BM testing the waters re RZavada update?

[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

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

The TWO Marguerites are at the least very intriguing. Shockingly so.

Strongly suggestive of a long-term program of two "lee oswalds", as was your poster.

In that photos and the attending issues are your area of expertise I defer to yourself and others whom I do respect. Your own Work as opposed to my opinions that do concur for the vast majority of issues.

When we consider the fairly well established 2 Lee Oswalds it shouldn't surprise that 2 Marguerites appear in the record too.

These possiblities and probabilities beg the question:

"Were there on-going programs to create assassins as sleeper assets in place in 1963"? Were Manchurian Candidate programs part of the real politics long before Sirhan B. Sirhan and 1968? Sirhan Sirhan and his "case" is easy to establish the possibility of mind bending assets creating an assassin's patsy.

Who was the murdered Lee Oswald really and for myself a question arises about multilingual children and possible uses there of very long before 1963.

But my research is only an on-going thing unconcluded but far enough along to foster opinions about a shadow operation touched apon by the the primary particpants lives, i.e. the LeeS and Robert and THE MargueriteS Oswald as well as others named Paine as watchers/handlers and so forth.

Why would the doubles as assets idea be so hard to consider in 1963? It is not.

Jack, much more than you and Mr. Armstrong are very curious about what the heck was going on in Dallas that November concerning doubles and further what the heck was going on in the lives of the primary participants before that culmination of operations? It is not a stretch to say that this particular area of interest has ignited others' interests in who really was killed in Dallas and such. Research has been spawned of these unanswered questions conducted by myself and others, further it is on-going both for myself and others.

I can think of no higher compliment to any researcher's work than to see that work used as a beginning point for digging deeper.

As always

Best Health and Regards to you

Jim

Edited May 19, 2006 by Jim Hackett II

[Jack White]

David...I must agree. "Miller" continues to prattle about polka dot

grain patterns ad infinitum. He has yet to respond with actual photos

showing actual enlarged grain patterns as you repeatedly request.

I suggest that he:

1. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of the Z original.

2. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a first generation copy.

3. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a second generation copy.

4. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a third generation copy.

Since he is an expert at defending the owners of the film, I am sure he

has access to these materials. His pointing out the actual grain structure

of the original and successive copies will be very instructive to the

technically challenged like me.

If he cannot do this, maybe he can get Zavada to do it for him.

Or maybe Lamson.

If none of them can do this, we will be forced to conclude that they

cannot distinguish between a sphincter and a geological cavity.

Jack

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

The TWO Marguerites are at the least very intriguing. Shockingly so.

Strongly suggestive of a long-term program of two "lee oswalds", as was your poster.

In that photos and the attending issues are your area of expertise I defer to yourself and others whom I do respect. Your own Work as opposed to my opinions that do concur for the vast majority of issues.

When we consider the fairly well established 2 Lee Oswalds it shouldn't surprise that 2 Marguerites appear in the record too.

These possiblities and probabilities beg the question:

"Were there on-going programs to create assassins as sleeper assets in place in 1963"? Were Manchurian Candidate programs part of the real politics long before Sirhan B. Sirhan and 1968? Sirhan Sirhan and his "case" is easy to establish the possibility of mind bending assets creating an assassin's patsy.

Who was the murdered Lee Oswald really and for myself a question arises about multilingual children and possible uses there of very long before 1963.

But my research is only an on-going thing unconcluded but far enough along to foster opinions about a shadow operation touched apon by the the primary particpants lives, i.e. the LeeS and Robert and THE MargueriteS Oswald as well as others named Paine as watchers/handlers and so forth.

Why would the doubles as assets idea be so hard to consider in 1963? It is not.

Jack, much more than you and Mr. Armstrong are very curious about what the heck was going on in Dallas that November concerning doubles and further what the heck was going on in the lives of the primary participants before that culmination of operations? It is not a stretch to say that this particular area of interest has ignited others' interests in who really was killed in Dallas and such. Research has been spawned of these unanswered questions conducted by myself and others, further it is on-going both for myself and others.

I can think of no higher compliment to any researcher's work than to see that work used as a beginning point for digging deeper.

As always

Best Health and Regards to you

Jim

Thanks again, Jim. I had hoped that Armstrong's fantastic book would have

a greater impact...but researchers still largely ignore the subject of the Oswalds.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

David...I must agree. "Miller" continues to prattle about polka dot

grain patterns ad infinitum. He has yet to respond with actual photos

showing actual enlarged grain patterns as you repeatedly request.

I suggest that he:

1. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of the Z original.

2. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a first generation copy.

3. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a second generation copy.

4. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a third generation copy.

Since he is an expert at defending the owners of the film, I am sure he

has access to these materials. His pointing out the actual grain structure

of the original and successive copies will be very instructive to the

technically challenged like me.

If he cannot do this, maybe he can get Zavada to do it for him.

Or maybe Lamson.

If none of them can do this, we will be forced to conclude that they

cannot distinguish between a sphincter and a geological cavity.

Jack

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

The TWO Marguerites are at the least very intriguing. Shockingly so.

Strongly suggestive of a long-term program of two "lee oswalds", as was your poster.

In that photos and the attending issues are your area of expertise I defer to yourself and others whom I do respect. Your own Work as opposed to my opinions that do concur for the vast majority of issues.

When we consider the fairly well established 2 Lee Oswalds it shouldn't surprise that 2 Marguerites appear in the record too.

These possiblities and probabilities beg the question:

"Were there on-going programs to create assassins as sleeper assets in place in 1963"? Were Manchurian Candidate programs part of the real politics long before Sirhan B. Sirhan and 1968? Sirhan Sirhan and his "case" is easy to establish the possibility of mind bending assets creating an assassin's patsy.

Who was the murdered Lee Oswald really and for myself a question arises about multilingual children and possible uses there of very long before 1963.

But my research is only an on-going thing unconcluded but far enough along to foster opinions about a shadow operation touched apon by the the primary particpants lives, i.e. the LeeS and Robert and THE MargueriteS Oswald as well as others named Paine as watchers/handlers and so forth.

Why would the doubles as assets idea be so hard to consider in 1963? It is not.

Jack, much more than you and Mr. Armstrong are very curious about what the heck was going on in Dallas that November concerning doubles and further what the heck was going on in the lives of the primary participants before that culmination of operations? It is not a stretch to say that this particular area of interest has ignited others' interests in who really was killed in Dallas and such. Research has been spawned of these unanswered questions conducted by myself and others, further it is on-going both for myself and others.

I can think of no higher compliment to any researcher's work than to see that work used as a beginning point for digging deeper.

As always

Best Health and Regards to you

Jim

Thanks again, Jim. I had hoped that Armstrong's fantastic book would have

a greater impact...but researchers still largely ignore the subject of the Oswalds.

Jack

Blah blah blah. These are standard problems for the copy and dupe process Jack. They have been standard problems since the first copy negative was made. If you are unaware of them please retire your "photo expert" membership card.

Now it seems to me that since you, Healy and company are suggesting that copies of a frame of film CAN be made that are not detectable as second, thrid or more generations away form the original, that YOU do the tests and post the results.

It's your claim, you prove it. But good luck because it cannot be done. And thats exactly why you and Healy, despite your continuing blather have not done so todate.

[Shanet Clark]

I am with you Jack.

Say the assassination was filmed with large 35 mm film.

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

The stills were carefully airbrushed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig Lamson]

I am with you Jack.

Say the assassination was filmed with large 35 mm film.

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

The stills were carefully airbrushed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited May 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Shanet Clark]

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

[Craig Lamson]

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

You should really try the TRUTH on for size sometime Shanet, instead of that fantasy world you live in....na...never mind....you can't handle the truth...sheep.

[Shanet Clark]

[

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

[Craig Lamson]

[

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

Thank you Shanet for again showing the depth of your ignorance...please keep it up.

And btw, why not show us all how wonderful a color print to reversal film copy can look. Perhaps you can fool the educated...LOL! Moron!

[Bill Miller]

David...I must agree. "Miller" continues to prattle about polka dot

grain patterns ad infinitum. He has yet to respond with actual photos

showing actual enlarged grain patterns as you repeatedly request.

I suggest that he:

1. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of the Z original.

2. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a first generation copy.

3. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a second generation copy.

4. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a third generation copy.

Since he is an expert at defending the owners of the film, I am sure he

has access to these materials. His pointing out the actual grain structure

of the original and successive copies will be very instructive to the

technically challenged like me.

If he cannot do this, maybe he can get Zavada to do it for him.

Or maybe Lamson.

If none of them can do this, we will be forced to conclude that they

cannot distinguish between a sphincter and a geological cavity.

Jack

Jack, lets get something straight. I am not a defending the owners of the film, instead I am defending the laws of physics, the rules of mathematics, and data offered by Kodac and the experts I have spoken to. I am defending those experts who have actually examined the Zapruder film original and applied these proven sciences in order to be able to authenticate it. Groden was right when he told me "Jack White doesn't know this stuff because he is not a photo or film expert." As a matter of fact, I heard that same thing from sereval of the sources I went to for information. They recognize your work in the dark room, but even I took photography in school and processed photos from negatives in a dark room, but I had never learned at that time the in-depth aspects of film that these guys have brought to my attention. And just so you know, I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this until you and your cult followers at least acknowledge some of these basic principals concerning film and its graininess and granularity existence. I had put up a link to a Kodac site where they showed actual magnification of emulsion grain and dyes and I assume it was too much trouble for you to link onto the website and see the images. Below are two of the images they (Kodac)provided on their web page. I will also share the text Kodac provided.

"Motion picture films consist of silver halide crystals dispersed in gelatin (the emulsion) which is coated in thin layers on a support (the film base). T'he exposure and development of these crystals forms the photographic image, which is, at some stage, made up of discrete particles of silver. In color processes, where the silver is removed after development the dyes form dye clouds centered on the sites of the developed silver crystals. The crystals vary in size, shape, and sensitivity, and generally are randomly distributed within the emulsion. Within an area of uniform exposure, some of the crystals will be made developable by exposure; others will not.

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).

Figure 21 Figure 22

Grains of silver halide are randomly distributed in the emulsion when it is made. This photomicrograph of a raw emulsion shows silver halide crystals. Silver is developed or clouds of dye formed at the sites occupied by the exposed silver halide. Contrary to widely held opinion, there is little migration or physical joining of individual grains. Compare the distribution of silver particles in this photomicrograph with the undeveloped silver halide in Figure 21.

Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size.

At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23).

Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size.

At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23).

Figure 23

a: A 2.5X enlargement of a negative shows no apparent graininess. b: At 20X, some graininess shows. c: When a segement of the negative is inspected at 60X, the individual silver grains strt to become distinguishable. d: With 400X magnification, the discrete grains are easily seen. Note that surface grains are in focus while grains deeper in the emulsion are out of focus. The apparent "clumping" of silver grains is actually caused by overlap of grains at different depths when viewed in two-dimensional projection. e: The makeup of individual grains takes different forms. This filamentary silver, enlarged by an electron microscope, appears as a single opaque grain at low magnification.

Randomness is a necessary condition for the phenomenon. If the particles were arranged in a regu;ar pattern like the halftone dot pattem used in graphic arts, no sensation of graininess would be created. When a halftone is viewed at a magnification sufficient for the dots to be distinguished, the eye notices the pattern and does not group dots into new patterns. Even though the dot pattern can be seen, the eye does not perceive graininess because the pattern is regular, not random (Figure 24). At lower magnifications-at which the dots can no longer be resolved-the awareness of pattern ceases, and the image areas appear uniform."

As far as you agreeing with Healy ... he isn't a photo or film expert either. By the way, Jack ... did you agree with Healy when he posted on this forum that after seeing all the claims in "TGZFH" that he had not seen any proof of Zapruder film alteration either. Strike that question for you wouldn't give a straight forward honest answer anyhow. Let me ask this question instead, Do you agree that an altered film would be showing at least a thrid genmeration image as David said and would you not agree that a real Photo Expert would be able to see the signs of such?

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be amusing, but I have to point out that someone like myself can solicit actual Photo experts and pass along information obtained from the actual people who know the most about the science of film, especially Kodachrome film, and not once have you rebutted with a single photo expert or an alternative Kodac site that has said anything contrary to what I have posted. The dot illustration was to show the blurring that would take place when enlarging an image. That rule applies to the grains on the film as much as to the image itself. I believe that you know this stuff, but because you have so much invested in all those ridiculous claims you have made ... you have too much of a motive for not admitting that you were wrong.

Bill Miller

Edited May 19, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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

Shanet, your statement above is what makes you the 'poster boy' for the alteration cult. I have only one question for you ... do you 'oooooh and aaaaah' in amazement when you see a match lit?

Now it seems to me that since you, Healy and company are suggesting that copies of a frame of film CAN be made that are not detectable as second, thrid or more generations away form the original, that YOU do the tests and post the results.

It's your claim, you prove it. But good luck because it cannot be done. And thats exactly why you and Healy, despite your continuing blather have not done so to date.

Jack's only good for making assertions and he gets them all screwed up at times. One could bet that if Jack could produce any evidence to the cnotrary - he would. Instead he makes the claim - pretends that what the experts say is noise and not worthy of his rebuttal - an expects that to be good enough for everyone.

[Shanet Clark]

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

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

[Jack White]

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

Otherwise it is meaningless.

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

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

Post enlargements from the Z film showing how the grain patterns

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

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

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

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

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

the "Zapruder original"?

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

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

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

I have shot both Ektachrome and Kodachrome slides from

retouched 11x14 color prints and no grain can be detected

on the copies even though the retouched print is second

generation.

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

Jack

[David G. Healy]

David...I must agree. "Miller" continues to prattle about polka dot

grain patterns ad infinitum. He has yet to respond with actual photos

showing actual enlarged grain patterns as you repeatedly request.

I suggest that he:

1. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of the Z original.

2. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a first generation copy.

3. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a second generation copy.

4. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a third generation copy.

Since he is an expert at defending the owners of the film, I am sure he

has access to these materials. His pointing out the actual grain structure

of the original and successive copies will be very instructive to the

technically challenged like me.

If he cannot do this, maybe he can get Zavada to do it for him.

Or maybe Lamson.

If none of them can do this, we will be forced to conclude that they

cannot distinguish between a sphincter and a geological cavity.

Jack

Jack, lets get something straight. I am not a defending the owners of the film, instead I am defending the laws of physics, the rules of mathematics, and data offered by Kodac and the experts I have spoken to. I am defending those experts who have actually examined the Zapruder film original and applied these proven sciences in order to be able to authenticate it. Groden was right when he told me "Jack White doesn't know this stuff because he is not a photo or film expert." As a matter of fact, I heard that same thing from sereval of the sources I went to for information. They recognize your work in the dark room, but even I took photography in school and processed photos from negatives in a dark room, but I had never learned at that time the in-depth aspects of film that these guys have brought to my attention. And just so you know, I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this until you and your cult followers at least acknowledge some of these basic principals concerning film and its graininess and granularity existence. I had put up a link to a Kodac site where they showed actual magnification of emulsion grain and dyes and I assume it was too much trouble for you to link onto the website and see the images. Below are two of the images they (Kodac)provided on their web page. I will also share the text Kodac provided.

"Motion picture films consist of silver halide crystals dispersed in gelatin (the emulsion) which is coated in thin layers on a support (the film base). T'he exposure and development of these crystals forms the photographic image, which is, at some stage, made up of discrete particles of silver. In color processes, where the silver is removed after development the dyes form dye clouds centered on the sites of the developed silver crystals. The crystals vary in size, shape, and sensitivity, and generally are randomly distributed within the emulsion. Within an area of uniform exposure, some of the crystals will be made developable by exposure; others will not.

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).

Figure 21 Figure 22

Grains of silver halide are randomly distributed in the emulsion when it is made. This photomicrograph of a raw emulsion shows silver halide crystals. Silver is developed or clouds of dye formed at the sites occupied by the exposed silver halide. Contrary to widely held opinion, there is little migration or physical joining of individual grains. Compare the distribution of silver particles in this photomicrograph with the undeveloped silver halide in Figure 21.

Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size.

At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23).

Although the viewer sees a granular pattern, the eye is not necessarily seeing the individual silver particles, which range from about 0.002 mm down to about a tenth of that size.

At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas. As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no granular structure can be seen ( Figure 23).

Figure 23

a: A 2.5X enlargement of a negative shows no apparent graininess. b: At 20X, some graininess shows. c: When a segement of the negative is inspected at 60X, the individual silver grains strt to become distinguishable. d: With 400X magnification, the discrete grains are easily seen. Note that surface grains are in focus while grains deeper in the emulsion are out of focus. The apparent "clumping" of silver grains is actually caused by overlap of grains at different depths when viewed in two-dimensional projection. e: The makeup of individual grains takes different forms. This filamentary silver, enlarged by an electron microscope, appears as a single opaque grain at low magnification.

Randomness is a necessary condition for the phenomenon. If the particles were arranged in a regu;ar pattern like the halftone dot pattem used in graphic arts, no sensation of graininess would be created. When a halftone is viewed at a magnification sufficient for the dots to be distinguished, the eye notices the pattern and does not group dots into new patterns. Even though the dot pattern can be seen, the eye does not perceive graininess because the pattern is regular, not random (Figure 24). At lower magnifications-at which the dots can no longer be resolved-the awareness of pattern ceases, and the image areas appear uniform."

As far as you agreeing with Healy ... he isn't a photo or film expert either. By the way, Jack ... did you agree with Healy when he posted on this forum that after seeing all the claims in "TGZFH" that he had not seen any proof of Zapruder film alteration either. Strike that question for you wouldn't give a straight forward honest answer anyhow. Let me ask this question instead, Do you agree that an altered film would be showing at least a thrid genmeration image as David said and would you not agree that a real Photo Expert would be able to see the signs of such?

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be amusing, but I have to point out that someone like myself can solicit actual Photo experts and pass along information obtained from the actual people who know the most about the science of film, especially Kodachrome film, and not once have you rebutted with a single photo expert or an alternative Kodac site that has said anything contrary to what I have posted. The dot illustration was to show the blurring that would take place when enlarging an image. That rule applies to the grains on the film as much as to the image itself. I believe that you know this stuff, but because you have so much invested in all those ridiculous claims you have made ... you have too much of a motive for not admitting that you were wrong.

Bill Miller

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

you're irrelevant when it comes to meaningful discussion conerning the possibility of Z-film alteration

we'll talk when Rollie and Ray finally put something up, so till then, have a nice life, champ...

Nice job, Jack you saved me the time...

David...I must agree. "Miller" continues to prattle about polka dot

grain patterns ad infinitum. He has yet to respond with actual photos

showing actual enlarged grain patterns as you repeatedly request.

I suggest that he:

1. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of the Z original.

2. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a first generation copy.

3. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a second generation copy.

4. Show us the actual enlarged grain pattern of a third generation copy.

Since he is an expert at defending the owners of the film, I am sure he

has access to these materials. His pointing out the actual grain structure

of the original and successive copies will be very instructive to the

technically challenged like me.

If he cannot do this, maybe he can get Zavada to do it for him.

Or maybe Lamson.

If none of them can do this, we will be forced to conclude that they

cannot distinguish between a sphincter and a geological cavity.

Jack

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

The TWO Marguerites are at the least very intriguing. Shockingly so.

Strongly suggestive of a long-term program of two "lee oswalds", as was your poster.

In that photos and the attending issues are your area of expertise I defer to yourself and others whom I do respect. Your own Work as opposed to my opinions that do concur for the vast majority of issues.

When we consider the fairly well established 2 Lee Oswalds it shouldn't surprise that 2 Marguerites appear in the record too.

These possiblities and probabilities beg the question:

"Were there on-going programs to create assassins as sleeper assets in place in 1963"? Were Manchurian Candidate programs part of the real politics long before Sirhan B. Sirhan and 1968? Sirhan Sirhan and his "case" is easy to establish the possibility of mind bending assets creating an assassin's patsy.

Who was the murdered Lee Oswald really and for myself a question arises about multilingual children and possible uses there of very long before 1963.

But my research is only an on-going thing unconcluded but far enough along to foster opinions about a shadow operation touched apon by the the primary particpants lives, i.e. the LeeS and Robert and THE MargueriteS Oswald as well as others named Paine as watchers/handlers and so forth.

Why would the doubles as assets idea be so hard to consider in 1963? It is not.

Jack, much more than you and Mr. Armstrong are very curious about what the heck was going on in Dallas that November concerning doubles and further what the heck was going on in the lives of the primary participants before that culmination of operations? It is not a stretch to say that this particular area of interest has ignited others' interests in who really was killed in Dallas and such. Research has been spawned of these unanswered questions conducted by myself and others, further it is on-going both for myself and others.

I can think of no higher compliment to any researcher's work than to see that work used as a beginning point for digging deeper.

As always

Best Health and Regards to you

Jim

Thanks again, Jim. I had hoped that Armstrong's fantastic book would have

a greater impact...but researchers still largely ignore the subject of the Oswalds.

Jack

Blah blah blah. These are standard problems for the copy and dupe process Jack. They have been standard problems since the first copy negative was made. If you are unaware of them please retire your "photo expert" membership card.

Now it seems to me that since you, Healy and company are suggesting that copies of a frame of film CAN be made that are not detectable as second, thrid or more generations away form the original, that YOU do the tests and post the results.

It's your claim, you prove it. But good luck because it cannot be done. And thats exactly why you and Healy, despite your continuing blather have not done so todate.

sit down, I haven't yanked YOUR chain, YET

Edited May 19, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

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

Otherwise it is meaningless.

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

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

You are correct about the spelling error .... in my rush to get the information posted I spelled Kodak as the word sounds and didn't catch it. And as I have said throughout this matter ... I am not a Photography Expert. As I have repeatedly said ... I know how to solicit Photography Experts for the facts and have done so before sharing the information they provided me with this forum. I realize that you have years on you, but that is little excuse for misstating the facts, so please make at least a small attempt to keep the things I have said straight ... for it won't salvage the bone headed allegations you have consistently made concerning Zfilm alteration, but it will at least make it seem that you still have a few witts left upstairs.

Post enlargements from the Z film showing how the grain patterns

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

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

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

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

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

the "Zapruder original"?

Jack, your reply shows exactly what the Photography Experts have said about your lack of knowledge about these issues. The magnified images Kodak provided applies to any and all film, that would include the Zapruder film. Groden and Zavada have viewed the Zapruder film and seen these things and applied the scientific validation requirements to what they saw. As you know, I do not have access to the camera original so to make prints from the film and display them on this forum and your attempt to make that appear as if that means something in your favor is asinine. I have presented to this forum the methods for scientifically investigating the film so people will know that there is more to the alleged forging process than just making 8 x 10s and altering them as you suggested. So far you have not even let on like you understand any of these things concerning the basic principals involved in investigating a piece of film, but if you think you do, then make an appointment and go view the original film under magnification and report back whether or not the things Groden and Zavada have said are true or not. You have that obligation and responsibility.

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

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

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

I have shot both Ektachrome and Kodachrome slides from

retouched 11x14 color prints and no grain can be detected

on the copies even though the retouched print is second

generation.

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

Jack

Kodak answered your question when it said the following:

"A 2.5X enlargement of a negative shows no apparent graininess. At 20X, some graininess shows. When a segement of the negative is inspected at 60X, the individual silver grains start to become distinguishable. With 400X magnification, the discrete grains are easily seen."

Now what part of the above did you do at any time and what part do you not agree with Kodak about? If the truth be known, you've held some retouched prints and viewed them with the naked eye which has nothing to do with the more scientific methods that have been discussed here. What you purpose is nothing more than saying that you have seen sheets of paper that have been handled and not saw any fingerprints on them, while not going a step further and utilizing the more scientific methods for investigating the matter properly.

You don't live far from the Plaza, so why not stop down there and discuss this stuff with Groden, or do you find it more appeasing not to know more than you do now!

Bill Miller

Edited May 19, 2006 by Bill Miller