BM testing the waters re RZavada update?

[Bill Miller]

I do believe Jack has outted you for what you truly are... an underachiver when it comes to JFK photo research and investigation -- especially when it concerns the Zapruder film... time to produce, that or we're left with the alternative:

Jack's beef is with Kodak and the Experts in Photography and film .... I only delivered their message. I also expect you do be satisfied with Jack's simple minded responses because you know even less than he does. Besides that ... you have your "Baghdad Bob Healy" reputation to live up to.

[Craig Lamson]

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

Read aloud for maximum comic effect .......

Read your ignorant theory of the origin of the z film and ROTFLYAO!. Talk about a comedy! Its better then sitcoms on tv! It also shows your complete lack of intellectual honesty. What a wonderful tribute to GSU. God help anyone who takes anything you say for truth. You would not know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Your faulty belief system and wacked out worldview will not permit it.

Go back to your fantasy world Shanet, you are way out of your depth in the photographic world. Or not, its always great sport to bust your ignorant chops.

[Craig Lamson]

Those don't look like Z film examples to me. Show me the real thing.

Otherwise it is meaningless.

And if you are representing Kodak, you should at least spell their name

correctly. An "expert" like you should know, I'd think.

Post enlargements from the Z film showing how the grain patterns

prove the film is genuine. If you have them, show us. If not, why

continue with irrelevancies? Call Zavada and get him to send them

to you. I would like to see them. Oh, I forgot, there are many many

copies of the film. How will we know which ones he is working with.

We won't, will we? Does Zavada actually have grain samples of

the "Zapruder original"?

Can you prove that an in-camera original 8mm shot using the

animation feature of a B&H camera of copystand 11x14 color art

would show any "graininess" of the art? Show us the proof.

I have shot both Ektachrome and Kodachrome slides from

retouched 11x14 color prints and no grain can be detected

on the copies even though the retouched print is second

generation.

I suspect you are full of.....beans.

Jack

Film is film is film, it matters not a hoot if the samples come from the zapruder film or a test reel, the effects of the copy and duplication process are the same. Your suggestion that you need to see Z frames is pure bullxxxx. This is standard copy and dupe stuff Jack and the problems as Bill and I have stated are universal. To says otherwise is again pure bullxxxx, but its to be expected from you because all you have is bullxxxx.

As for your claim that you have copied prints with both kodachrome and ektachrome film and that no grain is visable is again pure bullxxxx. But hey try and prove me wrong..post high res tif files drum scanned at say at least 50mb and lets see if your theory holds water.

For the uninformed lurkers out there do a little research and see what you can find on the web in regards to the grain structure of scanned 35mm kodachrome and extachrome film...lots to be had and you just might learn for yourself what a full of crap poser Jack White really is.

[Blair Dobson]

I am with you Jack.

Say the assassination was filmed with large 35 mm film.

Then these frames were enlarged to 4" x 6" stills.

The stills were carefully airbrushed,

changing the location of the wound from the back of the head to the temple.

Frames were removed to "speed up" the halting limousine, hide facial features of ambush team, etc.

If these color stills were then re-filmed individually by an 8 mm camera, the grain would be "lifelike" 8 mm.

Of course the public has never seen the first generation developed film, or looked at the grain.

So the Zapruder film as publicly available could easily be a re-filming of a higher resolution product.

No one would be able to tell the difference, since the 8 mm film would be a condensed "lifelike" fake.

No evidence contrary to this simple outline has ever been submitted.

BIG FILM > BIG COLOR STILLS > TINY FILM = Zapruder "home movie"

Wow, it seems that all that expensive education was a total waste on you Shanet. You have absolutely NO idea about the subject you are discussing. But please keep making your silly and uninformed comments. They really make you look the fool.

BTW, there is plenty of information available at your fingertips that can educate you and the rest of the sheep should you choose to understand the TRUTH rather than wallow in ignorance and silly beliefs.

Actually Craig, Shanet is correct that this process COULD have been used, I am not saying it was done.

In the old days of rotoscoping, which goes back into the days of Disney cartoons, this process was widely used to incorporate live action with animation in what is called multi plane optical printing.

That way, Dick Van Douche can dance with the animated Penguins..

Ray Harryhausen and willis o'brien used a very similar process to animate dinosaurs.

Apples to oranges in some sense, but not in principle.

In fact, if i were to humour the "alteration of the zfilm" theory, thats exactly how it would, could and should be pulled off in that era, as the technology was there 20 years before JFK got whacked.

I'll give you an abstract:

all of the background plates for star wars were shot on 70mm film so that when they were bipacked back down to 35mm for theatres and release, there was no generation loss.

because the original 70 mm is oversaturated with grain, the 35mm would interpolate it into its own lesser grain, making it appear that the 35mm was in fact "an original".

the same could very well be said for the zap film being blown up, manipulated and re-photographed.

again, i don't know if they did that or not and my feelings on the film being faked are still in the "thinking about it stage."

but i will say this:

in regards to your attacking Shanet's post , from a technical standpoint, there is nothing erroneous about the post . it would be entirely possible to do that.

Jack is also correct in saying that rotoscoping doesn't have to blur or soften the final result.

Most of this film grain gibberish is diffuse, if at best questionable. Get your Kodak guys on here so i can ask where my holiday film from 1974 is....i'd like to know that... "this guy i know at kodak says.."

I have noticed zero mention of the type of different film grains there are between stocks themselves here and that is also a big point everyone seems to have missed.

you simply wouldn't use the same outdoor/indoor stock to make a dupe for a number of reasons : one being a.s.a. the other being the process by which the film itself was transferred.

what kind of bulb was used?

what was the colour temperature of that in relation to the stock....etc etc..

which leads me to believe NONE of you are foto experts.

and in fact, most of the "theories" here regarding film grain are crap. The film stock of the version you look at is the grain you are looking at as film grain doesn't leave markers between generations like a photocopy of a photocopy, so you can all shut the hell up about that. ( unless it was done on a rank cintel which didnt exist at that time..)

Film LOSES generations the more times its copied BUT if its been ROTO'D, a soft focus, long exposure or any number of tricks can replicate an entirely new image with its own grain onto the new neg. soft focus being the worst way, low light/long exposure being the best to preserve quality.

to tell me that the original z film and first generation copy would have the same grain in any way is not only foolish, it is technically impossible. and KODAK will assure you of this. if not, you aren't speaking to an expert. you are speaking to an idiot.

I have shot a few million feet of both motion picture film and still film and worked in the post business for 20 odd years, my SPECIALTY being transfers, colour timing and blow ups from one format to another.

most of you are full of it and i invite you to bring your "experts" to talk film grain with me at any time.

again, this bickering is pointless.

you people who get on here and start calling people "stupid" or whathave you makes you look foolish.

attack the facts please and keep your potty mouths for your late night calls to Posner.

From my experience, it is those that know the least who make the most sqwuak.

SUMMARY:

Re photographing stills on an animation stand without obvious artifacts is not only possible, it's exactly how most people i know would have done it IF they were going to fake it given the technology available at the time.

this bickering makes you all look like bufoons.

CHEERS

Dobson.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Craig Lamson]

I am with you Jack.

Say the assassination was filmed with large 35 mm film.

Then these frames were enlarged to 4" x 6" stills.

The stills were carefully airbrushed,

changing the location of the wound from the back of the head to the temple.

Frames were removed to "speed up" the halting limousine, hide facial features of ambush team, etc.

If these color stills were then re-filmed individually by an 8 mm camera, the grain would be "lifelike" 8 mm.

Of course the public has never seen the first generation developed film, or looked at the grain.

So the Zapruder film as publicly available could easily be a re-filming of a higher resolution product.

No one would be able to tell the difference, since the 8 mm film would be a condensed "lifelike" fake.

No evidence contrary to this simple outline has ever been submitted.

BIG FILM > BIG COLOR STILLS > TINY FILM = Zapruder "home movie"

Wow, it seems that all that expensive education was a total waste on you Shanet. You have absolutely NO idea about the subject you are discussing. But please keep making your silly and uninformed comments. They really make you look the fool.

BTW, there is plenty of information available at your fingertips that can educate you and the rest of the sheep should you choose to understand the TRUTH rather than wallow in ignorance and silly beliefs.

Actually Craig, Shanet is correct that this process COULD have been used, I am not saying it was done.

In the old days of rotoscoping, which goes back into the days of Disney cartoons, this process was widely used to incorporate live action with animation in what is called multi plane optical printing.

That way, Dick Van Douche can dance with the animated Penguins..

Ray Harryhausen and willis o'brien used a very similar process to animate dinosaurs.

Apples to oranges in some sense, but not in principle.

In fact, if i were to humour the "alteration of the zfilm" theory, thats exactly how it would, could and should be pulled off in that era, as the technology was there 20 years before JFK got whacked.

I'll give you an abstract:

all of the background plates for star wars were shot on 70mm film so that when they were bipacked back down to 35mm for theatres and release, there was no generation loss.

because the original 70 mm is oversaturated with grain, the 35mm would interpolate it into its own lesser grain, making it appear that the 35mm was in fact "an original".

the same could very well be said for the zap film being blown up, manipulated and re-photographed.

again, i don't know if they did that or not and my feelings on the film being faked are still in the "thinking about it stage."

but i will say this:

in regards to your attacking Shanet's post , from a technical standpoint, there is nothing erroneous about the post . it would be entirely possible to do that.

Jack is also correct in saying that rotoscoping doesn't have to blur or soften the final result.

Most of this film grain gibberish is diffuse, if at best questionable. Get your Kodak guys on here so i can ask where my holiday film from 1974 is....i'd like to know that... "this guy i know at kodak says.."

I have noticed zero mention of the type of different film grains there are between stocks themselves here and that is also a big point everyone seems to have missed.

you simply wouldn't use the same outdoor/indoor stock to make a dupe for a number of reasons : one being a.s.a. the other being the process by which the film itself was transferred.

what kind of bulb was used?

what was the colour temperature of that in relation to the stock....etc etc..

which leads me to believe NONE of you are foto experts.

and in fact, most of the "theories" here regarding film grain are crap. The film stock of the version you look at is the grain you are looking at as film grain doesn't leave markers between generations like a photocopy of a photocopy, so you can all shut the hell up about that. ( unless it was done on a rank cintel which didnt exist at that time..)

Film LOSES generations the more times its copied BUT if its been ROTO'D, a soft focus, long exposure or any number of tricks can replicate an entirely new image with its own grain onto the new neg. soft focus being the worst way, low light/long exposure being the best to preserve quality.

to tell me that the original z film and first generation copy would have the same grain in any way is not only foolish, it is technically impossible. and KODAK will assure you of this. if not, you aren't speaking to an expert. you are speaking to an idiot.

I have shot a few million feet of both motion picture film and still film and worked in the post business for 20 odd years, my SPECIALTY being transfers, colour timing and blow ups from one format to another.

most of you are full of it and i invite you to bring your "experts" to talk film grain with me at any time.

again, this bickering is pointless.

you people who get on here and start calling people "stupid" or whathave you makes you look foolish.

attack the facts please and keep your potty mouths for your late night calls to Posner.

From my experience, it is those that know the least who make the most sqwuak.

SUMMARY:

Re photographing stills on an animation stand without obvious artifacts is not only possible, it's exactly how most people i know would have done it IF they were going to fake it given the technology available at the time.

this bickering makes you all look like bufoons.

CHEERS

Dobson.

Blair, in your haste to try and score some points you missed a few things. First Shanets theory is crap because of his stated starting point...35mm film. There is only one place in Dealy Plaza where the camera that exposed was is known as the z film could have been placed and that exactly where Zapruder is shown. No other place in the plaza will work. None. No amount of post production work can change this simple fact. That is one point that is set in stone. Now correct me if I'm wrong but there are NO images that show anything close to a 35mm motion camera to be seen. Game set and match for Shanets silly theory. All the rest is bunk. No way in the world to make reflective prints copied on a animation stand pass muster as camera original KodachromeII daylight film exposed in Dealy Plaza. And pass muster under the eyes of someone like Rollie. No Shanet is not correct and neither are you. Its a theory thats based on ignorance of the process. I know Shanet is ignorant in this case and now it appears you are as well.

Are you blowing smoke Blair?

Despite your long winded explanation, you miss a very important point. No copy be it from a piece of reversal film or a reflective print made to KodachromeII daylight film is going to look ANYTHING like kodachromeII exposed in daylight as a camera original film. Anyone why says thats posible is blowing smoke. Forget fine grains and special internegative and interpositive stocks...there is NO WAY to make the copy be an EXACT MATCH to a camera original. Contrast. color crossovers, grain and reduced dynamic range will DOOM your copy. And all of this will be easy to spot by a trained eye. Perhaps your eyes are not well trained?

Forget the 70mm to 35mm Star wars crap..it does not apply in this case. We are not making "new originals" that have to match nothing but rather exact matches that need to pass inspection by of one the formost experts on Kodachrome film!

And I loved the part where you tell us that 70mm to 35mm copies show no geerational loss! More bullcrap. There was a HUGE generational loss..the 35mm frame contained much less information that the 70mm original....no generational loss! ROTFLMAO!

Heres the deal, and there is no way around it...if a lens is involved anywhere in the process a generational loss will occur...period. And correct me if I'm wrong but you cant do a emulsion to emulsion contact from a reflective print to 8mm film! And you can't do a contact print to make those enlargements to retouch......

You blowing smoke Blair?

But thats where all of this has to end up. On a roll of kodachromeII daylight camera original stock.

Making the dupe to kodachrome from an interpositive will be bad enough color and contrast wise but doing it from the limited dynamic range of a reflective print is even worse. Play all of the tricks you can think of but none of these methods will fool anyone with experince with first generation camera original kodachrome. And I can't think of anyone better than Rollie to review the Zapruder kodachrome film. Anyone want to suggest that Rollie is not telling the truth or does not know what he is talking about? You think YOU could fool Rollie into thinking reflective art shot on a copy stand to kodachromeII was really camera original KodachromeII taken in daylight? LOL!

Or are you just blowing smoke Blair?

I've spent a great deal of time working the animation stand and also have exposed miles of film stock. In fact, if you read back in the threads I also suggested that an animation stand would be a far better tool to create a composite z film than an optical printer. On that point we agree, at least to the extent that the live frame area could be produced in a "fake z film". The intersprocket areas are another story.

Finally I dont know where you got the idea that I said a camera original and a first generation copy would have the same grain pattern...I did'nt.

But lets cut to the chase here...

In summary:

Its foolish to believe that a kodachrome film made by either a copy process from reflective art, or a dupe process with internegatives/interpositives could pass muster as a camera original film. Its simply not going to happen. Any suggestion that its possible by you or anyone else is nothing more than bullxxxx.

Or are you just blowing smoke Blair?

Get up to speed here Blair..you are looking like a bufoon.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Blair Dobson]

that was some comeback.

not trying to thread jack but there was a lot of bickering over nothing.

the z film grain, exposure , which generation is of limited importance in respect to the big picture.

did someone need further clarification that there was a coverup? that the warren ommision were even more wrong?

Posner did it.

lol

Edited May 20, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Bill Miller]

that was some comeback.

not trying to thread jack but there was a lot of bickering over nothing.

the z film grain, exposure , which generation is of limited importance in respect to the big picture.

did someone need further clarification that there was a coverup? that the warren ommision were even more wrong?

Posner did it.

lol

Blair, you stated some things that are contradiction to what the experts have said. Can you tell me what source of information you have based your opinion on?

You said, "Film LOSES generations the more times its copied BUT if its been ROTO'D, a soft focus, long exposure or any number of tricks can replicate an entirely new image with its own grain onto the new neg. soft focus being the worst way, low light/long exposure being the best to preserve quality."

The type of film that Zapruder used was made for outdoor light. Any replication would take artifical light and filters to give the appearence of outdoor light exposure. Filters reduce the sharpness. Can you address that for me?

Thanks,

Bill

[Nick Bartetzko]

Bill I've read your posts and your explanation of the technical aspects of the Z film and the difficulty of attempting alteration. Forgetting the technical aspects of the Z film for the sake of this question, are there any concerns you would have as to blurring, occupant movement or any other anomolies that would cause you to suspect a problem? Also, have you seen any evidence of alteration of any kind in any of the other photos or movies? Thanks Nick

[Jack White]

Blair, with impressive credentials, stated:

"Re photographing stills on an animation stand without obvious artifacts is not only possible, it's exactly how most people i know would have done it IF they were going to fake it given the technology available at the time."

Correct, Blair. I did this many times, though I was always shooting slides,

not movie film. In fact, I found that with bracketing* and other tricks, my

copies were usually superior to the "original". I once did a slide show about

racehorses for a Quarterhorse Association. All I had to work with was

8x10 color prints of horses and races. Using only my Leica and copystand

I created a slide show which was far superior to the original prints we were

given. And contrary to the limited knowledge of "Miller" about filtration,

I shot everything on DAYLIGHT Ektachrome, which improved color saturation.

But "Miller" would protest...but you had to use a filter, which would have

degraded the image! No, "Miller"...I did not use a filter on the camera.

You have never heard of FILTERING THE LIGHT SOURCE to raise the

temp to 3200K, eliminating the need for camera filtration! Filtering the

light source actually gave a better result than sunlight. Grain was never

a problem, either on the original prints nor the copy slides. I doubt that

an expert exists who could tell my slides from ORIGINALS, unless they

suspected that the perfect cropping and composition was too good to be

original slides. "Miller" is prone to talking about things that he does not know.

Jack

*to improve exposure

[Shanet Clark]

The hateful crowd is attacking a straw version of our very simple case.

Of course a 35 mm version of 70 mm loses detail - relative to the original 70 -

but not relative to other 35 mm's, it looks like a normal 35mm because of the strength of the 70 master.

The eight mm Z film carries less detail than the thirty five,

but not less than a typical eight home movie.

So much of this is distorted by the angry crowd,

we never even said much of what is "refuted....."

The hateful, abusive language doesn't help their case either.

Interesting stuff about the best way to do it, Dobson ...

In consideration of f.stop, exposure, light intensity and focal distance during film animation....

quote:

"""Actually Craig, Shanet is correct that this process COULD have been used, I am not saying it was done.

In the old days of rotoscoping, which goes back into the days of Disney cartoons, this process was widely used to incorporate live action with animation in what is called multi plane optical printing.

That way, Dick Van Douche can dance with the animated Penguins..

Ray Harryhausen and willis o'brien used a very similar process to animate dinosaurs.

Apples to oranges in some sense, but not in principle.

In fact, if i were to humour the "alteration of the zfilm" theory, thats exactly how it would, could and should be pulled off in that era, as the technology was there 20 years before JFK got whacked.

I'll give you an abstract:

all of the background plates for 'star wars' were shot on 70mm film so that when they were bipacked back down to 35mm for theatres and release, there was no generation loss.

because the original 70 mm is oversaturated with grain, the 35mm would interpolate it into its own lesser grain, making it appear that the 35mm was in fact "an original".

the same could very well be said for the zap film being blown up, manipulated and re-photographed.

again, i don't know if they did that or not and my feelings on the film being faked are still in the "thinking about it stage."

but i will say this:

in regards to your attacking Shanet's post , from a technical standpoint, there is nothing erroneous about the post . it would be entirely possible to do that. """

unquote

((((((((((( "igornance!" ))))))))))))

Edited May 20, 2006 by Shanet Clark

[Bill Miller]

Bill I've read your posts and your explanation of the technical aspects of the Z film and the difficulty of attempting alteration. Forgetting the technical aspects of the Z film for the sake of this question, are there any concerns you would have as to blurring, occupant movement or any other anomolies that would cause you to suspect a problem? Also, have you seen any evidence of alteration of any kind in any of the other photos or movies? Thanks Nick

Nick, the backyard photos were the only images that I recall feeling that something was wrong with them.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

And contrary to the limited knowledge of "Miller" about filtration,

............... unless they

suspected that the perfect cropping and composition was too good to be

original slides. "Miller" is prone to talking about things that he does not know.

Jack

Jack, it is not me that your beef is with for I have only relayed what the experts have said. And I'm willing to bet that those same experts pass more knowledge through their stools than you have in your whole body when it comes to what to look for to validate a film being an original or not. Also, you may think that your slides are perfect by your standards of checking them which is nothing more than an old man looking at them with his naked eye, but you made no mention that they were ever tested by an expert through scietific methods and that's what at least one of us has been talking about throughout this thread. In fact, I would bet that through high magnification and other scientific processes that an expert could easily detect your forgeries.

Bill Miller

Edited May 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Blair Dobson]

that was some comeback.

not trying to thread jack but there was a lot of bickering over nothing.

the z film grain, exposure , which generation is of limited importance in respect to the big picture.

did someone need further clarification that there was a coverup? that the warren ommision were even more wrong?

Posner did it.

lol

Blair, you stated some things that are contradiction to what the experts have said. Can you tell me what source of information you have based your opinion on?

You said, "Film LOSES generations the more times its copied BUT if its been ROTO'D, a soft focus, long exposure or any number of tricks can replicate an entirely new image with its own grain onto the new neg. soft focus being the worst way, low light/long exposure being the best to preserve quality."

The type of film that Zapruder used was made for outdoor light. Any replication would take artifical light and filters to give the appearence of outdoor light exposure. Filters reduce the sharpness. Can you address that for me?

Thanks,

Bill

first off, what "experts" and in what field? i don't consider anyone an "expert" unless i know how many hours they have in the air so to speak.

i base my opinion on 20 years of practical experience (99% of it paid work) doing transfers from 8mm to super 8, 8mm to 16mm, 16 to 35 and to both analog and digital video. i have extensive darkroom experience as well as post processing/colour timing in both digital and analog (optical meaning lamps, not lasers..)

also, i wasn't basing my opinion on information about the zapruder film or any other specific film.

i was making the point that there was alot of "flap" about certain comments made her by jack and others where, they indeed had their facts correct, regardless of whether i think the film was altered or not.

and what i find the most drab and boring is that people keep quoting "experts" over tit for tat minutiae that has more to do with attacking Jack White and others and dick all to do with the case. FILM GRAIN HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER WITH ANYTHING AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY.

My opinions are my own expert opinions. experience and common sense form my views, not quoting someone elses homework.

there are only three things that can be reasonably deduced from the z film in regards to alteration that can be proven to some degree and then argued about over personal attacks and wasted time looking at film grain:

1) the stemmons sign "break"

- could be an edit to fix timing problems in relation to the shots as per the Warren Omission. could also actually be a break in the film. it seems odd to me that it would break there and not around the headshot but thats a whole other pile of snakes...

Only important to the degree that it moves a shot around by a few seconds, thus making Kennedy More Dead than if they had left the frames in....

Easy to do, serves the purpose of hiding the real timing of the shots from investigators. PLAUSABLE.

2) Headsnaps and odd movements that appear such as Connally hiding in his wifes lap at 75 mph.

- it is possible that the film was "stepped" here to speed up the limo speed.

this could have been done two ways, one, optically reprinted via stills with frames being double exposed or just removed

or

bipacked onto another roll at a slightly faster frame rate. this would have then have to be done in chunks. it also would have been blown up onto 16mm as it is thicker and handles being messed with alot better than after it has been sliced in two.

the easiest way to tell if this was done in chunks is to watch the colour.

as the colour in the z film is as consistant as one can expect from 8mm (*used in context)

(actually the Z film is a 16 mm reversal film , which, has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GRAIN STRUCTURE THAN REGULAR OR SUPER 8 MM I might add , also a FACT none of the EXPERTS have mentioned over the years...and 8mm cart film was only available to the military, the us department of geological surveys and the Dept of Meteorology in 1962...I know..I asked.)

the other thing to keep in mind about windup cameras such as Honest Abes, is that not only are they not consistant in speed to any degree, which is referred to as CRYSTAL, the little pulldown claws that hit the registration marks arent reliable to any degree so the assumption that it was shot at 18.3 fps is actually a variable rate of 18 to 18.5. how do i know this? i have had to synch up film shot on those cameras to audio so that lips move and they wave up and down..so that there, in itself says hooey to most assumptions of speed.. it could be speeding up and slowing down all on its own...

also consider that when it was transferred , with the exception of when it was restored (in which case we know how it was done and where and at what fps etc...) we have no idea if it was transferred to 24 fps or 18 and whether that was to a crystal mahcine or not.

3) Kennedy's head exploding.

- another anomalie is his head movement here. good place to mess about if he was hit twice withing a few frames, or, if there were more telling head movements that needed to be altered...

this is also a great time for abes camera to skip a few beats as they are known to do. sadly, it would have slowed down (losing frames) rather than sped up (giving more information).

but no...looking at jackie tells us that this isn't the case. it's more likely that if it were faked or altered in some way, it would be that in order to speed up the limo speed, we lost a few important frames and she just blurred through them, all the while looking great in that chanel outfit. this is a product of playing a fast fps over a slow fps rate and it is called interpolation, which appears as a blur or two frames combining, leaving the frame at which this occurs to be an unresolute frame..or...blurred...

now lets take another look at that part of the film:

as he gets closer to zapruder, he appears to be going faster which is a natural effect that you guys can debate about with your slide rules BUT judging from the speed on the nix film, the zap film is a bit sketchy here.

the limo seems to be going pretty fast here when it shouldn't. the problem is, from a technical standpoint it's pretty difficult to argue whether abes camera chunked it at that exact spot, arlen spector and david belin had a nude orgy over the the neg and chucked the frames in LBJ's fireplace with hoover holding the marshmallows or the parallax effect came into full play in a textbook example that will keep us from ever knowing for sure...

now that i have covered this... a few more points...

IF and i say IF it was altered, these are the places and the reasons for why they would be altered and it is quite possible to do this without involving a time machine and the guys that made star wars.

possible and not improbable either way....the technical and the fantastical are at a perfect tie here.

IF it was roto'd on a desk and reshot with people and things removed and replaced by gras WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE IN 1963 then we wont ever know will we? because if they did, they sure did it well ...

Whether or not i agree with Jack Whites theories, i think he would be a lovely guy to have a beer with and no matter how weekly world news i may or may not find some of his research, he is entitled to do so because more than once, he has made me and alot of others think outside of the box.

it is a good thing to think in terms of improbabilities and impossiblities in order to rule out what the actual truth is and attacking him or Shanet or whomever doesn't aid in bringing any of this to a better light.

i prefer to bang on posner simply because he looks creepy and i'm positive his mother still dresses him..

the moustache...jesus.....i can't tell if thats a clip on or not...

i digress...

Sadly, Kennedy is still dead because someone shot him in Dallas.

Luckilly we have the Zap film, faked or not to know that theres no way in hells half acre theme park that any one gunman hit him alone and that the warren commision is well, exactly what it is... a sham.

Here's the punchline:

You all can sit and pour over the zap film all you want and believe me, i have.. it is not the rosetta stone that you all think it is.... and i am not knocking peoples work here...but film grain? gimme a break.

"what did tippet have for lunch?"

"funny that tippet was almost a dead ringer for kennedy...i mean...when he was dead..."

"what kinda film grain did tippet use?"

tippet was shot to get people out of dealey as fast as possible, mostly cops...how do i know this? THEY ALL WENT UP TO THE THEATRE RIGHT AWAY LEAVING DEALEY ALONE!!

thats what this sounds like with some psuedo science and some "i know an expert at kodak" thrown in and it ends up sounding like KOLSHAK...

Stop fighting.

If you dont like the reasearch LEAVE IT ALONE .

I like simkins approach and i try to follow that:

follow the money, follow the trails, not the spilled salt amongst the sand because you can watch those films all day and you will still never figure out who killed kennedy, whether they were faked or not.

follow common sense and follow history.

the gunmen and the autopsy and Posners stupid mustache have got to go by the wayside to some degree... they are distractions..FILM GRAIN is nitpicking my friends and i say that as an expert and as an interested party...

finding a 65 year old gunman and his spotters because Ektachrome 250 asa wasn't available in 1962? c'mon people....i mean really....

end rant....

this is not directed at bill or david or jack or anyone, its just a general rant...

keep up the good work, all of you..even the lone nutters...

(i miss hemming)

cheers,

Dobson...

[Blair Dobson]

"The type of film that Zapruder used was made for outdoor light. Any replication would take artifical light and filters to give the appearence of outdoor light exposure. Filters reduce the sharpness. Can you address that for me"

quick point, filters arent used when dumping outdoor to say indoor. they use a lamp that has a different colour tempature. nor are they used in a straight dump of day/outdoor to the same stock.

you can flash the film, say if it was indoor shot outside and that colour corrects the orange/blue difference you have between the two stocks..... outdoor is balanced slightly orange because sunlight reads as blue whereas indoor is balanced with a blue tinge to offeset the orange..some cameras have a built in filter and do this automatically....

a number of films from dealey as i recall were shot using indoor instead if i remember correctly..

but filters in the post aspect are for amateurs i am afraid...

how do i know this?

i used to work in a lab converting 8 mm footage to various formats and going from 8mm or super8 to 16 mm (because transferring 8mm to video at the time was near impossible) and we would use different coloured lamps in the printer. the printer was made by kodak.

very similar to a telecine or an optical printer...

a lamp for daylight and a lamp for indoor. if the conversion was problematic and we were doing a straight correction, the "filter" would be placed well before the film plane so it was nowhere near the film thus, wouldn't create a blur or loss of any kind....

its late..i can clarify this tommorow if need be...

cheers

dobson

Edited May 20, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Bill Miller]

quick point, filters arent used when dumping outdoor to say indoor. they use a lamp that has a different colour tempature. nor are they used in a straight dump of day/outdoor to the same stock.

you can flash the film, say if it was indoor shot outside and that colour corrects the orange/blue difference you have between the two stocks..... outdoor is balanced slightly orange because sunlight reads as blue whereas indoor is balanced with a blue tinge to offeset the orange..some cameras have a built in filter and do this automatically....

a number of films from dealey as i recall were shot using indoor instead if i remember correctly..

but filters in the post aspect are for amateurs i am afraid...

how do i know this?

i used to work in a lab converting 8 mm footage to various formats and going from 8mm or super8 to 16 mm (because transferring 8mm to video at the time was near impossible) and we would use different coloured lamps in the printer. the printer was made by kodak.

very similar to a telecine or an optical printer...

a lamp for daylight and a lamp for indoor. if the conversion was problematic and we were doing a straight correction, the "filter" would be placed well before the film plane so it was nowhere near the film thus, wouldn't create a blur or loss of any kind....

its late..i can clarify this tommorow if need be...

cheers

dobson

Blair, let me get this straight .... have you just stated that the process that you described would allow the needed alterations to be done to the Zapruder Kodachrome 8MM film and it would not be detected through the scientific methods of today that I have presented to this forum?

Bill