BM testing the waters re RZavada update?

[Bill Miller]

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

davcid, you reference the Zapruder film original and have never seen it either. But actually ... you've referenced Costella's web page and "TGZFH" and both of them referenced the Mary Poppins movie in support of alteration. You do read the materials before recommending them to others - don't you! Also, this was on one of your links and appeared to be in your words .... you 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?" Did you not say this or were you quoting someone else?

Bill

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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....

No, David ... I am not interested in your computer examples. I am glad however, that you want to stay focused, so lets focus back to the fact that in 1963/64 that there were no computer graphics to do alteration with and that they had to be done by hand. Let's get focused on that grain and dye problem that you keep dancing away from. The site I referenced was not just any site, but one by Kodak ... so I can understand you not being interested in any information that destroys the crap you preach.

On the Kodak site it says, "The location of these crystals is also random. Development usually does not change the position of a grain, so the image of a uniformly exposed area is the result of a random distribution either of opaque silver particles (black- and-white film) or dye clouds (color film), separated by transparent gelatin (Figures 21 and 22)."

So on the original film there are grains and dye clouds that are distrubuted across the film emulsion at random ... this will prove important. Would you not agree that the grains and dye clouds have a certain mathematical ratio to the over all image that they cover. So when the original image is blown up - the grains and dye clouds are blown-up at the same ratio. (Surely you can follow that simple rule)

Next the alteration would be done to the blow-up which has it's own grains and dye clouds in its emulsion. The problem here now is (and I know you have never considered it) is that the new grains and dye clouds are going to look far too small because they are of normal size on an enlarged image off the Zapruder film. And because they are distrubuted in the emulsion at random - they will not cover the grains and dye clouds that transfered with the original image. In fact, the new grains and dye clouds will now make double the normal grains and dye clouds on a piece of film, which an expert would catch under high magnification. Also because of the enlargement that was done ... the original film's grains and dye clouds under high magnification will appear blurred around the edges, while the new grains and dye clouds on the altered film which was only shrunk down will still look sharp around their edges. This is just another tell-tale sign that an expert see's that tells them that they are not looking at an original piece of film. Nor you, White, Costella, or any Zfilm alteration supporter has ever considered this stuff, but why would you ... you are not experts in Photography.

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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...

If you are talking about the Mary Poppin's stuff - I captured them off the movie. And only a jackass would try to distract away from the message they convey by bringing up copyright laws. Most, if not all photo or film captures placed on these forums are copyrighted and isn't it funny that the one that bites you in the ass is the one you have copyright concerns over.

You're a class act all the way, David!

[Jack White]

The stand-in stooge for Zavada rambles on and on.

Polka dot and Poppins irrelevancies.

Where is the long-heralded Zavada himself?

He is afraid to show himself here.

He knows technical stuff, but realizes he is out of

his element when it comes to analyzing the CONTENT

of the images. He can tell us if the FILM is genuine,

but he cannot tell us whether the IMAGES are genuine,

and he knows it. So why risk embarrassment. Let

stooges provide distraction.

Jack

[Jim Hackett II]

Kudos Jack

Thanks for all your efforts and the part your Faces poster played in my own evolution about the Murders of November in Dallas.

Quite Sincerely

and

Best Regards

Jim

[Bill Miller]

The stand-in stooge for Zavada rambles on and on.

Polka dot and Poppins irrelevancies.

Where is the long-heralded Zavada himself?

He is afraid to show himself here.

He knows technical stuff, but realizes he is out of

his element when it comes to analyzing the CONTENT

of the images. He can tell us if the FILM is genuine,

but he cannot tell us whether the IMAGES are genuine,

and he knows it. So why risk embarrassment. Let

stooges provide distraction.

Jack

LET'S TALK ABOUT STAND-IN STOOGES SEEING HOW YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Jack, just who is Zavada supposed to play to? Is he to play to the stooge who thought Moorman and Hill were in the street? How about the stooge that claimed Toni Foster was 7' feet tall because he was too out of his realm to not know how things would look from an elevated view? Or maybe Zavada should play to the stooge that wasn't even sharp enough to see Moorman's black shoes. I know ... maybe Zavada should play to the stooge that couldn't see the gap in all the other Moorman photos or was that the stooge that lied about it only being present in Thompson's drum scan ... you can decide on that option. How about him playing to the stooge that cannot grasp the relevancy of the grain and dye transfer issues. While Zavada is telling you about them, you can stop him and say "What about Moorman wearing those white tennis shoes!" Your remarks are so illogical that it is embarrassing for me to even think I should respond to it. Try to keep in mind that you jokers are the ones who made polka dots and Mary Poppin's relevant. Only someone who has lost their mind would suggest that on one hand Zavada may be able to tell you that the film is genuine, but cannot tell you if the images are real. It seems that if the film is genuine, then the images being genuine go hand in hand.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Kudos Jack

Thanks for all your efforts and the part your Faces poster played in my own evolution about the Murders of November in Dallas.

Quite Sincerely

and

Best Regards

Jim

Thanks, Jim...much appreciated. I am always amazed that John Armstrong and

I seem among the few interested in the two Oswalds. I think it is the key to

understanding the case, but oddly very few study it or are even interested.

For instance, the fact that there were two Marguerites is very intriguing to

me and I do not understand why others are not interested.

Jack

[Len Colby]

The stand-in stooge for Zavada rambles on and on.

Polka dot and Poppins irrelevancies.

Where is the long-heralded Zavada himself?

He is afraid to show himself here.

He knows technical stuff, but realizes he is out of

his element when it comes to analyzing the CONTENT

of the images. He can tell us if the FILM is genuine,

but he cannot tell us whether the IMAGES are genuine,

and he knows it. So why risk embarrassment. Let

stooges provide distraction.

Jack

Jack as has been pointed out ad infinitum Zavada made no promises as to when he would submit his latest "dissertation" debunking your nonsense (he already wrote two). Quite to the contrary in fact, he said it would take him "some time". Contrast this with your "sidekick" who promised submit his "formal claim soon" back January. "Rollie", as has been pointed out already, is in poor health.

As has also been explained to you repeatedly he already explained why he concluded years ago that the film is an "in camera original" not a copy for technical reasons such as grain structure, tonal range and color balance. As the inventor of the film Zapruder used that day is a very definitely an authoritative source. Interestingly Robert Groden reached the same conclusion. An "in camera original" means that the frames of the Z-film photographed live events NOT photo stills or projected frames. Since this conclusion precludes alteration there was no need for him to analyze supposed content alteration. Most if not all of the claimed anomalies in TGZFH have long been debunked.

Zavada wrote:

The goal to create a "Kodachrome original provides further

insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are

designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way

that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author

wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced

technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome

original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination

and evaluation by multiple researchers. The "evidence" offered are scene

content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.

The limited comments above do not even begin to address image

structure constraints of grain; contrast and modulation transfer function

losses. However another constraint requires comment and that is the

requirement in optical effects of maintaining "cancellation" of film

positioning variables due to: positioning/repositioning the film in the

camera and optical bench projectors; processing shrinkage; relative

humidity controls and heat control from projector light sources.

[...]

Note: subsequent to my report being filed with the ARRB I had

another opportunity to further examine the "In-camera original" with the

NARA subcommittee on preservation which further confirmed my beliefs.

When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to

express my personal views. Simply stated "There is no detectable

evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-camera original"

and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto."

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all

the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium,

manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image

characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type,

perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting

characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO

evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge

effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.

Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

I recommend that anyone interested in whether or not the Z-film was altered, esp. Jim and Shanet read the full report.

The only response from Fetzer's camp was the passage below from Costella which didn't refute Zavada's main points.

Indeed, Zavada's contribution to the website under discussion is a curious PDF document, responding not to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax itself, but rather to an unnamed member of The Gang, in relation to quotes from David Lifton's chapter that were sent to Zavada with the request that he comment on them. It would be difficult to know how he could dissociate himself any farther from The Gang without embarrassing them further over the loss of what was, less then twelve months ago, supposed to be their "star witness" at the Duluth Symposium. Zavada appears to be a decent man, who let The Gang's compliments go to his head somewhat, only to realise that he had been dumped into the middle of a quagmire; and I really do not wish to pursue a man who was clearly lured into this mess in what should have been the relaxing twilight of his career. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/thegang.html ://http://www.assassinationscience.com...x/thegang.html ://http://www.assassinationscience.com...x/thegang.html

Len

For instance, the fact that there were two Marguerites is very intriguing to me and I do not understand why others are not interested.

Jack

Jack to never fail to bring a smile to my face.

Thanks!

[David G. Healy]

'Len Colby'

The stand-in stooge for Zavada rambles on and on.

Polka dot and Poppins irrelevancies.

Where is the long-heralded Zavada himself?

He is afraid to show himself here.

He knows technical stuff, but realizes he is out of

his element when it comes to analyzing the CONTENT

of the images. He can tell us if the FILM is genuine,

but he cannot tell us whether the IMAGES are genuine,

and he knows it. So why risk embarrassment. Let

stooges provide distraction.

Jack

Jack as has been pointed out ad infinitum Zavada made no promises as to when he would submit his latest "dissertation" debunking your nonsense (he already wrote two). Quite to the contrary in fact, he said it would take him "some time". Contrast this with your "sidekick" who promised submit his "formal claim soon" back January. "Rollie", as has been pointed out already, is in poor health.

dgh01: does that mean Harry's book re the Zapruder film & Roland Zavada has been read? If so... I'd have one hell of a case of GAS, too!

As has also been explained to you repeatedly he already explained why he concluded years ago that the film is an "in camera original" not a copy for technical reasons such as grain structure, tonal range and color balance.

dgh01: looky here: tonal range and color balance... might fly (but not far) if you can acquire frames from the alledged in-camera Zapruder film...

As the inventor of the film Zapruder used that day is a very definitely an authoritative source.

dgh01: well then, Roland and Ray shouldn't have ANY problem cranking out the Rolands 3rd version and definition andthen observed concerning the alledged Zapruder film, now should he????

Interestingly Robert Groden reached the same conclusion. An "in camera original" means that the frames of the Z-film photographed live events NOT photo stills or projected frames.

dgh01: well get HIM here to comment, and we might ask him where the NIX 35mm Weitzman made is, as well as the NIX in-camera original... We do read the Zavada report, you know!

Since this conclusion precludes alteration there was no need for him to analyze supposed content alteration.

dgh01: I do believe Roland was not charged with determing Z-film content or alteration, in fact any discuussion of same overstepped his *report* boundaries, correct? A simple yes or no is sufficent

Most if not all of the claimed anomalies in TGZFH have long been debunked.

dgh01: they have? Funny I see only BM here, only witnessed wailing and gnashing of Lone Neuter teeth... and that certainly didn't amount to much, and then you -- all total, makes for a intesting diversion, nothing of substance...

knew you'd show up for this thread...you're so predictable

Zavada wrote:

[...]

Jack to never fail to bring a smile to my face.

Thanks!

Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh01: looky here: tonal range and color balance... might fly (but not far) if you can acquire frames from the alledged in-camera Zapruder film...

David, What about the camera original ... it has been studied by experts, so what's the beef. Do you think that you can add anything to what these experts know? Aren't you the guy who is pissing all over himself about the problems with film tranfers concerning the grain and dye issues because he cannot grasp their relevance. Are you the same knowledgable genuis who tried to tell me that "enlarge" and Blow-up" when talking about Photography is two different things ... want me to post the definitions again? You have shown repeatedly that you are not qualified to even discuss the issues against film alteration and yet you think that you should be allowed to examine the camera original ... what an asinine idea that would be.

dgh01: well get HIM here to comment, and we might ask him where the NIX 35mm Weitzman made is, as well as the NIX in-camera original... We do read the Zavada report, you know!

Who gives a damned about where the Nix film is in relation to the Zapruder film already being scientifically studied by experts and validated by several key points based on the sound laws of physics. You try and debate logic with illogical responses and it makes you look like an idiot who couldn't pour piss out of his boot even if the directions were written on the heel.

dgh01: they have? Funny I see only BM here, only witnessed wailing and gnashing of Lone Neuter teeth... and that certainly didn't amount to much, and then you -- all total, makes for a intesting diversion, nothing of substance...

See, there you go again. Despite my posting overwhelmingly for there being a conspiracy in the murder of JFK, you once again wrongly refer to me as a lone nutter. Like the 'Baghdad Bob' that you are, you only spout propaganda instead of dealing with the principals I spoke of that was nothing more than passing along what the experts are saying. Your modus operandi is to attempt to defer attention away from your inability to debate the main issues by making stupid unfounded remarks and what's even a bigger joke is that you must think it somehow fools people, but I can tell you that it doesn't.

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' cranked on:

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....

No, David ... I am not interested in your computer examples.

dgh02: there you have it Lurkers, the preservers of DP historical record aren't interested in legitimate frames from the Zapruder film, show us the errors of our ways, fill up bandwidth with nonsense regarding "dye clouds in their emulsion" - what-a-farce, tell me what that has to do with getting a film altered for Warren Commission viewing.

Computer examples, what computer examples?

I am glad however, that you want to stay focused, so lets focus back to the fact that in 1963/64 that there were no computer graphics to do alteration with and that they had to be done by hand.

dgh02: duh! now THATS a revelation .... lmao

Let's get focused on that grain and dye problem that you keep dancing away from. The site I referenced was not just any site, but one by Kodak ... so I can understand you not being interested in any information that destroys the crap you preach.

On the Kodak site it says, "The location of these crystals is also random. Development usually does not change the position of a grain, so the image of a uniformly exposed area is the result of a random distribution either of opaque silver particles (black- and-white film) or dye clouds (color film), separated by transparent gelatin (Figures 21 and 22)."

dgh02: display the difference between a in-camera original Zapruder frame and one that shows what your newly created alteration frame, side-by-side. Get it certified by Kodak as accurate, we'll take it form there

So on the original film there are grains and dye clouds that are distrubuted across the film emulsion at random ... this will prove important. Would you not agree that the grains and dye clouds have a certain mathematical ratio to the over all image that they cover. So when the original image is blown up - the grains and dye clouds are blown-up at the same ratio. (Surely you can follow that simple rule)

Next the alteration would be done to the blow-up which has it's own grains and dye clouds in its emulsion.

dgh02: how? what 35mm film type and under what light pack?

The problem here now is (and I know you have never considered it) is that the new grains and dye clouds are going to look far too small because they are of normal size on an enlarged image off the Zapruder film.

dgh02: Roalnd this guy is flaming...

And because they are distrubuted in the emulsion at random - they will not cover the grains and dye clouds that transfered with the original image. In fact, the new grains and dye clouds will now make double the normal grains and dye clouds on a piece of film, which an expert would catch under high magnification. Also because of the enlargement that was done ... the original film's grains and dye clouds under high magnification will appear blurred around the edges, while the new grains and dye clouds on the altered film which was only shrunk down will still look sharp around their edges.

dgh02: and what does this new creation look like? Will it pass muster in front of the Warren Commission, confirm the Lone gunman scenario? We need a Z-film frame sample of the fine description above. Come on now, I've got you to 35mm stage, and I do know the film type...

This is just another tell-tale sign that an expert see's that tells them that they are not looking at an original piece of film. Nor you, White, Costella, or any Zfilm alteration supporter has ever considered this stuff, but why would you ... you are not experts in Photography.

dgh02: pssst, who said I was an expert in photography? Film and video compositing has been my game for nearly as long as you've been on the planet.... based on your above description of what "happens" in/on film, I'm surprised you can even spell "film". How long have you been at this, again?

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

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...

If you are talking about the Mary Poppin's stuff - I captured them off the movie. And only a jackass would try to distract away from the message they convey by bringing up copyright laws. Most, if not all photo or film captures placed on these forums are copyrighted and isn't it funny that the one that bites you in the ass is the one you have copyright concerns over.

You're a class act all the way, David!

I'm to believe, the ABOVE? You know better than that! None of the above would hold up for a second in a court of law... then again the way the evidence in this case was handled, especially the photo evidence and the chain of custody, sheeesh -- have to stay on top of you guys every second...

What disc, certainly wasn't videotape.... and why snip comments, trying to confuse the lurkers? -- Photo expert like you and all... so being in the business all these years, I don't play fast with others creative and/or copyright works, If I refernce works, one knows where to find them, unlike yourself, why is that Bill?

of course I'm a class act... thanks for recognizing the fact!

The stand-in stooge for Zavada rambles on and on.

Polka dot and Poppins irrelevancies.

Where is the long-heralded Zavada himself?

He is afraid to show himself here.

He knows technical stuff, but realizes he is out of

his element when it comes to analyzing the CONTENT

of the images. He can tell us if the FILM is genuine,

but he cannot tell us whether the IMAGES are genuine,

and he knows it. So why risk embarrassment. Let

stooges provide distraction.

Jack

he's gotta say something, anything to fill up bandwidth, humor him. Poor example for a Zavada stand-in

[Bill Miller]

I'm to believe, the ABOVE? You know better than that!

I assume you are referring to my remark that you are a class act ... this time I agree with you.

What disc, certainly wasn't videotape.... and why snip comments, trying to confuse the lurkers? -- Photo expert like you and all... so being in the business all these years, I don't play fast with others creative and/or copyright works, If I refernce works, one knows where to find them, unlike yourself, why is that Bill?

Actually, I had asked and someone told me where to find the movie and BTW, they had it on film and disc ... as usual you are wrong.

he's gotta say something, anything to fill up bandwidth, humor him. Poor example for a Zavada stand-in

Yet you have not addressed the evidence presented to you concerning the grain and dye transfers. Let me just ask you one question and have you actually address it with fact ...

The grain size of 35mm film is very small compared to the overall image. What this means is that copying an 8mm film to 35mm does not add a significant amount of grain.

HOWEVER, blowing up 8mm film to 35mm, altering the 35mm, then reducing it to a new 8mm film would be detectable because the grain size of 8mm film is much larger compared to the overall image. In other words, your altered copy would have twice the amount of visible grain as the original film.

Any competent observer would note that the "new" image would be far grainier in appearance than an original film. Plus, copied film images are not as sharp as original images. The slightly softer, less-distinct result would also be noticeable, especially with 8mm film.

Also, the altered 8mm film would actually be a third generation film, since the original is first and the 35mm copy is the second generation. Third generation film has a quite noticeable look that is different from original film......IF seen by an experienced observer. I look forward to your first ever sensible and logical response.

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

HOWEVER, blowing up 8mm film to 35mm, altering the 35mm, then reducing it to a new 8mm film would be detectable because the grain size of 8mm film is much larger compared to the overall image. In other words, your altered copy would have twice the amount of visible grain as the original film.

dgh01: show us Zapruder film examples... (don't hold your breath, Lurkers)

Any competent observer would note that the "new" image would be far grainier in appearance than an original film. Plus, copied film images are not as sharp as original images. The slightly softer, less-distinct result would also be noticeable, especially with 8mm film.

dgh01: show us Zapruder film examples... (don't hold your breath, Lurkers)

Also, the altered 8mm film would actually be a third generation film, since the original is first and the 35mm copy is the second generation. Third generation film has a quite noticeable look that is different from original film......IF seen by an experienced observer. I look forward to your first ever sensible and logical response.

dgh01: 3rd -- check with Lamson again, your getting faulty information, its least 4 generations, how can anyone comment when you don't know what you're talking about, THEN show us the examples -- read: SHOW US!

Lest I forget -- bull puckey!!!

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

HOWEVER, blowing up 8mm film to 35mm, altering the 35mm, then reducing it to a new 8mm film would be detectable because the grain size of 8mm film is much larger compared to the overall image. In other words, your altered copy would have twice the amount of visible grain as the original film.

dgh01: show us Zapruder film examples... (don't hold your breath, Lurkers)

David, what I have stated here is simple physics that applies to any film. If you cannot understand the basics, then why would you need to see Zapruder film examples. These are mathematical principals that we learned in elementary school when dealing with ratios.

Also, the altered 8mm film would actually be a third generation film, since the original is first and the 35mm copy is the second generation. Third generation film has a quite noticeable look that is different from original film......IF seen by an experienced observer. I look forward to your first ever sensible and logical response.

dgh01: 3rd -- check with Lamson again, your getting faulty information, its least 4 generations, how can anyone comment when you don't know what you're talking about, THEN show us the examples -- read: SHOW US!

Great, even better! What do we know about the appearence of 4th generation images compared as to what to expect out of a 1st generation image? You just offered up a problem that Groden mentioned early on and that is an expert can tell the difference between a multigeneration film image and an original film image.

Bill Miller

Edited May 19, 2006 by Bill Miller