Shanet Clark Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 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................" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) 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................" You appear to have the copy and paste function down, but you didn't address anything. Let me touch on something else you have said ... Shanet, you posted the following statement, "If a camera films a retouched image, then that emulsion on the second film would appear normal." I assume that you missed the response I gave that explained all this. My understanding is that Kodachrome II film doesn't come in 35MM sized film and if the emulsion grain on 35MM film is not the same pattern as that on Kodachrome II 8MM film, then the emulsion grain on the altered version will not appear normal. I also told you that Kodachrome II film was made for natural sunlight exposure and if you attempt to transfer from 8MM to 35MM and then back again in order to alter Kodachrome II 8MM film - you will be forced to do it with artificial lighting. This would be quite noticeable. If you try and cover your tracks by using a filter to give the effect of natural sunlight, then the filter will cause you to lose clarity and sharpness of your image whereas it would also be detectable. This is why the experts saying that altering the Zapruder film and doing it in a way that could not be detected is nonsense ... and this is also why the alteration cult crowd never speak of these problems when trying to promote their beliefs to those who wouldn't know any better. Bill Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) The problem that "Zapruder film alterationist" don't wish to address: Jack White has already said that only a 'dunce' would think an alteration would have been done directly onto Kodachrome film. That only leaves what Jack implied next when he said, "All that is required to do the alteration is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." What Jack doesn't tell his fellow alteration followers is that there would be a noticeable problem that would take place during the enlarging of the original image and then adding an altered product to the film. The "grains" seen in the emulsion on the original image would lose clarity when enlarged to make the 8 x 10's that Jack suggested doing. Once this clarity is lost, there is no getting it back. The new altered film image with sharp appearing grains would be added to the now underlining fuzzy original grains that evolved during the enlarging process and each would be distinguishable in appearence from each other to a photo expert. (see the illustrations below for an understanding of what I have just said ...) I also want people to see that by combining the two grains (what was photographically transfered from the original and the grains from the new film stock being used to make the alterations) ... we would now have double the amount of grains on the finished product from what an original Kodachrome II film should have in its emulsion and that too, would be noticed by an expert in photography. ORIGINAL GRAIN APPEARANCE ENLARGED GRAIN APPEARANCE FINAL PRODUCT APPEARANCE FOLLOWING ALTERATION AND TRANSFER I invite any Zapruder film alteration supporter to explain how someone could get around these basic laws of physics when attempting to alter the Zapruder film in the manner in which Jack White has suggested. Bill Miller Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Thanks for the Polka Dots. Psychedelic. Was the film Kodachrome or 3M? (((3M = McAdams/Mack/Miller))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) The Mary Poppins Movie reference in the name of alterations being possible in 1963/64: John 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)." David Healy also references the Mary Poppins movie in the name of possible alteration of the Zapruder film when he said, "Obviously (or perhaps not, to Durnavich and Wimp), any special effects editor will match up features from frame to frame to present the illusion of reality. Surely this was more than possible in 1963: the techniques were used primarily for motion pictures, after all! Could you imagine “Mary Poppins” losing the illusion of reality because a piece of grass jumped all over the place from frame to frame?" While these gentlemen like to cite the illusions created in the Mary Poppins movie, they either have only viewed the film in its normal running time, thus they were satisfied and didn't care to investigate any further, or they had actually looked at stills from the movie and withheld the fact that the optical printing work by Disney in 1963/64 could be detected by even the most inexperienced laymen. I want to once again request that the people who claim how these men have gotten it right ... to actually look at what these individuals have said Vs. the actual Mary Poppins movie evidence that they referenced because what was said is not supported by what actually is witnessed on that film. (see the examples below) Bill Miller Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 The Mary Poppins Movie reference in the name of alterations being possible in 1963/64:John 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)." David Healy also references the Mary Poppins movie in the name of possible alteration of the Zapruder film when he said, "Obviously (or perhaps not, to Durnavich and Wimp), any special effects editor will match up features from frame to frame to present the illusion of reality. Surely this was more than possible in 1963: the techniques were used primarily for motion pictures, after all! Could you imagine “Mary Poppins” losing the illusion of reality because a piece of grass jumped all over the place from frame to frame?" While these gentlemen like to cite the illusions created in the Mary Poppins movie, they either have only viewed the film in its normal running time, thus they were satisfied and didn't care to investigate any further, or they had actually looked at stills from the movie and withheld the fact that the optical printing work by Disney in 1963/64 could be detected by even the most inexperienced laymen. I want to once again request that the people who claim how these men have gotten it right ... to actually look at what these individuals have said Vs. the actual Mary Poppins movie evidence that they referenced because what was said is not supported by what actually is witnessed on that film. (see the examples below) Bill Miller Oh, now I am convinced ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) Oh, now I am convinced ........ Shanet, please be more specific if you will. I only ask this because you had previously stated that you were convinced that the Zapruder film had been altered even though I am not sure that you really knew why you believed it to be so. I would like to be sure that you have understood the things I have shared with you regardless of what ever conclusion you then draw from it. Do you have any specific comments or questions about the information that I have shared with you at this time? I have been aware for some time that the alteration heads were not telling the listener all the facts, so are you now saying that there was at least more to the impossibilty of Zfilm alteration than what you have been told previously? Bill Edited May 11, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Maybe the film was overexposed because they used a DIM BULB ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) Maybe the film was overexposed because they useda DIM BULB ............... Shanet, are you on medication? "Overexposed" - "DIM BULB" .... What in the devils name are you talking about or do you even know? Maybe its just me, but you are sounding like a drunk who has passed out only to have brief moments of consciousness, but doesn't really know whats going on around him. Can you please put a few coherent and detailed sentences together in order to be a bit more specific? About the Mary Poppins movie examples I have posted .... you surely are not blaming the matte lines around Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke on a dim bulb - are you? You aren't suggesting that Disney Studio's are so cheap to not to use a good light bulb - are you? Do you have any idea why you'd think that a dim light bulb would cause Dick Van Dyke to be seen through the penguins or would make him grow in size between steps? You are aware aren't you, that when you respond like you have that it gives reason for people to think that the typical alteration supporter really doesn't have much of a grasp on the reality of the matter and that perhaps his or her support for the Zapruder film being altered are not built on thorough investigational practices and rational thinking, but rather soley on their cult-like belief system. Bill Edited May 12, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hackett II Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) 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........ Hear Hear and Amen Thanks Mr. Clark Jim Me thinks some doest protest too much borne of an impossible to defend position. Edited May 12, 2006 by Jim Hackett II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) 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........ Hear Hear and Amen Thanks Mr. Clark Jim Me thinks some doest protest too much borne of an impossible to defend position. What I find "suspect", Jim ... is people like yourself supporting the notion that the Zapruder film is suspect while not spending an ounce of energy addressing the simple rules of physics that I mentioned concerning the things that would be present had someone tried to alter the film. While I believe our government is less than honest with its people ... I would at least expect more out of a serviceman than to be embracing the role of 'cult follower' without having first thoroughly reviewed the evidence .... for I thought the miltary taught individuals to meet problems head on ... maybe it's different today than how it used to be. . If all you intend to do is make unfounded assertions without addressing the data laid before you, not by the government, but from a fellow conspiracy believer concerning the death of JFK, then you have done that. However, if it is your intention to make it appear that you take JFK's death seriously, then I will ask that you address the points I made concerning the problems with the film transfers in relation to the possibilities of someone altering Zapruder's film. And before you think about what to say next - look around you and take note that your pro-alteration cult leaders who do have some understanding of those points I have made are now sitting dead in the water and having no responses to offer. You people have come together in your beliefs concerning Zfilm alteration and it appears that not a single one of you has bothered to research the data well enough to even address these critical issues. Bill Edited May 13, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 There are several Zfilm alteration supporters on this forum who seem to have not been able to grasp what I have been telling them about emulsion grain and what to expect during a transfer from one size film to the other. I hope that those who are really interested in the process will take the time to review the information and examples on this web page so to be able to intelligently discuss the subject in the future if the need arises. Bill Miller http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...tometric6.jhtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' dronned: [...] David Healy also references the Mary Poppins movie in the name of possible alteration of the Zapruder film when he said, "Obviously (or perhaps not, to Durnavich and Wimp), any special effects editor will match up features from frame to frame to present the illusion of reality. [...] me reference Mary Poppins, a movie I've never seen? You have to get your alterationists straight there Bill, no need to lie about this stuff - you losing it? DH Bill Miller Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 (edited) Bill Miller continues... There are several Zfilm alteration supporters on this forum who seem to have not been able to grasp what I have been telling them about emulsion grain and what to expect during a transfer from one size film to the other. I hope that those who are really interested in the process will take the time to review the information and examples on this web page so to be able to intelligently discuss the subject in the future if the need arises. Bill Miller http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...tometric6.jhtml ________ listen real close.... you ready for a 35mm frame in jpeg form to do a little magic work... I, as well as a few lurkers, need to SEE a simulation from YOU. Who cares about 'other' website examples, they have the Z-film posted there? So let's stay on point, if you can.... How about this, what if I posted here a Zapruder frame from the alledged in-camera 8mm KodacolorII original blow-up to 35mm? -- (course your gonna have to color correct it, its old, should be no problem for an old hand such as yourself) That should provide a base for you to SHOW us what 1964 KodacolorII film emulsion problem will look like, in a freshly minted, Zapruder altered KodacolorII film frame.... It'll get you 2/3rd's of the way there, all YOU have to do is this, show us WHAT a 8mm Zapruder frame looks like when it prints from 35mm reversal to 8mm KodacolorII reversal. You have the guy that damn near created 8mm film structure, Zavada. We don't need another "website". You have Groden, Zavada, you have Fielding and of course, KODAK (and a few others I won't mention)... I'll give you frame provenance... pretty close to the alledged Z-camera original... damn close as a matter of fact. the lineage: camera original 8mm Z-film blow-up to 35mm color neg (1st generation), 35mm neg dupe to 35mm intermediate/reversal (2nd generation), 35mm reversal frames digitized (3239x2964 pixels) to 25 megabyte .tiff file each frame. Have access to a frame here, saved and compressed to BEST-100% .jpeg (will add a disclaimer and a X across the frame) Can you grasp this? Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 (edited) Oh, now I am convinced ........ Shanet, please be more specific if you will. I only ask this because you had previously stated that you were convinced that the Zapruder film had been altered even though I am not sure that you really knew why you believed it to be so. I would like to be sure that you have understood the things I have shared with you regardless of what ever conclusion you then draw from it. Do you have any specific comments or questions about the information that I have shared with you at this time? I have been aware for some time that the alteration heads were not telling the listener all the facts, so are you now saying that there was at least more to the impossibilty of Zfilm alteration than what you have been told previously? Bill You don't suppose you can tell us the frame source for the above is, can you? I.E., work print, composite 1st pass print, answer print, matte test print, secondary matte pull, release print, etc.? You ought to see some of the composites I send to clients before I pull the final matte -- and who released the above frames (read where did you get them and have you violated copyright laws), under what guise where the above frames published andwhat quotes went withthem -- you know general all round stuff one would need in a courtroom.... when tying to prove something or other.... For all we know Bill, the article that goes with these frames may very well tell us that information... You're not trying to pull a fast one are you? ~~Ding-dong the witch is dead~~ The problem that "Zapruder film alterationist" don't wish to address: Jack White has already said that only a 'dunce' would think an alteration would have been done directly onto Kodachrome film. That only leaves what Jack implied next when he said, "All that is required to do the alteration is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." What Jack doesn't tell his fellow alteration followers is that there would be a noticeable problem that would take place during the enlarging of the original image and then adding an altered product to the film. The "grains" seen in the emulsion on the original image would lose clarity when enlarged to make the 8 x 10's that Jack suggested doing. Once this clarity is lost, there is no getting it back. The new altered film image with sharp appearing grains would be added to the now underlining fuzzy original grains that evolved during the enlarging process and each would be distinguishable in appearence from each other to a photo expert. (see the illustrations below for an understanding of what I have just said ...) I also want people to see that by combining the two grains (what was photographically transfered from the original and the grains from the new film stock being used to make the alterations) ... we would now have double the amount of grains on the finished product from what an original Kodachrome II film should have in its emulsion and that too, would be noticed by an expert in photography. ORIGINAL GRAIN APPEARANCE ENLARGED GRAIN APPEARANCE FINAL PRODUCT APPEARANCE FOLLOWING ALTERATION AND TRANSFER I invite any Zapruder film alteration supporter to explain how someone could get around these basic laws of physics when attempting to alter the Zapruder film in the manner in which Jack White has suggested. Bill Miller this is turning into a farce --Three words -- prove the above! Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now