they made and the tell-tale signs that would be present if someone had attempted such a feat and as I recall, you never spoke up once in contradiction to what I relayed from these people. Robert explained the color balance loss and the contrast changes that would take place during the transfers. I also alluded to the problem with an optical printer and how these changes would differ and be distiguishable from what is seen between the sprocket holes. If you would care to go back and read the information that I posted and address it, then please feel free to do so. Your remarks above only say how a film could be altered and not how it could go undetectable under such close scrutiny.

"Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above."

Yes, any amatuer could do it, but at the same time - any expert who knows what to look for could detect the alteration. And yes, Costella may know a little about photography, but he is no expert for if he was, he would have addressed the types of problems that Groden and others were quick to point out. Costella didn't mention them because he either withheld damaging information to his position or he was unaware of the other problems ... you can choose which ever excuse sounds better to you.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller quotes below'

[...]

"David, I looked through your response and as usual you didn't address anything .... I assume because other than optical printing ... you haven't bothered to learn anything about the composition of Kodachrome II film. I also imagine that it was you lurking on Lancer's forum and not someone sending you an email of my remarks for the simple reason that you have never shown one once of an ability to address the points I have made, thus why would someone want your opinion over something you have not shown any knowledge of? Also, the term I used was "stereoscopy viewing" and not "rotoscoping"."

this answers questions regarding your vast knowledge and comment about film processing and composing???? roflmao! -- Don't quit your day job champ....

"You are aware of stereoscopy viewing - right? Groden has done it with the Zapruder film, Mack and White, as well. One can use it with any of the Zapruder film frames and if someone has added a painted image to the film, then it will appear to float above the underlining image when viewed with this process. Didn't Mantik use this same technique when looking at the autopsy photos and that was how he came to the conclusion that they were forged ... I believe so!"

Examples, Bill, show the lurkers AND me -- no more bullshxt....I imagine Groden has done many things with the 35mm print of Zapruder film, then some.... You ask Dr. Mantik, I don't do X-Ray's, after all he's the M.D. and a Ph.D! Your not claiming that expertise these day's are you?

dgh asked: "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...."

"As I said above ... there is a way of testing it. I personally have not examined the Zapruder film under the stereoscopy viewing technique, but those who have did not see any signs of alteration. Maybe you'd like to give it a go and see what you come up with."

why dodging (pardon the pun) commenting about emulsion comparisons between altered Kodacolor II 8mm film and non-altered Kodacolor II 8mm film, Bill? What don't you understand about that? Have you done or witnessed same? Or shall we just assume this is more wishful thinking on the Lone Neuter side of the equation

dgh asked"Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX?"

"Yes, I read it just as you did and both of us are on record afterwards saying that we have seen no proof of alteration ... so what's your point other than showing your Baghdad Bob Healy side."

Oh Bill, you did? Guess you forgot I expertly crafted about 30 or so pages in it, I even read the damn thing -- cover to cover, TWICE. What's that prove? Don't know other than comments from the likes of Harrison Livingstone, who lioke my down to earth homey style.... rofl!

dgh asked: 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..."

Are you really so dense that you don't know what I implied? It is one thing to assert that something might have happed, but it is another when investigated and no proof was found to substantiate the assertion. The glass window is the Zapruder film and you are attempting to assert that a rock may have been thrown through the glass window while at the same time admitting that the glass remains unbroken and this is why you now have the nickname "Baghdad Bob Healy". Your double talk is irresponsible and shows your motive for making such say-nothing responses on what is supposed to be an education forum.

ROFL -- hey guy, look at it this way ...

I'm a professional compositor and your excuse these day's? That aside doing what I do, let's expand on your "rock dealie"... You live in a glass house, floor, ceiling and walls -- your looking at a picture of same structure and you can see all panels, there's a rock in the middle of the floor, one that takes up about 5% of the 2D space -- you have no idea how it got there. No broken windows AND the glass structure was not *built* around the rock.... How'd that rock get there?

I know, do you?

Oh! Anymore lawsuits settled in your favor, lately, lately I heard all about those, too!

Motive? those that suggest motive should not live in "glass houses"! Btw, you setting this forums posting criteria here these day's? I'm sure JSimkin will appreciate that....

Double talk? Get with the program Bill, no more little .giffy's, get specific -- apply your recently learned Photshop expertise to 8mm Kodacolor II film emulsion comparisons... , you're not going to have Zavada's expertise forever and you certainly need his and RFieldings.....

if you need a PSfilm plugin, I'm sure I can write one for your side..... you guy's are too much -- roflmao!

David

Bill

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM wrote:

[...]

Yes, any amatuer could do it, but at the same time - any expert who knows what to look for could detect the alteration. And yes, Costella may know a little about photography, but he is no expert for if he was, he would have addressed the types of problems that Groden and others were quick to point out. Costella didn't mention them because he either withheld damaging information to his position or he was unaware of the other problems ... you can choose which ever excuse sounds better to you.

Why not get Groden in here? I don't have a PhD, don't need one! Damn sure know Groden doesn't have one -- Groden's had a pass for way too long -- are there some here that understand why he doesn't participate? Why are you covering for him? Good enough for Zavada to take a relook, why not Groden to defend his work, or at least work YOU say he, Groden performed....

Where is Groden's spectroskopy work located, or whatever it's called these days? I'm sure the lurkers are interested and curious....

Groden pointed it out, fine..... Get him in here, let's get down to it!

********************

'Jack White' wrote:

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

After Effect 7.0 will give him a jump start, Jack. Then reading a little film compositing history, he'll finally get 2+2 to equal 4, instead of 14... Then he can debate compositing, till then -- he's noise! All of them are!

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

BillM wrote:

[...]

Yes, any amatuer could do it, but at the same time - any expert who knows what to look for could detect the alteration. And yes, Costella may know a little about photography, but he is no expert for if he was, he would have addressed the types of problems that Groden and others were quick to point out. Costella didn't mention them because he either withheld damaging information to his position or he was unaware of the other problems ... you can choose which ever excuse sounds better to you.

Why not get Groden in here? I don't have a PhD, don't need one! Damn sure know Groden doesn't have one -- Groden's had a pass for way too long -- are there some here that understand why he doesn't participate? Why are you covering for him? Good enough for Zavada to take a relook, why not Groden to defend his work, or at least work YOU say he, Groden performed....

Where is Groden's stereoscopy [sp?] work located, or whatever it's called these days? I'm sure the lurkers are interested and curious....

Groden pointed it out, fine..... Get him in here, let's get down to it!

********************

'Jack White' wrote:

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

After Effect 7.0 will give him a jump start, Jack. Then reading a little film compositing history, he'll finally get 2+2 to equal 4, instead of 14... Then he can debate compositing, till then -- he's noise! All of them are!

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"this answers questions regarding your vast knowledge and comment about film processing and composing???? roflmao! -- Don't quit your day job champ...."

David, I must have something going for me for a jackass like yourself to continue avoiding the points I have introduced to the subject and instead just offer jerk-off replies that never deal with any specifics.

"Examples, Bill, show the lurkers AND me -- no more bullshxt....I imagine Groden has done many things with the 35mm print of Zapruder film, then some.... You ask Dr. Mantik, I don't do X-Ray's, after all he's the M.D. and a Ph.D! Your not claiming that expertise these day's are you?"

David, if you know someone who has used stereoscoping on the Zfilm who found part of the image floating above the underlining picture, then please post it. I mentioned at least three people who have done it and they never reported finding any alterations. And I am aware that you don't do Xrays ... you can also include the fact that you don't seem to study the details of the case, you don't seek out experts before blowing off your big mouth, and you don't address my responses with facts.

"why dodging (pardon the pun) commenting about emulsion comparisons between altered Kodacolor II 8mm film and non-altered Kodacolor II 8mm film, Bill? What don't you understand about that? Have you done or witnessed same? Or shall we just assume this is more wishful thinking on the Lone Neuter side of the equation"

I didn't address your question because I had already addressed it in an earlier response on this subject ... you must have been sleeping with Jack at the time. The experts I have spoken to have all said that Kodachrome II has an emulsion pattern of its own that is different than that of other films. So if one cropped and pasted part of another film onto an existing Kodachrome II film - the emulsion grain pattern differences within the frame would be noticeable under close scrutiny. Also, if one enlarges 8MM emulsion grains to 35MM size to attempt such an alteration ... the 8MM will become blurred as you could expect, so when the film is lowered back down to 8MM from 35MM ... the 35MM emulsion grains will appear sharp, while the original 8MM grains will appear out of focus/fuzzy. Now this is the second ot third time I have spoken about this on this forum, so please don't wait a while and then pretend that it has never been addressed - thanks!

dgh asked"Are you sure you read Fetzer's book HOAX?"[/b]

"Oh Bill, you did? Guess you forgot I expertly crafted about 30 or so pages in it, I even read the damn thing -- cover to cover, TWICE. What's that prove? Don't know other than comments from the likes of Harrison Livingstone, who lioke my down to earth homey style.... rofl!"

Yes - you wrote a half-assed piece that didn't address the points Groden raised. You also posted on this forum after writing those 30 or so pages that you have not seen any proof of film alteration.

dgh asked: 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..."[/b]

"I'm a professional compositor and your excuse these day's? That aside doing what I do, let's expand on your "rock dealie"... You live in a glass house, floor, ceiling and walls -- your looking at a picture of same structure and you can see all panels, there's a rock in the middle of the floor, one that takes up about 5% of the 2D space -- you have no idea how it got there. No broken windows AND the glass structure was not *built* around the rock.... How'd that rock get there?"

David, where did the rock come into play ... let me remind you once again what you have said on this forum .... you have stated that you have seen no proof of film alteration. What that says it that there is no rock laying in the middle of the floor IYO. The rock is the sign of photo alteration and you, nor I have seen any signs of it. If you ever do see any sign of it, then by all means - share it with the forum as eagerly as you do these idiotic say-nothing responses of yours.

"Motive? those that suggest motive should not live in "glass houses"! Btw, you setting this forums posting criteria here these day's? I'm sure JSimkin will appreciate that...."

David, I think that if you would just merely respond with actual facts pertaining to the issues being raised, then less responses on my part would need to occur. And yes, I am sure John Simkin appreciates my gifs and remarks pertaining to the evidence of this case ... I know this because he mentioned it in Dallas. However, I do not recall much good said about your participation on this forum from anyone present at the time. I would not have mentioned this, but seeing how you brought it up - why not!

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:

nada, zip...

there you have it Lurkers -- when it comes to defending Zapruder film authenticity, absolutely nothing from Miller, AGAIN! -- you're in over your head, Bill. You do have something going for you, it's called comic relief...

Experts? ROFLMFAO....what experts have you consulted? Whoops, your the expert, right.....?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:

nada, zip...

there you have it Lurkers -- when it comes to defending Zapruder film authenticity, absolutely nothing from Miller, AGAIN! -- you're in over your head, Bill. You do have something going for you, it's called comic relief...

Experts? ROFLMFAO....what experts have you consulted? Whoops, your the expert, right.....?

I've been watching this exchange with glee David. You should really try and stay away from these sorts of discussions because you are not mentally equipped to play.

Now for a little red meat, not that you will have a hoots chance in hell of understanding.

First I've spent plenty of time comparing unaltered and altered 35mm Kodachome film. Guess what David, even a dunce like you could tell the difference, which tells me you have not done the comparisons. Of course the major difference is contrast, even when the altered material is Kodachome dupe stock. And them there is generational losses caused by the optics in the process chain unless the copy was made via contact. But even with a contact process you still get the contrast gain. PERIOD.

Now take that Kodachome original and make a dupe with standard duplicating film or internegative film of ANY type other than Kodachome dupe stock (and as shown above that’s a can of worms itself) and you have a color mess. You see Kodachome film has a unique dye structure and when you make an internegative or dupe on standard films made for this use you get color crossovers that are impossible to PERIOD.

Now if you had ANY practical experience in any of this WHATSOEVER you would know all of this. But since you don't have the mental equipment to play you are nothing more than white noise.

You tell Bill that you are a compositing professional, and maybe its true you earn money for making composites. But the examples you have posted here and elsewhere showing your computer compositing skills on Zapruder frames are childish in execution. Perhaps you have found clients that are willing to accept crap, but its pretty clear that you don't have the mental equipment to play.

No David, you are so over your head when it comes to film based compositing its not even funny. Hell you can't even do a decent computer composite. So why is it again you are attempting to play? Give it up. You don't have the equipment upstairs.

P.S.

You really should bone up on stereo viewing...then perhaps you would not look so F--king stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I've been watching this exchange with glee David. You should really try and stay away from these sorts of discussions because you are not mentally equipped to play."

No kidding ... what kind of a person would post that he is a 'composting professional' and has not found any signs of alteration only to then attempt to make stupid responses that don't address the information I obtained from the experts that supports the Zapruder film being authentic. In my previous response I had just mentioned the transfer issues with emulsion grain at 'Baghdad Bob Healy's' request and did he dispute it with any data - hell no! Instead, the loud mouth responds with, "here you have it Lurkers -- when it comes to defending Zapruder film authenticity, absolutely nothing from Miller, AGAIN! -- you're in over your head, Bill. You do have something going for you, it's called comic relief... Experts? ROFLMFAO....what experts have you consulted? Whoops, your the expert, right.....?" I can give David one thing ... he doesn't mind looking like an ass.

"You tell Bill that you are a compositing professional, and maybe its true you earn money for making composites. But the examples you have posted here and elsewhere showing your computer compositing skills on Zapruder frames are childish in execution. Perhaps you have found clients that are willing to accept crap, but its pretty clear that you don't have the mental equipment to play.

No David, you are so over your head when it comes to film based compositing its not even funny. Hell you can't even do a decent computer composite. So why is it again you are attempting to play? Give it up. You don't have the equipment upstairs.

P.S.

You really should bone up on stereo viewing...then perhaps you would not look so F--king stupid."

What David said is like the kid down the street who cuts lawns and gets paid for it ... I guess that makes him a lawn specialist. And don't expect him to speak to experts or even bone up on stereo viewing because he is obviously only interested in trolling and has no interest in learning anything about the Kennedy case. You cannot help this moron ... other than maybe recommending a good surgeon who might be able build him another set of lips so he doesn't have to keep talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had been looking forward to learning what Zavada has to say.

Has he decided he has nothing to say?

Jack

No, Jack ... as I posted in an earlier response while you must have been nodded off ... Zavada has been ill, but was expecting to recover. But while you are waiting with interest to hear what Zavada has to say ... feel free to address the points Groden had made.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

Thanks, Jack.

This process is obvious and color/contrast could be retained and even enhanced by doing this.

It is pretty obvious to me this is where the "blob" came from, since

the doctors at Parkland all saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out.

Evidently the Zapruder film and the Bethesda autopsy materials were HEAVILY altered

(in the interest of national security, of course)

Shanet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jack.

This process is obvious and color/contrast could be retained and even enhanced by doing this.

It is pretty obvious to me this is where the "blob" came from, since

the doctors at Parkland all saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out.

Evidently the Zapruder film and the Bethesda autopsy materials were HEAVILY altered

(in the interest of national security, of course)

Shanet

This appears to be another instance of the simple minded leading the blind. Jack mentions increasing the size of an 8MM print to 8 x 10s to make all these alleged alterations, but never addressed what Groden and other experts have said about reducing them back to 8MM Kodachrome II again and the tell-tales signs that would give such an atempt away. Ask Jack how a transfer from 8 x 10s with artifical light could possibly produce a natural light exposure without detection or does not these obstacles matter to you, Shannet? There was a line in the movie "JFK" that reminds me of the way some people have accepted the glossing over the issues that Jack has done and it went like this, "How do you know who your Daddy is ............ Because your momma told you so." After I spoke to Robert Groden about photography and how it pertained to this subject matter, I then went to Gary Mack asking what he had learned about these particular issues from talking with the many photo experts he has come in contact with over the years. While Gary is quick to point out an error when Groden makes one - the experts Gary Mack had spoken with supports what Groden had said about the things that would be detectable had such an attempt been made to the Zapruder film to alter it in such a way. I guess that in a sense - all there is now is for some people to decide whether they really want to know or not if their momma was correct! It appears that at least a couple of people here don't seem to care to know anything beyond Jack's generic replies and that they are merely satisfied with Jack telling them that someone could alter a photo or a film in 1963, while not caring if it would be detectable or not.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

Thanks, Jack.

This process is obvious and color/contrast could be retained and even enhanced by doing this.

It is pretty obvious to me this is where the "blob" came from, since

the doctors at Parkland all saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out.

Evidently the Zapruder film and the Bethesda autopsy materials were HEAVILY altered

(in the interest of national security, of course)

Shanet

Man you are so out of your depth here it's not even funny. It seems your grasp of the subject matter is "problematic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...