Jump to content

BM testing the waters re RZavada update?


Recommended Posts

quick point, filters arent used when dumping outdoor to say indoor. they use a lamp that has a different colour tempature. nor are they used in a straight dump of day/outdoor to the same stock.

you can flash the film, say if it was indoor shot outside and that colour corrects the orange/blue difference you have between the two stocks..... outdoor is balanced slightly orange because sunlight reads as blue whereas indoor is balanced with a blue tinge to offeset the orange..some cameras have a built in filter and do this automatically....

a number of films from dealey as i recall were shot using indoor instead if i remember correctly..

but filters in the post aspect are for amateurs i am afraid...

how do i know this?

i used to work in a lab converting 8 mm footage to various formats and going from 8mm or super8 to 16 mm (because transferring 8mm to video at the time was near impossible) and we would use different coloured lamps in the printer. the printer was made by kodak.

very similar to a telecine or an optical printer...

a lamp for daylight and a lamp for indoor. if the conversion was problematic and we were doing a straight correction, the "filter" would be placed well before the film plane so it was nowhere near the film thus, wouldn't create a blur or loss of any kind....

its late..i can clarify this tommorow if need be...

cheers

dobson

Blair, let me get this straight .... have you just stated that the process that you described would allow the needed alterations to be done to the Zapruder Kodachrome 8MM film and it would not be detected through the scientific methods of today that I have presented to this forum?

Bill

In short form? yes.

and i will point out once again, it was not eight mm film that he shot it was dual perf 16 mm that after its shot on one side, gets turned over and shot on the other, so if you are going to refer to it like a person who knows his stock, refer to it as such... it is 16 mm reversal that givs you an 8mm positive.

its also called reversal because unlike negative, it goes through a completely different set of baths because it was cheaper to do so...it makes a positive first NOT a negative So IF they made a copy to negative from reversal, which is possible, then the actual film touted as "the film" is actually again a dupe...but that again is another bag of snakes...

and this is why.

what you have is "a zapruder film" and you will never ever know that you have the "original".

you cannot tell me or anyone else on this board or anyone else that what you have to research from is the original. you have to accept that on faith.

if you have a dupe, or a dupe of a dupe or for that matter what you believe to be the actual film from Abes camera in your hand.. that is really not important.

comparing the dupe from geraldo and the Life magazine copy that has been archived achieves little in terms of proving fakery or not..

IF it was altered using the technology available from 61 onwards in terms of film printing, and reprinting and including the stocks available at the time then you would have no way to prove it either way.

what i am trying to say is that film fakery is a moot point all across the board because it can be disproven and proven to be true and false both technically and mechanically as i so belabourously tried to point out above..

ok...you have the original and its not a fake.

prove that.

there is no chain of evidence on that film because it went from abe to a lab and then who the hell knows in between. you believe the warren commision? do you trust the perf numbers that run up the side?

if it was reversal made to a neg and a positive was made of that to project , you dont have an original which leaves the real original unaccounted for and alterable...you have copy number three.

in good faith that is..

IF it was negative film and only one positive was made and given to life, you have copy number two.

IF YOU HAVE 16mm REVERSAL AND IT WAS MADE INTO A POSITIVE YOU HAVE NUMBER ONE BECAUSE IT PRINTS OUT AS POSITIVE>

okay then the headsnaps and everything are the same again.... so who's is fake and who's is real?

if the people at life magazine say the original they have is a negative, then there is a case for caution because how would they have snapped the film in a slack environment such as the processors used for 16 mm used in those days (processed first and then sliced into two halves remember)

so the idea that anyone has an original to compare is a leap of faith, regardless of whether it was faked or not..

now...that being said..

if it was faked, there would be no way of proving it was because you would have no way of comparing it to the original. all the film grain in the world won't tell you that. In respect to it being altered to remove people for example, they could have very well airbrushed the grass over whomever and you wouldn't know without benefit of seeing an original....

and testing it by virtue of its grain is moot because when you make the final copy (the hero that we assume is the original) you get the grain that comes with that film and not the grain of the actual original or subsequent prints to be re roto'd etc...

if it wasnt faked, you still dont know exactly what version you have to work from and the same jitters, headsnaps and stemmons clip are the same, in the same places regardless. and all of those can be explained by the technical specifications of abes camera being a spring wound piece of crap.

if he used a bolex we wouldn't be having this conversation....

an example is moorman..it was a polaroid. there is a first generation copy of this i assume that omeone has touched....we know she took it out of her camera that way.. we know altgens stuff is good because he had possesion of it.. we accept on faith that these are originals..

if this were a court of law, the chain of evidence is a very important thing...

so...again, in short,

there is no way

to prove

either way

i'm sorry to say,

to you , jack or shanet

that the zfilm

is real

or faked

period.

you can't prove that its been altered any more than you can prove it wasn't.

because none of you know conclusively that the time life copy that we assume to be the original is in fact the gods honest original and anything to the contrary is trying to sell me a bible.

the warren commision told you it went straight from a to b? no they didnt make a neg?

the warren report's findings of the film were gloriously inept in even describing the film..

i am even assuming alot here but i know that if that was the camera, that it used 16mm reversal and that at that time, to get a negative, you had to make a new one because the original in camera film makes a postive after its processed UNLESS you ask at the lab to process it as neg..which wouldn't be the way they did that then..... its a whole different set of baths not unlike getting slide film cross processed...

yeah okay...

now..i'm not trying to be diffuse here...

assuming it is the real McCoy then no it wasnt faked...but your research isn't compelling enough to prove that i am sorry to say.. film grain won't tell you what you want to know as edge perf code numbers wont....all can be easilly duped. and the headsnaps and all that other great stuff is still there...

make sense?

again, the z film is the z film for whatever it's worth.

Edited by Blair Dobson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

altered film:

beginning to end with perf code up the side, snapped in the same spot.

unaltered film:

beginning to end with perf code up the side, snapped in the same spot.

did you guys get a new version?

one with extra frames the rest of us didn't see 40,000 times over and over?

so what films are you working from?

negative? positive?

there is an assumption that there is one zapruder film.

i have seen various versions made from stills, black and white, grodens version...they all are roughly the same from stemmons to jackie dancing on the hood. varying in quality of course and some not first generation obviously....

it was or it wasn't faked?

again...

i dont understand what the science has to do with it here.

lets get together and watch the dvd version of the restoration and we can discuss the same piece of film and i will tell you that it can be fake and real, then i will take you to an antique store and for about 400 bucks, we can make our own fake one and a real one with 1961 equipment.

unless the perf stock numbers are different, there is really no way to tell i am afraid..

Jack can buy the beer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can flash the film, say if it was indoor shot outside and that colour corrects the orange/blue difference you have between the two stocks..... outdoor is balanced slightly orange because sunlight reads as blue whereas indoor is balanced with a blue tinge to offeset the orange..some cameras have a built in filter and do this automatically....

a number of films from dealey as i recall were shot using indoor instead if i remember correctly..

but filters in the post aspect are for amateurs i am afraid...

how do i know this?

i used to work in a lab converting 8 mm footage to various formats and going from 8mm or super8 to 16 mm (because transferring 8mm to video at the time was near impossible) and we would use different coloured lamps in the printer. the printer was made by kodak.

very similar to a telecine or an optical printer...

a lamp for daylight and a lamp for indoor. if the conversion was problematic and we were doing a straight correction, the "filter" would be placed well before the film plane so it was nowhere near the film thus, wouldn't create a blur or loss of any kind....

its late..i can clarify this tommorow if need be...

cheers

dobson

Blair, I found it odd that your remarks above was in opposition of Groden, Lamson, and the information I had gotten from Kodak (not to mention a couple of other sources that I had been in contact with who I believe to be unbiased to the JFK assassination). I felt that you were possibly telling what you thought to be true, but perhaps was missing something ... so I took the liberty to ask Groden to read your statement and tell me if you were correct. This is Robert's reply below ........................

"Indoor film is balanced for lights that have a color temperature of 3200K, Outdoor film is balanced for 5600K. Indoor lights are yellowish and outdoor lights are bluish.

This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping.

Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image.

In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used).

And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

Just so you know, I appreciated your response for it was the first I had seen that actually attempted to address the specifics that was being discussed and that was all I was asking for.

Thanks,

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

altered film:

beginning to end with perf code up the side, snapped in the same spot.

unaltered film:

beginning to end with perf code up the side, snapped in the same spot.

did you guys get a new version?

one with extra frames the rest of us didn't see 40,000 times over and over?

so what films are you working from?

negative? positive?

there is an assumption that there is one zapruder film.

i have seen various versions made from stills, black and white, grodens version...they all are roughly the same from stemmons to jackie dancing on the hood. varying in quality of course and some not first generation obviously....

it was or it wasn't faked?

again...

i dont understand what the science has to do with it here.

lets get together and watch the dvd version of the restoration and we can discuss the same piece of film and i will tell you that it can be fake and real, then i will take you to an antique store and for about 400 bucks, we can make our own fake one and a real one with 1961 equipment.

unless the perf stock numbers are different, there is really no way to tell i am afraid..

Jack can buy the beer..

Lotta noise..all of it bullxxxx.

For the last time, then you go drink yourseft into a stupor when I'm finished...

NO MULTIGENERATIONAL KODACHROME "FILM" WILL HAVE THE SAME VISUAL QUALITIES AS KODACHROME FILM SHOT IN CAMERA AS AN ORIGINAL...FULL STOP.

To claim outherwise is simply the ravings of someone who is ignorant of the process or is trying to fool the ignorant masses. If you are well versed in "look" of kodachrome you WILL see a difference between a multi generational frame anda camera original ...its as simple as that. To say otherwise is a sign of ignorance or perhap dishonesty.

Now lets go back to that post you made to Bill..filled with the mumbo jumbo...

<its also called reversal because unlike negative, it goes through a completely different set of baths because it was cheaper to do so...it makes a positive first NOT a negative So IF they made a copy to negative from reversal, which is possible, then the actual film touted as "the film" is actually again a dupe...but that again is another bag of snakes...>

In the case of Kodachrome and Ektachrome, the chemical process is not "cheaper" than the color negative process. In fact quite the opposite is true. Kodachrome (current process K-14 1963 process K-12) is a real bastard of a process. Which is why, even in its heyday there were only a few labs to process the stuff and today there is only ONE left in the US. Process E-6 (current) and the older version E-3 to process Ektachrome is a much simpler process and can be done by most anyone uning a simple deep tank sinkline, dip[ and dunk or cine processor. Its cheaper than Kodachrome to be sure but far more complicated and expensive than color negative processing which is simple compared to running a reversal line....

Positive movie film was popular for those shooting 8mm and super 8, not because it was cheaper to process the film but rather it allowed for the user to DIRECTLY VIEW the results via a projector or on a lightbox. As such Kodachrome II was DESIGNED BY SCIENTISTS for direct projection onto a screen via a 3200K lamp. Meaning that the spectral response, d-max, MTF curves and color rendering were NOT DESIGNED for use a starting point for multi generational film production. Using it in such a manner results in a finished product THAT IS DETECTABLE as multi generational. SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS LIKE ROLLIE CAN DO THAT WITH EASE.

<what you have is "a zapruder film" and you will never ever know that you have the "original".

you cannot tell me or anyone else on this board or anyone else that what you have to research from is the original. you have to accept that on faith.>

Correct we don't have the camera original to play with nor should we. The Zapruder film much like the films from the apollo missions are national treasures. However the camera original HAS been studied and inspected by those with the credentials to do so and they have found it to be an unaltered in camera original. You interested in calling them liars?

<if you have a dupe, or a dupe of a dupe or for that matter what you believe to be the actual film from Abes camera in your hand.. that is really not important.

comparing the dupe from geraldo and the Life magazine copy that has been archived achieves little in terms of proving fakery or not..

IF it was altered using the technology available from 61 onwards in terms of film printing, and reprinting and including the stocks available at the time then you would have no way to prove it either way.>

Again..utter bullxxxx. There is a VAST difference between camera original film and any multigererational copies...Period.

<ok...you have the original and its not a fake.

prove that.

there is no chain of evidence on that film because it went from abe to a lab and then who the hell knows in between. you believe the warren commision? do you trust the perf numbers that run up the side? >

Rollie did it, or are you calling him a xxxx?

<if it was reversal made to a neg and a positive was made of that to project , you dont have an original which leaves the real original unaccounted for and alterable...you have copy number three.

in good faith that is..>

No evidence that it happend that way and besides you are left with a multi generational kodachrome which can be shown as such by visual and enlarged inspection. And you would NOT need a camera original zapruder frame to do the comparisons.

<IF it was negative film and only one positive was made and given to life, you have copy number two.>

It was not a negative flim camera original.....

<IF YOU HAVE 16mm REVERSAL AND IT WAS MADE INTO A POSITIVE YOU HAVE NUMBER ONE BECAUSE IT PRINTS OUT AS POSITIVE

okay then the headsnaps and everything are the same again.... so who's is fake and who's is real?>

Are you trying to say that a positive (camera original) to positive dupe is not detectable as such? Even on Kodachrome dupe stock? Please....you are really blowing smoke now.

<if the people at life magazine say the original they have is a negative, then there is a case for caution because how would they have snapped the film in a slack environment such as the processors used for 16 mm used in those days (processed first and then sliced into two halves remember)>

What are you smoking?

<so the idea that anyone has an original to compare is a leap of faith, regardless of whether it was faked or not..>

Again you calling Rollie a xxxx?

<if it was faked, there would be no way of proving it was because you would have no way of comparing it to the original. all the film grain in the world won't tell you that. In respect to it being altered to remove people for example, they could have very well airbrushed the grass over whomever and you wouldn't know without benefit of seeing an original....

and testing it by virtue of its grain is moot because when you make the final copy (the hero that we assume is the original) you get the grain that comes with that film and not the grain of the actual original or subsequent prints to be re roto'd etc...>

No, none of that is moot...Example...

You take a 35mm kodachrome slide and you make an enlarged 4x5 dupe to Kodak extachrome dupe stock. Is it your claim that the only "film grain" you will see is that from the dupe stock? If so you you have bullcrap flowing from your ears. What you WILL get is a 4x5 piece of film that has recorded the kodachrome grain clumps along with dupe stock grain. You can see both. Now take that 4x5 and reduce it BACK to 35mm and you still have the degraded 35mm grain clumps softening your new frame. One look at the "new frame" will tell you its not a camera original...no need to conpare it to anything because a dupe looks like a dupe....

As to "airbrushing" Its a VERY poor way to retouch because you add paint and not grain created detail. No amount of additional copy work will hide this fact. Done much work with airbrushed artwork Blair? If the answer is no, then kindly refrain from telling us what you can do with an airbrush...

<you can't prove that its been altered any more than you can prove it wasn't.

because none of you know conclusively that the time life copy that we assume to be the original is in fact the gods honest original and anything to the contrary is trying to sell me a bible.

the warren commision told you it went straight from a to b? no they didnt make a neg?

the warren report's findings of the film were gloriously inept in even describing the film..

i am even assuming alot here but i know that if that was the camera, that it used 16mm reversal and that at that time, to get a negative, you had to make a new one because the original in camera film makes a postive after its processed UNLESS you ask at the lab to process it as neg..which wouldn't be the way they did that then..... its a whole different set of baths not unlike getting slide film cross processed...

yeah okay...>

now..i'm not trying to be diffuse here...

assuming it is the real McCoy then no it wasnt faked...but your research isn't compelling enough to prove that i am sorry to say.. film grain won't tell you what you want to know as edge perf code numbers wont....all can be easilly duped. and the headsnaps and all that other great stuff is still there...

make sense?>

Well actually we do know that the Time film was the in-camera original because it was inspected and tested by Rollie. You calling him a xxxx?

You are being diffuse and more to the point you are doing nothing but blowing more smoke...and I'm sure that a lot of it will make it up the butts of the ignorant sheep.....

cheers,,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotta noise..all of it bullxxxx.

this statement here..good work craig...now we all know that you are brilliant.

NO MULTIGENERATIONAL KODACHROME "FILM" WILL HAVE THE SAME VISUAL QUALITIES AS KODACHROME FILM SHOT IN CAMERA AS AN ORIGINAL...FULL STOP.

Who cares. the zapruder film is the zapruder film whether it was or wasn't faked and your mumbo jumbo is no different from mine in this case...

To claim outherwise is simply the ravings of someone who is ignorant of the process or is trying to fool the ignorant masses. If you are well versed in "look" of kodachrome you WILL see a difference between a multi generational frame anda camera original ...its as simple as that. To say otherwise is a sign of ignorance or perhap dishonesty.

oh yeah, i must be working for the CIA or CRAZY by default...Good work here again Craig..Man, you are getting us all closer to the truth here...that you have a big ego and you can prove it...

In the case of Kodachrome and Ektachrome, the chemical process is not "cheaper" than the color negative process. In fact quite the opposite is true. Kodachrome (current process K-14 1963 process K-12) is a real bastard of a process. Which is why, even in its heyday there were only a few labs to process the stuff and today there is only ONE left in the US. Process E-6 (current) and the older version E-3 to process Ektachrome is a much simpler process and can be done by most anyone uning a simple deep tank sinkline, dip[ and dunk or cine processor. Its cheaper than Kodachrome to be sure but far more complicated and expensive than color negative processing which is simple compared to running a reversal line....

So what craig. and is this your reasearch or did you copy someone elses homework?

"Positive movie film was popular for those shooting 8mm and super 8, not because it was cheaper to process the film but rather it allowed for the user to DIRECTLY VIEW the results via a projector or on a lightbox. As such Kodachrome II was DESIGNED BY SCIENTISTS for direct projection onto a screen via a 3200K lamp. Meaning that the spectral response, d-max, MTF curves (MUMBO JUMBO THANKS CRAIG)and color rendering were NOT DESIGNED for use a starting point for multi generational film production. Using it in such a manner results in a finished product THAT IS DETECTABLE as multi generational. SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS LIKE ROLLIE CAN DO THAT WITH EASE. "

blah blah blah...who is Rollie and when are you two getting married? again, pointless technical bickering.

If i wanted to get into a specifics related tit for tat, I wuold have got up earlier in the morning.

again, you miss the barn and hit the cow here..

I take it you are neither a scientist or an expert but an over zealous fan of some guy named rollie...

Correct we don't have the camera original to play with nor should we. The Zapruder film much like the films from the apollo missions are national treasures. However the camera original HAS been studied and inspected by those with the credentials to do so and they have found it to be an unaltered in camera original. You interested in calling them liars?

again, a perfect example of your idiocy... nowhere did i say they were liars, i simply stated this:

if it was faked, then thats the "original" you get. in as far as your super psuedo science that you quote from rollie here, again NOT THE POINT.

if it is the super duper 100% Some guy name Rollie Approved Film then GREAT!!

it's still full of interesting anomolies, none of which you have adressed here but instead rambled on about the small area of expertise that you posess. Great.

"FILM GRAIN EXPERT SOLVES KENNEDY CASE FROM MOTHERS BASEMENT" will show up on page three and you will be famous for 15 seconds...

Again..utter bullxxxx. There is a VAST difference between camera original film and any multigererational copies...Period.

NOT utter bullxxxx i am afraid and your methodology here just bad because you are asking me to take a leap of faith here . You are correct, there are vast differences between originals and dupes. BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT HERE. you dont have exclusive 100% proof that that is the original film PERIOD. You don't and that isn't to say you're a xxxx, that is to say you base your conclusion on a faulty premse to begin with.

And again, so what.

AND YOU BACK THAT WITH "ARE YOU CALLING ROLLIE A xxxx?"

Go cry. I just called Rollie (whomever) a person who cannot prove the chain of evidence, and now fine sir, i am calling you idiotic for using that as an argument in the first place.

WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME 36 OR SO SECONDS REGARDLESS.

THAT FILM IS THE SAME. FILM GRAIN IS POINTLESS HERE AGAIN.

No evidence that it happend that way and besides you are left with a multi generational kodachrome which can be shown as such by visual and enlarged inspection. And you would NOT need a camera original zapruder frame to do the comparisons.

What evidence proves it wasn't? Oh i'll just take your word for it..or is it Rollies word?

We arent talking about a multi generational version here i am afraid. we are supposing for sake of argument that this "original" may have been faked, which, for the sake of argument you are unwilling to do,largely because your area of optical printing seems to lack more than your in depth knowledge of rollies work here so...

If it were faked, then yes you are correct. you would be able to tell that this was in fact a contiguous roll of film that is in fact NOT multi generational but an IN CAMERA ORIGINAL. and yeah you wouldn't need anything to compare that with unless you wanted to use flawed and unscientific method and follow bad evidence trails and "ROLLIES WORD". again, this argument is flipped both ways and it stands.

Oh right...the EVIDENCE... you were there with Zapruder when he went to the lab...Sorry Craig, I meant Rollie Wan Kenobi...there is a simple fact to contend with here that any and all EVIDENCE from the warren commision is suspect.

"oh the film was handled the right way but oswald wasn't....We tampered with this evidence but not this evidence....this eyewitness is real.....this one isnt. just ask Rollie..."

It was not a negative flim camera original.....

you don't know this. you weren't there. are we quoting your lab work or rollies work here?

Are you trying to say that a positive (camera original) to positive dupe is not detectable as such? Even on Kodachrome dupe stock? Please....you are really blowing smoke now.

lets get our context and pretext on the same page here for arguments sake because your methodology is again flawed.

ASSUMING that there is one film, and that is what you have to work from.

Both sides, the altered and unaltered side are using the same film to fight endlessly over....then if it was a reproduction from an animation stand, and it was done properly or improperly, you are both working from the same chunk of film.

that "in camera master" is the same. again, you have no way of proving that it wasn't and in the same breath you have no way to prove that it is.

<if the people at life magazine say the original they have is a negative, then there is a case for caution because how would they have snapped the film in a slack environment such as the processors used for 16 mm used in those days (processed first and then sliced into two halves remember)>

What are you smoking?

okay, they werent using 8mm sink and dunk or cine processors here and all of those processes don;t wind the film tight enough to break it unless someone with no experience in a darkroom is doing it. thats what i mean when i say "slack environment".

also, when did the film actually break? when it was processed? when they were viewing it? when they were faking it? again, not worth the argument..the film is broken at the stemmons sign....whether its a fake or not.

Again you calling Rollie a xxxx?

yeah actually, if you blow up the grain in my post, i optically printed "ROLLIE IS A BIG FAT xxxx" in my post there...You seem to have the skills..better yet, ask rollie. He'll find it.

No, none of that is moot...Example...

You take a 35mm kodachrome slide and you make an enlarged 4x5 dupe to Kodak extachrome dupe stock. Is it your claim that the only "film grain" you will see is that from the dupe stock? If so you you have bullcrap flowing from your ears. What you WILL get is a 4x5 piece of film that has recorded the kodachrome grain clumps along with dupe stock grain. You can see both. Now take that 4x5 and reduce it BACK to 35mm and you still have the degraded 35mm grain clumps softening your new frame. One look at the "new frame" will tell you its not a camera original...no need to conpare it to anything because a dupe looks like a dupe....

As to "airbrushing" Its a VERY poor way to retouch because you add paint and not grain created detail. No amount of additional copy work will hide this fact. Done much work with airbrushed artwork Blair? If the answer is no, then kindly refrain from telling us what you can do with an airbrush...

okay again, correct but NOT APPLICABLE and nowhere did you attack my 70mm to 35mm example because you can't. OH JUST ASK GEORGE LUCAS...actually, get Rollie to ask him..

I wasn't talking about reducing anything back to 35mm from slide and back. This wouldn't be how you would do it. sure, make 8x10 silver nitrate glass negs for all i care...NOWHERE DID I MENTION 35mm slide EITHER.

blowing up eight mm, reshooting it and then dumping it back down wont carry over the grain because there simply isnt enough information in the film its going to. sure, blow up thirty five and reshoot it yeah, grain everywhere and in "Rollie Approved Scientific CLUMPS"

BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT I SAID.

thats one way of doing it. but i'm not wasting my time explaining something you didn't read.

what you havent stated here is your experience with overhead optical printing, which can be done without need of a print. a simple beam splitter would suffice. but thats okay..my methodology and yours are different to begin with so lets ask rollie. no print or dupe is needed to achieve speed controls etc..

and i didnt say it was airbrushed, nor did i attest to the quality of such a technique..

Well actually we do know that the Time film was the in-camera original because it was inspected and tested by Rollie. You calling him a xxxx?

NO, YOU KNOW THIS, I DON'T AND THAT DOESN'T IMPLY THAT I AM CALLING ANYONE A xxxx.

So you were there walking with Honest Abe Zapruder? You and Rollie? wow... I want your autograph.

what was Abe like? what were those moments in dealey like? man you are the coolest guy on the board.

you have no way of proving definitively how that film travelled. FBI? yeah i trust them. CIA? i trust them too.

Kodak? oh i trust them....etc etc...

SUMMARY:

-you can't attest 100% in a court of law that the chain of evidence in regards to the zapruder film has not been tampered with. Nor can Rollie Wan Kenobi. Taking anyones word as gospel in regards to this case is as pointless as it is faulty research.

-you cannot prove that the film has not been altered because you would have to an unaltered version to compare it to. which you don't. nor does rollie.

-you cannot use your film grain theory to back up that it is not a fake because you don't have 100% proof of the origins of the negative/positive processing procedure used, nor does Rollie.

-you have no proof that it hasn't been blown up and reduced again. you have a "theory" based on some "reasearch" that the film itself is genuine, which would be the case because THATS THE ONLY VERSION THERE IS. THAT IS THE MASTER COPY. WOW! ITS CASE CLOSED!!

-IF it was messed with, and lets forego any airbrushing here as thats not a point i was stressing, but it was speed controlled and frames were lost, bipacking that edited version without benefit of a blowup could be done via a beam splitter and the grain difference would be negligible. As you have now a nearly perfect copy, with contiguous perf code, a split at the stemmons sign and some headsnaps, again without the original to compare it to, you have nothing. grain doesn't super impose itself.

THE SAME IS AGAIN TRUE IF YOU ARE CORRECT AND IT IS AN UNMOLESTED ORIGINAL AS YOU SAY.

But you are sliding between omission and exclusion here and taking my staements into a context that don't fit yours for obvious tit for tat reasons that are beyond me. Maybe i'll write a more in depth techno babbled version of the same thing that says it in a way that makes it more palpable for you to understand.

the film is the film. faked or not.

so...

please explain the headsnaps?

please explain the difference in limo speed between the nix fim and the zap film?

please explain the strange headshot movements around 313.

please tell me what grain has to do with this.

please explain where your reasearch starts and quoting rollie ends.

again, no one disupted your work, but your argument lets go the points we do in fact agree on and strangely, where i was being general for brevity, you actually pointed out the specifics i was to tired to bother typing out such as the different way one dunks film into a bath... in all cases, it is a "relaxed" process by which it would be difficult to snap and original.

You are being diffuse and more to the point you are doing nothing but blowing more smoke...and I'm sure that a lot of it will make it up the butts of the ignorant sheep.....

NASTY POINTLESS QUIP SOLVES KENNEDY CASE..

nice work craig.

To the other members;

Disagreeing with Craig means the following according to his post:

- you must be smoking something, calling some guy named Rollie a xxxx and be a lone nut cia paid agent of the state with questionable mental acuity trying to mess up Craig winning an award for spend the most time telling people they are nuts.

I am not a proponent of film fakery in regards to the zap film, but i like to look at both sides before attacking assumed "facts" (or people in your case) which you don't seem to do.

you seem convinced categorically that you have all the answers which in regards to this case is a bad point of departure i'm afraid.

And what did you do?

You came out attacking the convienient and straying well away from the more obvious techniques of making a copy of a film. Jack and I have the same sized tinfoil hat I guess.

Tell Rollie to feel free to email me with HIS research if he wants to talk like an adult.

I will also go so far as to go out and buy an old bell and howell and take this test to its fullest.

we will have to use a t grain stock as opposed to the old exkta/koda but the results will tell you roughly the same thing as long as you dont ignore the main point of my post.

please attack my spelling and grammar now..

Cheers

Dobson...

(cashing CIA cheque.....NOW)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can flash the film, say if it was indoor shot outside and that colour corrects the orange/blue difference you have between the two stocks..... outdoor is balanced slightly orange because sunlight reads as blue whereas indoor is balanced with a blue tinge to offeset the orange..some cameras have a built in filter and do this automatically....

a number of films from dealey as i recall were shot using indoor instead if i remember correctly..

but filters in the post aspect are for amateurs i am afraid...

how do i know this?

i used to work in a lab converting 8 mm footage to various formats and going from 8mm or super8 to 16 mm (because transferring 8mm to video at the time was near impossible) and we would use different coloured lamps in the printer. the printer was made by kodak.

very similar to a telecine or an optical printer...

a lamp for daylight and a lamp for indoor. if the conversion was problematic and we were doing a straight correction, the "filter" would be placed well before the film plane so it was nowhere near the film thus, wouldn't create a blur or loss of any kind....

its late..i can clarify this tommorow if need be...

cheers

dobson

Blair, I found it odd that your remarks above was in opposition of Groden, Lamson, and the information I had gotten from Kodak (not to mention a couple of other sources that I had been in contact with who I believe to be unbiased to the JFK assassination). I felt that you were possibly telling what you thought to be true, but perhaps was missing something ... so I took the liberty to ask Groden to read your statement and tell me if you were correct. This is Robert's reply below ........................

"Indoor film is balanced for lights that have a color temperature of 3200K, Outdoor film is balanced for 5600K. Indoor lights are yellowish and outdoor lights are bluish.

This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping.

Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image.

In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used).

And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

Just so you know, I appreciated your response for it was the first I had seen that actually attempted to address the specifics that was being discussed and that was all I was asking for.

Thanks,

Bill

thanks bill,

No argument with groden here at all. my comment about amateurs is that if you were throwing them in between the film plane and the dupe that would be foolish..

groden is correct and states more clearly what i was trying to say.

lamson also stated correctly a few points that i failed at because i made the post rather late which is a lame excuse but it is mine none the less.

i understand peoples frustration with others on the board and with the community in general.

what i was trying to do here is look at something, assume a set of constants that both sides agree on and then go at it from there.

and if you noticed i said "IF" almost every time.

lets stop kicking dead horses here.

if we were all to sit down and test this stuff and play it out for a court lets say, we would be bound by certain absolutes, and one of those is a chain of evidence, which, regardless of my opinion or anyone else's research, is a tough sell after forty odd years.

i am just saying this:

there are strange things in the zap film that are hard to explain. thats it.

i don't buy that it was faked any more than it wasn't. i don't care either way.

but when people attack people its like two bald old men fighting over a comb.

i work with people that i can't stand, like as people, nor agree with what they want to do most of the time and it is my job to provide what they need. if they want to do it one way we do it that way.

it is counter productive for me to say "NO YOU HAPPLESS BUFFOON YOU NEEFD TO...."

by adopting this method, being calm and saying.."ok, good idea.. what about this" you get alot farther and it makes the game alot nicer.

we dont have to like each other but we dont have to yell.

craig, again, i am not discounting your work.

i am simply stating that if constant x and constant y are in fact agreed upon, then headsnaps etc are just as weird whether the z film was faked or not.

end of story.

for the most part, my post was more about the lack of cooperation with some mumbo jumbo.

i am not tryin to mislead anyone. nor am i saying Groden is a quack or you are a quack.

But you will notice, Groden didnt ask me what i was smoking either.. he stated the facts as he knows them including colour temp of lamps etc which shows me he knows his stuff...

it was a what if scenario postulated from some basic ground rules you ignored . i wasn't fighting your work and i wasnt fighting you.

again, if the final film was altered BEFORE anyone other than the government got their hands on it, which is WITHIN THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE, NOT THE IMPOSSIBLE , however unreasonable that may be, then yes it is POSSIBLE using a number of various techniques.

i didn't argue that this was in fact the case. i said it was possible and i stand by that.

it doesn't preclude your research and it doesn't discount it, it just makes it kinda pointless if the thing is in fact a fake.

again, IF...not IT WAS AND I CAN PROVE IT.

so chill out.

Cheers.

Dobson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fast point about 3200k and 5600:

i made a blunder in a sense and groden is correct:

i was talking about colour correction and not straight duping.

in some cases in my experience making copies, people would shoot indoor film with the outdoor in camera filters on at which point it becomes more orange. we would then use a filter to correct this.

in the machine i used, the filter sits between the bulb and the film plane which doesnt affect blurryness either way.

i am tracking down the name and make of one of the machines because it was made in and around 61 or 62 and was a 16 mm machine with a slotted gate for 8mm.

one side took the exposed and the other the unexposed and you load that black bag style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blair...it is refreshing to hear a voice of sanity after all

the chatter from the escapees from the funny farm.

YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

You have spun a tight web around "Miller" and "Lampoon"

with actual facts instead of impessive sounding nonsense.

Though a little of the technical stuff is over my head, I

followed all your information and found nothing wrong.

I know enough to know you are right and they are wrong.

Please allow me to summarize the GIST of your information,

based on your years of film handling and processing.

JACK SIMPLIFIES BLAIR'S MAIN POINT:

1. If ANY images (such as limo stopping) do not appear on the

"camera original" and the LIMO HAD REALLY STOPPED, then

per se the "original" cannot be the original, can it? The "original"

MUST SHOW EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED!

2. If the above is true, the "camera original" MUST be fake.

3. If "experts" "prove" that the "camera original" is "GENUINE"

despite the FAKE IMAGES, it follows that:

A. The experts are mistaken or lying, or

B. The fabricators of the film used a technique to fool the experts.

Therefore, IMAGES PREVAIL over "science" and talk of GRAIN,

etc. is meaningless if the images are wrong. Right?

Thanks for your cogent postings on this.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blair...it is refreshing to hear a voice of sanity after all

the chatter from the escapees from the funny farm.

YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

You have spun a tight web around "Miller" and "Lampoon"

with actual facts instead of impessive sounding nonsense.

Jack ... I think I would read what Blair said again for he agreed with Groden. It is the things in part that Groden has said that I have presented here. I will repeat what Groden said about the mistake Blair said that he now agrees with if you are so stroked-out that you cannot find it. I do not know any longer if you purposely misstate the facts or that your mental state no longer allows you to rationalize what is being said ... either way you not qualified to intelligently discuss the subject if you cannot follow and understand what has been said. Pay close attention to "This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping" and "Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image."

What Groden said that Blair agrees with ...

"Indoor film is balanced for lights that have a color temperature of 3200K, Outdoor film is balanced for 5600K. Indoor lights are yellowish and outdoor lights are bluish.

This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping.

Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image.

In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used).

And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers, Bravo ..........

We all have been educated by Blair Dobson -

thank you so much.

Blair -

Three questions

1. What is the deal with the stock numbers that appear and reappear on the left hand side of Zap-Film?

2. What is the deal with the "Half Tree" image?

3. What about the argument that Z frames do not correlate with what would actually appear if

Zapruder had turned his camera on and off as the limo passed in front of TBSD?

Apparently if he had turned the camera on and off, the relevant frames would appear different than Z ???

REFERENCE COSTELLA FRAME 133 and 132 for jump -- is this natural??

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

:huh::blink::D:o;):blink::huh:

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blair...it is refreshing to hear a voice of sanity after all

the chatter from the escapees from the funny farm.

YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

You have spun a tight web around "Miller" and "Lampoon"

with actual facts instead of impessive sounding nonsense.

Jack ... I think I would read what Blair said again for he agreed with Groden. It is the things in part that Groden has said that I have presented here. I will repeat what Groden said about the mistake Blair said that he now agrees with if you are so stroked-out that you cannot find it. I do not know any longer if you purposely misstate the facts or that your mental state no longer allows you to rationalize what is being said ... either way you not qualified to intelligently discuss the subject if you cannot follow and understand what has been said. Pay close attention to "This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping" and "Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image."

What Groden said that Blair agrees with ...

"Indoor film is balanced for lights that have a color temperature of 3200K, Outdoor film is balanced for 5600K. Indoor lights are yellowish and outdoor lights are bluish.

This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping.

Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image.

In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used).

And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

"Miller" misses the point again!

I am not talking about FILM DUPING.

I am suggesting that a NEW CAMERA ORIGINAL

WAS CREATED in a B&H camera using standard

copystand techniques. That is how I think it may

have been done. Using the single frame feature

of the camera and KODACHROME DAYLIGHT FILM

WITH FILTERED LIGHT SOURCE converting tungsten

to daylight temperature. I have shot thousands of

slides this way. The results are superior, and my

slides are IN-CAMERA ORIGINALS. As was suggested

FILTERING THE LIGHT SOURCE IS VERY HOT, but

not a problem, really, with heat resistant glass.

My filters were even available to amateurs back then.

They came with some movie lights called SUN GUNS.

Without filter, the lights were used with indoor film;

with filter over the light, outdoor film could be used.

I liked the results, because the blue tint to the

resulting light made for RICHER COLORS than

artificial light or sunlight.

Remember, the Healy/Costella/White position is that

the FILM IS AN ANIMATION based on another film...

not some kind of duplication. If you don't know this,

you have not read TGZFH and are wasting our time.

A B&H camera is capable of producing an in-camera

original ANIMATION Kodachrome.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers, Bravo ..........

We all have been educated by Blair Dobson -

thank you so much.

Blair -

Shanet, you may wish to get a different interpreter to help you understand what Blair has said besides listening to Jack. Blair offered a few things that would allow him to copy flat art or photography and as Groden stated, 'it doesn't apply to film duping'. Then Groden explained, "And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source ..... However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying." Now unless I have misunderstood something, Blair upon hearing what Groden had to say had realized some things that would make what he described not be enough to create an altered Zapruder film. Blair is free to correct me if I am wrong.

Robert Groden speaks about the system Blair mentioned:

"This system is used for copying flat art or doing original photography, NOT for film duping.

Film duping lamps need to be balanced and color corrected from bulb to bulb in addition to the balance in K (Kelvin) value. And wratten CC or CP filters are certainly used in this process, unless the projection head uses dichroic filters in the light source. On an optical printer, if wratten filters are used, they are placed between the light source and the original film and are kept away from the image.

In the system that you had asked me about the filters would either cover the lights (rarely used because of the extreme heat – between 500 and 1,000 watts) or in front of the lens (almost always used).

And he is completely wrong about filters being for amateurs. Eastman Kodak has made millions selling filters to professionals for many decades. I have paid thousands myself in CC and narrow band filters over the past 40 years. However, dichroic color heads are always preferable, but not always available, and never for reflective art copying."

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flooding the board with uninstructive and

off topic volume content is not effective.

Attacking the straw man, making false comparisons

and unnecessarily technical obfuscations are all

easily seen through by those of us who have

critical analytical thinking skills ........

:D:zzz:zzz:zzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flooding the board with uninstructive and

off topic volume content is not effective.

Attacking the straw man, making false comparisons

and unnecessarily technical obfuscations are all

easily seen through by those of us who have

critical analytical thinking skills ........

:D:zzz:zzz:zzz

Thanks for the example, Shanet. Your response was exactly what you were talking about. You somehow managed to get off six lines and a row of smilies that did just what you were complaining about .... and you did it without addressing the fact that you misunderstood what Blair had said about Groden being right. Great response!

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flooding the board with uninstructive and

off topic volume content is not effective.

Attacking the straw man, making false comparisons

and unnecessarily technical obfuscations are all

easily seen through by those of us who have

critical analytical thinking skills ........

:D:zzz:zzz:zzz

"Miller" misses the point again!

I am not talking about FILM DUPING.

I am suggesting that a NEW CAMERA ORIGINAL

WAS CREATED in a B&H camera using standard

copystand techniques. That is how I think it may

have been done. Using the single frame feature

of the camera and KODACHROME DAYLIGHT FILM

WITH FILTERED LIGHT SOURCE converting tungsten

to daylight temperature. I have shot thousands of

slides this way. The results are superior, and my

slides are IN-CAMERA ORIGINALS. As was suggested

FILTERING THE LIGHT SOURCE IS VERY HOT, but

not a problem, really, with heat resistant glass.

My filters were even available to amateurs back then.

They came with some movie lights called SUN GUNS.

Without filter, the lights were used with indoor film;

with filter over the light, outdoor film could be used.

I liked the results, because the blue tint to the

resulting light made for RICHER COLORS than

artificial light or sunlight.

Remember, the Healy/Costella/White position is that

the FILM IS AN ANIMATION based on another film...

not some kind of duplication. If you don't know this,

you have not read TGZFH and are wasting our time.

A B&H camera is capable of producing an in-camera

original ANIMATION Kodachrome.

unquote: JACK WHITE

;););););)

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...