BM testing the waters re RZavada update?

[Bill Miller]

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...

David, it is only useless information to those who are not intelligent enough to know what it means. I am certain that is why you cannot state any data to the contrary.

Bill

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Len Colby]

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 ---

I never said I was the "interface" between Zavada and Fielding and this forum though I did offer to post anything they wrote regarding the Z film if they decided not to join. Since you promised your “formal claim” "soon" back in mid January and Zavada said in late February he would write a dissertation but said specifically it would take him some time you have no grounds to question his “delay”. Zavada has serious health problems. Submit your “claim” and a few months later you’ll have the right to ask about Zavada’s dissertation.

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!

Moron, dunce? LOL Isn’t that like a mutt calling a Siamese a dog! Insults from the likes of you are a compliment.

I’ve got no problems with high school teachers* but when a recognized crime scene expert with a specialization in blood splatter says a teacher is wrong about blood splatter I’ll go with the professional crime scene expert every time, esp. if common sense indicates the teacher made a stupid blunder and that high school teacher is John Costella for reasons stated above.

Now that we’re on the subject tell us Dave, don’t you think it’s possible the blood splatter was accelerated by the bullet? If not, why not? If so how could your friend the gifted PhD in physics, “expert on how things move” and “leading technical expert on the Zapruder film” have missed something so obvious.

My “handlers” now Fetzer, Jack (White), the crazy old lady down the street and YOU have accused me of being a spy of some sort, that’s some club you belong too. Hopefully you won’t get to Costella’s point and start suspecting your own wife! Of Jack’s and believe that the naked man who stole your car and crashed it into a retaining wall shortly thereafter was a “would be” assassin!

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm

Len

PS “your posting to” or “you’re posting to” LOL

* Except when they try to push themselves off as experts on subjects they have little knowledge.

[Len Colby]

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

....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)."

For one thing - there are no film experts that I am aware of that claim the Zapruder film was altered. ...

I wondered about that myself, perhaps Costella was referring to himself in the royal we as a "film expert". After all Fetzer declared that he was "the leading technical expert on the Zapruder film" and that he had a "specialty in optics". David, Jack, Fetzer care to tell us exactly who these "film experts" are?

'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 ?

He didn't bring it up Shanet did. He was debunking Shanet's spurious claim about the jail

[Bill Miller]

'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 ? "

David you have finally asked something relevant, so please let me take this rare opportunity to address what you said even though a child should have known the answer.

First of all, Shanet made a reference to the Criminal Records Building (despite him thinking it was the jailhouse which was located a half a block to the south) and he questioned the clarity of that building as it is seen in the Zapruder film. In fact, he used the term "fuzz/matte" which gives the impression that an alteration must be the blame for its appearance. I merely pointed out that even with a modern day camera and being positioned nearly a block away - one cannot expect to get any better of an image than that Zapruder obtained.

Also, your remark about my comparing digital imagery with film has a double edged blade even though you are not someone who would be considered sharp enough to see it without help. You see, John Costella did just that! Costella took the MPI version of the Zapruder film, which has digital imagery written all over it, and he compared it to the images seen in Life Magazine and what should be seen on Kodachrome II film. Of course, you must have seen my post addressing all this, but you were probably in no position to offer any data to the contrary, which has been a common theme with all your responses.

"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?"

I am not sure what you are talking about, but what the heck - you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about either. I think Groden might be the only JFK assassination author I have actually spent any time getting to know. I have seen Mark Lane and a small handfull of other authors, but never spoke to them. I had met person to person and corresponded with Jean Hill and discussed the assassination with her ... does that count? I breifly spoke to Law and Melon at last years Dallas conference. I have emailed Josiah Thompson and participated on the same forum as he ... are these the types of things you call "rubbing shoulders with the authors" or is it just another instance where you blew off your big mouth about something you actually knew nothing about ......... I'm thinking it was the latter.

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

David, your response to Craig seems somewhat of a hollow request coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but jump into discussions uninvited and without anything of actual data to offer. On the other hand, Craig mentioned some relevant things concerning a remark you had made about comparing altered Kodachrome II film with non-altered Kodachrome II film, but you don't really seem interested in persuing your own inquiry. Was this just another one of your childish snotty-assed blurbs that backfired on you when Craig mentioned that he had such experience in the area you asked about. The fact is that you cannot intelligently discuss that issue with Crig, not that you ever had any intention to in the first place IMO.[/b]

"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?"

Harry autographed your book? Well, that response didn't offer anything to the topic, but I guess it came as close as all your other responses. And why does Groden need to be here to make what he says correct? If I want to talk mathematics, should I need Sir Issac Newton to come back from the 17th century and join the forum so to validate things he said that should be common knowledge among his present day peers? I'm sure that if there was something Groden said that was in error, you would have pointed it out. And if your questions to him are about optical printing, he has worked with them and achieved the highest level one can reach in that field. You certainly don't wish to make a bigger looking idiot out of yourself over and above what you have already done.

"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"

Not at all, David ... Jack made a statement that altering the Zapruder film was a simple matter and Shanet accepted it without question. Of course, when Jack leaves out so much of the criteria that would be needed to do such alterations, then I guess one could view it as a simple matter, but as I posted ... it isn't as simple as Jack claimed when all the other factors are filtered in. If I wrote something that was incorrect, then feel free to use some of the forum space that you waste on a regular basis to address it.

Bill

Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

He didn't bring it up Shanet did. He was debunking Shanet's spurious claim about the jail

Len, David Healy was too busy trying to think of something stupid to say to actually have noticed what I was addressing to Shanet.

Bill

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm

You know, Len ... when I read the opening of the Dave Perry piece, I started to wonder but what some of these guys like Costella and White may be working in 'counter-intelligence' themselves .... I mean what better way to make CT's look like a bunch of complete paranoid idiots than to have some of them publicly stating that they believe the rain sensors in DP are listening devices. Also, they are always falling short of getting all the facts first before making their allegations ... could this be more of an attempt on their part to make CT's look like goofballs who are not capable of running a thorough inquiry? If so, then these guys are sure doing it up right and have accomplished their mission.

Bill

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

I take offense at the tone and juvenile level of the above postings.

The Zapruder film is the single most suspect document in US history,

and foul languange and fulmination will never make it a legitimate primary document........

[Len Colby]

I take offense at the tone and juvenile level of the above postings.

I agree you and David should set higher standards for yourselves.

The Zapruder film is the single most suspect document in US history,

Hardly, it's only "suspect" by a small number of die-hard true believers. There is no evidence to back these claims. Theories of z-film alteration are rejected by most serious JFK researchers. Thus far no one with film making expertise has said they believe such theories or even believe they are possible. The inventor of Kodakcrome II (Zavada), the author of the book Healy cites (Fielding) and the filmmaker most knowledgeable about the assassination (Oliver Stone) have all said alteration ala Livingstone and Fetzer wasn't possible at the time.

and foul languange and fulmination will never make it a legitimate primary document.....

Foul language? LOL 'spurious' isn't a dirty word, insults have used by both sides, just declaring the film is false doesn’t make it so, try coming up with credible evidence of falsification.

[Bill Miller]

I take offense at the tone and juvenile level of the above postings.

Personally, I take offense to some alteration supporter not knowing the difference between the CRB and the jailhouse, not bothering to educate himself or herself more before implying what could and could not be done to Kodachrome II film as far as undetectable alteration goes, and I particularly take offense to having to take the time to do the research for someone only to have them not reply pertaining to the facts handed to them, but rather just respond with a generic cult-like answer.

Bill Miller

Cult: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Example: "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................"

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I take offense at the tone and juvenile level of the above postings.

Personally, I take offense to some alteration supporter not knowing the difference between the CRB and the jailhouse, not bothering to educate himself or herself more before implying what could and could not be done to Kodachrome II film as far as undetectable alteration goes, and I particularly take offense to having to take the time to do the research for someone only to have them not reply pertaining to the facts handed to them, but rather just respond with a generic cult-like answer.

Bill Miller

Cult: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Example: "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................"

then you'll have no problem posting sample photo's of altered Kodacolor II film... SHOW us, Bill! Show us what a 8mm Kodacolor to Kodacolor film transfer looks like, what you are basing your conclusions on.... your spending a lot of bandwidth taking on something you can't deliver, aren't you? If it looks like hell, show us an example! -- Ask Groden for a sample, his boss accomplished the 1/2 of the feat.

Maybe Lampoon can give you a hand, better yet Colby, maybe there's a SMPTE office in Brazil he can contact.....whoops, is Brazil still SECAM? Stay tuned Lurkers, stay tuned...

[Bill Miller]

"then you'll have no problem posting sample photo's of altered Kodacolor II film... SHOW us, Bill! Show us what a 8mm Kodacolor to Kodacolor film transfer looks like, what you are basing your conclusions on.... your spending a lot of bandwidth taking on something you can't deliver, aren't you? If it looks like hell, show us an example! -- Ask Groden for a sample, his boss accomplished the 1/2 of the feat."

David, as you are aware, I didn't claim to have access to such materials, but I had spoken to those who had the knowledge and experience to address this matter. Now so far you have not shown one ounce of understanding anything that has been said, instead you respond with little say nothing snippets that in not one instance did they ever address even the basics concerning the points that were being made. Now having said this ... why would me or anyone else believe that even if such images were shown to you that you'd know what in the hell they were telling you. You have proven to me and probably any serious researcher who has reviewed your responses that you are incapable of understanding any evidence pertaining to this subject. Besides, you have been repeatedly reminded that no one argues that Kodachrome film cannot be altered - the point that the experts make is that Kodachrome II film cannot be altered in such a way that it would be undetectable under close scrutiny. Until you are finally able to distinguish that simple difference, then the rest of it will only go over your head as it has so far.

For instance, you only mention the reasons why the Zapruder film would need to have been edited by the conspirators, and the editing steps that would need to be taken almost immediately (using optical printing) .... which this only says why someone would need to alter a film if they felt the necessity was there to need it done. Nowhere do you address the spatial changes between the emulsion grains that would take place during the transfering the original film to a larger size and then back down to 8MM again. In fact, I have not seen where you ever mention that Kodachrome II film even had a different emulsion grain pattern than other films. Nowhere do you address the color and density changes that would take place during a transfer or how an attempt with filters to correct them would only lose clarity and definition to the image. Other than Kodachrome II film having its own charicteristics, one can even test most of these problems with any film type when tranfering from one size film to another and back again. Not one of these things have I heard you address or even acknowledge that you were even aware they could cause a problem when trying to create an undetectable altered film. I believe the reason why you have not addressed these things is because you have not the expertise to do so, nor have you bothered to solicit information from any experts so you could discuss it intelligently. So I ask ... If someone cannot address the basic problems, then why would advancing to more complicated issues help them at this point. How much overkill against undetectable film alteration to the Zapruder film does one need to present to make their point!

Bill

PS About the silly remarks you made ...

SECAM is a TV standard having absolutely nothing to do with film, nothing at all. And even beginner level research would turn up the fact that Brazil is not on the SECAM standard - their TV system is PAL, which is mostly a European system. The US is NTSC...but it's all TV.

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

Kodachrome II and Kodacolor are different films. Kodacolor is a color negative designed to make still photo prints.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/1930_1959.shtml

Kodachrome was specially designed for amateurs and is a positive transparency. It doesn't make still photo prints.

Here is a link that has some interesting things to say about Kodachrome film.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/kodachrome.html

Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

The question here is whether or not Zapruder is authentic or manipulated.

If a camera films a retouched image,

then that emulsion on the second film would appear normal.

[Bill Miller]

The question here is whether or not Zapruder is authentic or manipulated.

If a camera films a retouched image,

then that emulsion on the second film would appear normal.

Shanet, it is sad enough that you have not bothered to learn the subject matter before attempting to draw any conclusions pertaining to it, but it is even worse that you have obviously not paid attention to what I have said about the very thing you just mentioned. To an expert or even a laymen who has had what to look for pointed out to them ... the emulsion grain on Kodachrome II film has a different pattern than that of other films. So look at it this way - do you think you could apply zebra stripes over a leopard coat and not see that the patterns don't match? To an expert it would be that distinguishable. Do you also not understand that the spacing between the emulsion grains will be stretched and become less defined on the original image and more defined on the newly added emulsions to the image? Once you start understanding these simple points, then maybe you'll be able to see why alteration pushers don't address these things when trying to promote their claims.

Look below at the manufactured illustration I have created. The red arrow points to the emulsion grains that have been stretched from 8MM film to 35MM film so to have an image large enough to attempt to do alterations to. Note the spacing between the grains and the loss of sharpness of their outlines.

Next, the blue arrow points to the emulsion grains on a 35MM piece of film. Note the spacing between the emulsion grains and the sharpness of their edges. Once the alteration has been attempted - the 35MM film has to be reduced back to 8MM size which matches the camera size that Zapruder used to film the assassination. Is not the size and clarity of the reduced 35MM emulsion grains distinguishable from the 8MM emulsion grains that were stretched and then reduced ... they most certainly are. This is just one aspect of the detection process that the experts say would be found had someone tried to alter the Zapruder film in the way the alterationist have purposed. Please keep in mind that you have only just been shown the stretching and clarity loss during the film transfer process .... the patterns representing emulsion grains were the same. Seeing how Kodachrome II has a different grain appearence than other films, then under magnification the 35MM pattern would be recognized immediately by an expert, which is yet another aspect of detecting film alteration.

I hope the illustration was clear enough to be understood by all.

Bill

Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

That makes no sense at all.

If you film an image, whether Dealey Plaza or a picture of Dealey Plaza, the grains are the same.

I never said that anything was stretched, converted from 8mm to 35mm or anything of the sort.

The members can see through your official version.

[Bill Miller]

That makes no sense at all.

If you film an image, whether Dealey Plaza or a picture of Dealey Plaza, the grains are the same.

I never said that anything was stretched, converted from 8mm to 35mm or anything of the sort.

The members can see through your official version.

Shanet, maybe you should read what your cult leaders have said about how the Zapruder film would had to of been altered, after all ... if you are going to agree with them, then you should first know what they have said.

Jack White said in this very thread that it is ignorant to believe someone could apply an alteration to the original Zapruder film.

Jack White: It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME! Nobody but a dunce would think that!

Jack said that the images would need to be enlarged onto possibly 8 x 10s. In case you don't know this - enlarging an image from 8MM size to an 8 x 10 print stretches the image ... stretching the image causes a lose of picture quality that reducing the image size does not and that was the message my illustration told.

Jack White: All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

In post #25, you (Shanet) had this to say, "Impossible head snaps, disappearing blood spray, this is a doctored film. Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed................"

Now explain this if you will .... In your previous post you said you never mentioned anything about stretching the film or converting it from 8MM to 35MM of any sort, so please tell me what does "Frame by frame enlarged and retouched and refilmed" mean to you?

en·large (ĕn-lärj')

v., -larged, -larg·ing, -larg·es.

v.tr.

To make larger; add to.

To give greater scope to; expand.

Bill

Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller