BM testing the waters re RZavada update?

[Len Colby]

So David when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim" which you said you would make "soon" back in January?

[Bill Miller]

So David when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim" which you said you would make "soon" back in January?

I'm still waiting to hear what he felt the better starting point was on the assassination films if David thinks he knows a better one than the moment of the head shot for testing them for synchronization. I'm starting to think this was just another instance where he made an assertion and then quickly crawled back under his rock.

Bill

[Shanet Clark]

So explain the first forty frames where the upper right hand area of the Z film

is fuzz/matte ........... where the jail is supposed to be......

Edited May 9, 2006 by Shanet Clark

[Bill Miller]

So explain the first forty frames where the upper right hand area of the Z film

is fuzz/matte ........... where the jail is supposed to be......

Shanet, the building you speak of is the Dallas County Records Building. Also, you will have to be more specific about the problem you have with Zapruder's images for depending on what film copy you are viewing will depend on the clarity of the image that is being presented. Below is the same view taken with a digital camera and the color and clarity in the inserted image doesn't look as good as Zapruder's Kodachrome II film images.

Bill

[Shanet Clark]

I am sorry, I guess the portico between

County Records and the Dallas Jail

exists in a perpetual fog and can never be sharply

photographed, kind of like Count Dracula..

[Bill Miller]

I am sorry, I guess the portico between

County Records and the Dallas Jail

exists in a perpetual fog and can never be sharply

photographed, kind of like Count Dracula..

It probably can be photographed sharply, but not with a 1963 movie camera from a block away. If you are still puzzled by the lack of detail concerning the relationship between a concrete wall and a camera, think - distance - focus - and a shaking camera.

Bill

Edited May 9, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ld_content.html

[Bill Miller]

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ld_content.html

Shanet - I take it that you have read what Costella said in the link you provided. The problem with these alteration claims is that they are being made by people who are attempting to venture out of their realm of expertise instead of taking their immediate observations and questions to real experts who know photography. Some of their mistakes don't even take an expert to notice, such as Jack's 'Moorman in the Street' claim. However, there are times when things they say do appear to make sense at an initial glance and that is when one should double check their claims by gathering the available information and taking it to the people who have done Photography for a living and who have a good knowledge of the Zapruder film and its history.

Like I have said in the past ... I am not an expert in photography, but I do take the time to contact those who are the experts and to solicit the needed information it takes to know if Costella was in error or not. Let me address one such example concerning Costella's alteration claim.

Costella writes, "Film experts believe that a real film of the assassination was quickly altered on the evening of the assassination, using machines that could create Hollywood-style special effects (like Mary Poppins, created in 1964)."

"Because the Zapruder film is only 27 seconds long, less than 500 photos needed to be made. The forgers had almost a year to create them, before they were published."

For one thing - there are no film experts that I am aware of that claim the Zapruder film was altered. Next, I ask that you go back in the Education Forum's archived postings and look at the 'Mary Poppin's' movie special effects that I posted and look at what was shown. The special effects alterations are so noticeable that a child can see them when looked at in slow motion magnification. Costella must have merely rented the video and watched it with his kids once and thought that was good enough because he certainly could never have studied any of the stills made from that film and then reference it to support his alteration claims.

Elsewhere on the link - JFK assassination film hoax/The blur mistake

Costella writes, "Almost all of the frames in the Zapruder film are correctly blurred, like this one. But in their rush to publish something, the forgers made mistakes. Two weeks after the assassination, Life magazine published nine color photos that they said came from Zapruder’s film. Two of these photos are incredibly sharp." Didn't Costella just say that the forgers had a year to make the needed alterations, I assume in order to lure the reader into thinking all the forgers needed was time to create the alteraions. Yet he references alleged alterations from stills made within days of the assassination ... those stills were published two weeks after the assassination.

Next Costella says, "Watch the face of JFK and his wife; the window frames, tire rims, and keyhole on the limousine; the stripes of the American flag; the fingers of the man that are forming a “V”; the windshield on the motorcycle; the leaves against the trunk of the tree; the bright spots in the red bushes. Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication? Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. Even today, it would probably be impossible for a computer to sharpen a photo this much, because there is too much detail that is lost in the blurring. The frame shown in Life magazine is a high-quality forgery, probably created by cutting and pasting together real photographs and film frames of the assassination."

John Costella committed a bone-headed mistake when he didn't think things through and do a little more homework before writing his article. For instance, Costella never mentioned that the MPI version of the Zapruder film is not the same source image that Life Magazine used. The MPI version had been processed - Life Magazine used the original film to make their prints. What's the difference you might ask? MPI used 'noise reduction techniques' to not the original film, but to the "VIDEO" copy version which no longer represented the original images Life Magazine had used. Simply put - noise reduction filters remove some of the image sharpness of the film. Costella never mentions this in his article for the obvious reasons - he didn't think about it because he's not a Photography expert and didn't know the history of what occurred at MPI during their copying of the original Zapruder flim frames. So Costella tells us that the MPI images are not as sharp as the Life Magazine images - duh, what is so hard to understand about that? Life Magazine made prints directly from the original Zapruder film and MPI is a film made from the original Zapruder film that has been through a series of filters that have lessened the MPI film versions clarity ... that is not a sign of Zapruder film forgery on Life Magazine's part - only on MPI's part some four decades later.

Let me add something else I had learned and it came from Robert Groden some time ago. To make the blow-ups needed to create these alleged alterations - a stretching of the space between the emulsion grains would take place and this would effect the sharpness and color balance of every processed film frame. That means that every Zapruder film frame would need to be re-registered to achieve an exact exposure, an exact density, and an exact color balance between each film frame and all this would had to of been done in 1963/64 by hand. I don't know if you know it or not, but not even the MPI film frames are an exact match in these ways from frame to frame and they had the use of computers to try and achieve a consistent balanced image throughout the film.

The point is that even intelligent people can make needless mistakes when they tend to venture out of their fields of expertise. The Zapruder film alteration crowd seems to have a common theme whereas they don't seek enough detailed information before taking on a project and they tend to never ask that their work to be peer reviewed by experts in the areas they are writing about. They appear to have taken on a 'cult-like' mentality where they feel that they don't have to know the facts because they somehow know the Zapruder film must be a forgery. One such Zfilm alteration believer was recently reported to say, 'I don't care what the evidence shows concerning the Zapruder film not being altered .... I still feel that it is a forgery.'

I rest my case on that statement.

Bill Miller

Edited May 9, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Some film quality examples of other movie camera images that filmed in Dealy Plaza ...

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling.

Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film.

Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................

[Len Colby]

I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling.

Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film.

Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................

Which Costello are you talking about, Lou, Frank or Elvis? LOL! John Costella makes me think of comedy too but more along the lines of Jarry and Ionesco than slapstick.

The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy?

Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

Edited May 10, 2006 by Len Colby

[Bill Miller]

The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy?

Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

Len, Shanet is a prime example of that cult-like mentality that I mentioned in my previous response. I went to a lot of trouble to try and lay some of the evidence before him that he and other alterationist supporters never even considered, let alone tested to see if it would explain the artifacts and annomolies they describe, yet all he had to say was, "I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling. Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film. Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................" Shanet didn't address a damned thing that was handed to him and the reason is quite simple IMO - he doesn't understand the topic that is being discussed, he doesn't want to understand it, and he is satisfied having others do his thinking for him even in the light that has shown that his thinkers didn't have all the bases covered before drawing their conclusions. For instance, all David Healy has done is tell us that mattes can be made - not that they were made to the Zapruder film. Healy, himself says he has never seen anything so far that proves the Zapruder film was faked. Yet someone like Shanet doesn't care if his assertions are based on scientific and factual data - he just wants to tell people the Zapruder film is altered. Unless people like Shanet are going to learn the subject matter and conduct a responsible inquiry of their own so they can logically and rationally address the evidence, then they cannot be taken seriously. Shanet's half-assed three sentenced generic reply in response #25 told me loud and clear that he views this site not as an educational forum, but rather nothing more than a meeting place for his fellow cult members. If anyone thinks I'm joking, then go back a few post and read again where Shanet posted, "So explain the first forty frames where the upper right hand area of the Z film is fuzz/matte ........... where the jail is supposed to be......" The fact that Shanet was dead wrong about the location of the jail and that even a modern camera didn't offer a better image of the area of the Criminal Records Building that he spoke about - he still never acknowledged his error over that being proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

WOW! When you can't wow the educated ones, dump useless information on top of them anbd hope for the best, huh?

LMAO keep coming back champ, you'll get it right, YET!

There that signature block again, you should be ashamed of yourself...

_______________________

The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy?

Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

Len, Shanet is a prime example of that cult-like mentality that I mentioned in my previous response. I went to a lot of trouble to try and lay some of the evidence before him that he and other alterationist supporters never even considered, let alone tested to see if it would explain the artifacts and annomolies they describe, yet all he had to say was, "I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling. Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film. Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................" Shanet didn't address a damned thing that was handed to him and the reason is quite simple IMO - he doesn't understand the topic that is being discussed, he doesn't want to understand it, and he is satisfied having others do his thinking for him even in the light that has shown that his thinkers didn't have all the bases covered before drawing their conclusions. For instance, all David Healy has done is tell us that mattes can be made - not that they were made to the Zapruder film. Healy, himself says he has never seen anything so far that proves the Zapruder film was faked. Yet someone like Shanet doesn't care if his assertions are based on scientific and factual data - he just wants to tell people the Zapruder film is altered. Unless people like Shanet are going to learn the subject matter and conduct a responsible inquiry of their own so they can logically and rationally address the evidence, then they cannot be taken seriously. Shanet's half-assed three sentenced generic reply in response #25 told me loud and clear that he views this site not as an educational forum, but rather nothing more than a meeting place for his fellow cult members. If anyone thinks I'm joking, then go back a few post and read again where Shanet posted, "So explain the first forty frames where the upper right hand area of the Z film is fuzz/matte ........... where the jail is supposed to be......" The fact that Shanet was dead wrong about the location of the jail and that even a modern camera didn't offer a better image of the area of the Criminal Records Building that he spoke about - he still never acknowledged his error over that being proof of alteration.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited May 10, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

'Len Colby'

I find Costello, David Healey and Dr. Mantik all compelling.

Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film.

Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................

Which Costello are you talking about, Lou, Frank or Elvis? LOL! John Costella makes think of comedy too but more along the lines of Jarry and Ionesco than slapstick.

The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy?

Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

_____________

As the interface between Roland Zavada Ray Fielding i have to ask if you're still up to the task? Or shall I contact them and find out how the rewrite is coming along ---

btw, what's a moron like you criticizing a high school teacher for? You forget just what forum your posting to? Perhaps your handlers are giving you a bit more room to freelance? Attempting to disgrace a teacher on the Education Forum -- what a dunce!

Get that JFK Researcher/Investagator tag under your name, I think you've qualified -- take it all in lurkers .... lmfao

Edited May 10, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote

[...]

Below is the same view taken with a digital camera and the color and clarity in the inserted image doesn't look as good as Zapruder's Kodachrome II film images.

Bill

_____________

WHY? Then tell us why it's important . You get the film emulsion/gamma figured out yet or do I have to wait for Roland and Ray? I understand your a film researcher/expert these day's. After all your comparing digital imagery with film (what the hell thats got to do with anything, I don't know), perhaps you'll fill us in ?

Perhaps you'll give us a review of Livingstones book....? I know how you like to rub shoulders with authors, have you spoke to Harry yet?

So David when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim" which you said you would make "soon" back in January?

I hope Rollie doesn't wait too long -- Harry's book trip him up a bit?

'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.

get back in the trailer your photographing -- who pulled your chain

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

I'll bet -- send him my best -- Harry autographed my book -- ouch!

Groden can't speak for himself? How convenient I do have a few questions for him, he still expensive?

BMwrote:

This appears to be another instance of the simple minded leading the blind.

[...]

Your getting ballsey these days young fella, you looking to buy a piece of this place too? LOL