Jump to content

BM testing the waters re RZavada update?


Recommended Posts

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

Jack, I see that Shanet, 'the guy who hates to see forum space wasted', made a post doing nothing more than copying and pasting your response, so I entend to just answer your remarks rather than to post the same thing twice. But before I do ... lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I anxiously await your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Jack, I see that Shanet, 'the guy who hates to see forum space wasted', made a post doing nothing more than copying and pasting your response, so I entend to just answer your remarks rather than to post the same thing twice. But before I do ... lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I anxiously await your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks.

Bill Miller

ahh, before you nail down anyone, lmao -- post a url to where Costella says anything about frames altered in Life magazine....

I suspect you finally understand why I say; I can't prove the Z-film is altered, but I certainly can say everything is present to do a Z-film alteration on 8mm - 35mm - 8mm... Rollie and i suspect Ray know EXACTLY how it can be composed and printed

oh, and the frames Life had in B&W, were the Zapruder frames numbered in December? Funny, my Life magazines [Nov-Dec 1963] re JFK DP/Zapruder frames Life have no frame numbers, yours?

It is nice to know you've spent thousands on filters.... and you understand 3200k and 5400k and what Wratten filters are. Now all you need is a Hollyweird -or- New York City optical film printer... Ray.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh, before you nail down anyone, lmao -- post a url to where Costella says anything about frames altered in Life magazine....

Sure thing, David. I am always happy to educate you on the things that you have told others to go read.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

In referring to the Life Magazine prints, Costella said, "But in their rush to publish something, the forgers made mistakes." In other words in case you don't know what that means ... Costella is implying that he see's signs of forgery in the Life Magazine prints. Do you know what the bone head thought was the giveaway? He felt the Zapruder images in Life Magazine were too sharp. Now do you want to know what he compared those too sharp 1st generation Life Magazine prints to ... he compared them to what he see's on the MPI photos of the original film frames that have been filtered down during the film transfer process. I hope I answered your question to your high standard of inquiry.

I suspect you finally understand why I say; I can't prove the Z-film is altered, but I certainly can say everything is present to do a Z-film alteration on 8mm - 35mm - 8mm... Rollie and i suspect Ray know EXACTLY how it can be composed and printed

David, is their such a thing as being dyslexic when it comes to hearing? No one has said that someone couldn't alter the Zapruder film. A helper monkey with a pencil and a razor blade can alter the Zapruder film, but the difference is that the film could not have been altered in such a way that through scientific examination by an expert that he or she would not detect the forgery.

oh, and the frames Life had in B&W, were the Zapruder frames numbered in December? Funny, my Life magazines [Nov-Dec 1963] re JFK DP/Zapruder frames Life have no frame numbers, yours?

It is nice to know you've spent thousands on filters.... and you understand 3200k and 5400k and what Wratten filters are. Now all you need is a Hollyweird -or- New York City optical film printer... Ray.....

Your immediate remarks don't make sense. I don't recall Costella in his piece or I mentioning any numbering of the Zapruder frames. The optical printer crap has already been addressed without any attempt by you to in turn to address the problems put forth so I won't waste anymore time on that matter.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a past response I had mentioned the following to some remarks made by Jack White. My response to Jack was as follows ... "Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks." It appears that Jack White is off looking at what he thinks are faces in gunstocks and isn't going to address the narrow window of time for his alleged alterations to have taken place, so I am going to go ahead at this time and explain why I believe that Jack and his followers have not put as much thought into their claims as they try to make it appear.

On 05/06/2006, Jack White narrowed the possibilities of Zapruder film alteration down a bit by saying the following, "It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!" Jack purposed the alterations were done this way ... "a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." In fact, Life Magazine had the black and white stills already in print within days following the assassintion. In Jack White's view, only 500 blow-ups could have been retouched - one frame at a time - and then the altered frames filmed with another exact replica Zapruder camera. I have already gone into the grain problems and sharpness loss within the images that would be detectable between film transfers, so I see no need to repeat that data once again. However, I will attempt to share some more things that Jack White didn't appear to have considered before making his allegations of simple Zapruder film altering.

Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!"

As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............

Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear.

One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film.

Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers.

The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie.

Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not.

Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films.

I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions."

So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a past response I had mentioned the following to some remarks made by Jack White. My response to Jack was as follows ... "Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks." It appears that Jack White is off looking at what he thinks are faces in gunstocks and isn't going to address the narrow window of time for his alleged alterations to have taken place, so I am going to go ahead at this time and explain why I believe that Jack and his followers have not put as much thought into their claims as they try to make it appear.

On 05/06/2006, Jack White narrowed the possibilities of Zapruder film alteration down a bit by saying the following, "It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!" Jack purposed the alterations were done this way ... "a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." In fact, Life Magazine had the black and white stills already in print within days following the assassintion. In Jack White's view, only 500 blow-ups could have been retouched - one frame at a time - and then the altered frames filmed with another exact replica Zapruder camera. I have already gone into the grain problems and sharpness loss within the images that would be detectable between film transfers, so I see no need to repeat that data once again. However, I will attempt to share some more things that Jack White didn't appear to have considered before making his allegations of simple Zapruder film altering.

Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!"

As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............

Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear.

One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film.

Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers.

The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie.

Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not.

Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films.

I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions."

So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge.

Bill Miller

IMO of interest is, as every photon that flickered its way towards the film didn't have much say on whether it would get there or not and if it did get there, which is quite likely, it would be grouped with other photons with similar qualities and be bound to make an impression, no matter how slight.

As the lens was at the same time sweeping across the scene, there would be a continuous shift in perspecticves. That portion of the sweep that coincides with the time during which the film was being exposed leaves tell tale signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a past response I had mentioned the following to some remarks made by Jack White. My response to Jack was as follows ... "Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks." It appears that Jack White is off looking at what he thinks are faces in gunstocks and isn't going to address the narrow window of time for his alleged alterations to have taken place, so I am going to go ahead at this time and explain why I believe that Jack and his followers have not put as much thought into their claims as they try to make it appear.

On 05/06/2006, Jack White narrowed the possibilities of Zapruder film alteration down a bit by saying the following, "It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!" Jack purposed the alterations were done this way ... "a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." In fact, Life Magazine had the black and white stills already in print within days following the assassintion. In Jack White's view, only 500 blow-ups could have been retouched - one frame at a time - and then the altered frames filmed with another exact replica Zapruder camera. I have already gone into the grain problems and sharpness loss within the images that would be detectable between film transfers, so I see no need to repeat that data once again. However, I will attempt to share some more things that Jack White didn't appear to have considered before making his allegations of simple Zapruder film altering.

Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!"

As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............

Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear.

One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film.

Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers.

The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie.

Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not.

Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films.

I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions."

So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge.

Bill Miller

NO NO NO! "critical thinkers" can see through all of this technical mumbo jumbo, and film makers say sure just copy the flat art! LOL! Thanks Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a past response I had mentioned the following to some remarks made by Jack White. My response to Jack was as follows ... "Jack, I'm still waiting for your reply. You've had lots of time to adjust your position, so lets get you nailed down here ... Costella mentioned the alterations being seen in Life Magazine. Life Magazine had the prints in B&W going into their publication within 48 hours of the assassination. The color images within two weeks following the assassination. Please tell this forum how with a plaza full of people and cars coming and going did someone get this 'other film' that you speak of? Please keep in mind that the window is very small for alteration if Life Magazine was processing frame stills so soon. I am still anxiously awaiting your well thought out answer. Once you do this ... I will then address your previous remarks." It appears that Jack White is off looking at what he thinks are faces in gunstocks and isn't going to address the narrow window of time for his alleged alterations to have taken place, so I am going to go ahead at this time and explain why I believe that Jack and his followers have not put as much thought into their claims as they try to make it appear.

On 05/06/2006, Jack White narrowed the possibilities of Zapruder film alteration down a bit by saying the following, "It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!" Jack purposed the alterations were done this way ... "a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA, USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about 500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist." In fact, Life Magazine had the black and white stills already in print within days following the assassintion. In Jack White's view, only 500 blow-ups could have been retouched - one frame at a time - and then the altered frames filmed with another exact replica Zapruder camera. I have already gone into the grain problems and sharpness loss within the images that would be detectable between film transfers, so I see no need to repeat that data once again. However, I will attempt to share some more things that Jack White didn't appear to have considered before making his allegations of simple Zapruder film altering.

Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!"

As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............

Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear.

One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film.

Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers.

The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie.

Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not.

Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films.

I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions."

So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge.

Bill Miller

NO NO NO! "critical thinkers" can see through all of this technical mumbo jumbo, and film makers say sure just copy the flat art! LOL! Thanks Bill.

and then THERE"S Lightwave -- the alledged saving grace of the Zapruder Film choir, talk about taking a 2D image and creating 3D something out of nothing [stick with hard goods].... then there's the 25,000+ posts BillM has blessed us with...

and yes Gloria, Z-film alteration is much easier than you can believe, look at it this way -- In the 90's MPI did it right in front of your face, sold thousands and thousands of "altered Z-film" copies and not a peep... YOU and the peanut gallery think alteration is difficult? In 1963-64 terms ROFLMFAO! Yes indeedy, Thanks Bill [tsk-tsk]

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller

[...]

Groden and experts who Gary Mack has consulted have talked about the color balancing that would need to take place with each and every film frame and that would include the film frames that Jack never considered. I have posted Groden's remarks already and I will only add what he has recently stated. Robert said, "The concept here is to believe that every single one of the 486 Elm Street frames of the film plus all of the home movie footage was created by the use of well over 1,500 individual 8x10 prints and that there was no degradation of picture quality. This concept is so insane that it isn't worth the time to deal with it. There are no photo print papers that would retain the tonal quality of Kodachrome and then still hold up when re-photographed to at least a second generation copy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE!"

As I usually will do, I then sought out independent verification for the things Groden had been telling me all along. This is the information I obtained through Gary Mack ............

Gary writes: "For those who think the Z film was faked by photographing paper prints of frames that had been altered, there are several insurmountable problems. As I understand it, anyone familiar with physical aspects of Kodachrome II film will recognize that the color and density of the result would be totally unlike how normal images on that specific film stock always appear.

One could simply study a few frames on a color or spectrum analyzer and the physical properties such as density and luminosity would be completely different from real life. The color intensity and phase (same as the "hue" on your color tv) will change and cannot be completely corrected for with any filters, darkroom tricks or electronics. The changes are measurable on color and spectrum analyzers. When one graphs the image, the contours will have a very different shape than normal Kodachrome II film.

dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE

Photographing prints of altered still frames, as has been suggested by the alteration folks, produces an image of greatly limited dynamic range. For comparison, think of a Z frame with a light-to-dark range from 0 to 100. Kodachrome II film can reproduce that entire range. But an 8x10 color print, no matter how expertly created, cannot. It can only show a range from 10 to 75. That limited dynamic range is noticeable to a trained eye and is easily measured on analyzers.

The reason for this is simple. Kodachrome II film was designed specifically for amateur use filming scenes outdoors only. Artificial light drastically affects how the emulsion responds to light and no filters can fully offset those changes and not be detectable. Roland "Rollie" Zavada is well aware of such problems for he and his team of Kodak scientists are the ones who invented Kodachrome II film. There is no better expert on such matters than Rollie.

dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray...

Another way to show that alteration has not occurred is by examination of the Zapruder family footage. While the whereabouts of the camera original film is unknown, copies still exist. Had someone somehow altered the assassination scenes, they would have had to alter all the family footage as well, for those earlier scenes would otherwise have a completely different color and tonal look - thus revealing that some footage had been altered and some had not.

Think about it. There are nearly 500 Zapruder frames in the 26.5 seconds of assassination-related footage. Since side one (the first half) with the family scenes runs about 90 seconds, that means 90 x 18.3 = 1647 OTHER frames would also have to be copied to 8x10 prints and then rephotographed the exact same way. Even then, the "look" of the result would be dramatically different from all other camera original Kodachrome II films.

I hope this helps you understand some of the physics involved with Kodachrome II film. It is one of the most unique film emulsions ever created and was designed for a specific purpose: to work reasonably well with amateurs who have little experience in photography and who film under varied lighting conditions."

dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko!

So would the altering of the Zapruder film be a simple matter as Jack White suggested or has it been shown that there was much more to the process that Jack White and his followers had not considred ... you can be the judge.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE

dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray...

dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko!

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter.

The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated.

I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well. Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers. You bozos have alleged that this other test film was shot, presumeably prior to the assassination, and somehow all one would need to do is incorporate the limo and its occupants into it, not excluding the witnesses in and around the scene. That means that someone had to know that Zapruder would actually go get his camera and film from atop of the pedetal ... that the test pilot film would know the exact panning speed the limo would be traveling, that the test film would be able to duplicate every blur and camera tilt that Zapruder's film shows, and somehow balance every frame by hand to match the half of a roll of film shot prior to motorcade footage. And all this would need to be done before Liffe Magazine started processing prints within the first 24 hours of the shooting. It just doesn't wash!

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE

dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray...

dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko!

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter.

the scene. That means that someone had to know that Zapruder would actually go get his camera and film from atop of the pedetal ... that the test pilot film would know the exact panning speed the limo would be traveling, that the test film would be able to duplicate every blur and camera tilt that Zapruder's film shows, and somehow balance every frame by hand to match the half of a roll of film shot prior to motorcade footage. And all this would need to be done before Liffe Magazine started processing prints within the first 24 hours of the shooting. It just doesn't wash!

Bill Miller

Greetings DGH01, Lee, James, Jack White and Education Forum members >>> >>> >>>

This has been a great learning event for many who read this thread>

Serious factual considerations, evidence based arguments and professional input.

The argument has been fiercely fought on both sides.

I think it now clear - to me anyway - how a few rough black and whites of Zap COMICS zapruder

got to LIFE magazine ....... then a blurry video from hell on GERALDO RIVERA in the late 1970's

then these digitized late 1990s archival images..........

There are those who think the images doctored, and those that only believe that frames have

been dropped out.

If the frames are only dropped out to speed the limousine and perhaps change the look of the fatal shots,

then the operation was much simpler.

If the animation of the President and his head and his wife and entourage were directly changed,

then this would be more evident.

Because of the copy of a copy status no one knows for sure how authentic the original Zap COMICS zapruder film was, and the decay, cut edit and missing long ELM Street approach are well known.

The grain arguments are unconvincing. A high temperature glass slide with outdoor filters could have been used to film the dual eight millimeter / split sixteen film. Interestingly enough the Zapruder film needed go through no negative and projected copy positive original developing ........ a split sixteen lab positive original Kodachrome outdoor 8 mm home movie.

Retouched Pyrex color slides pushed with backlight and filters?

As far as the original being a "national treasure" or Groden's commitment to their authenticity,

all in all a very productive discussion.

Also, the members who rant that people are

fools, morons and stupid and debate by the juvenile

"are you calling me a xxxx" methods are hateful,

threatening, backward and fascist

on the very plain face value of their ""discourse"" .......

:hotorwot:beer:D:beer:box:hotorwot

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller'

dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE

dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray...

dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko!

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter.

The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated.

I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well.

dgh02: here's what YOU need to do champ.... you need to demonstrate (on a Z-frame example) what said Z-film frame has gone through during the 8mm - 35mm 8mm" blowup - blowdown process, simulating the KodachromeII emulsion-grain problem.

LIFE magazine thought Mo's 8mm to 16mm blowup looked great (its in the testimony), he said he could do it from 8mm direct to 35mm,and DID (its in the testimony) I suspect he used 35mm Ektachrome film, he did state he didn't use Eastman Film for blowups (its in the testimony) some here know what those 35mm blowup frames look like. In fact, Mo bragged about how good the 8mm blowup to 35mm looked like - kept a few prints around to show off that very fact (its in the testimony) ... Groden's intimate with these films, if he can't comment in public, he's useless when it comes to the debate -- why do you need a 78 year old guy to do the debating for your side...? So let's can the bullxxxx about 8mm film emulsion, that is until you can provide a first generation Z-film frame to compare problem your emnulsion to....

How difficult do YOU think it would be to go from 35mm to 8mm?

Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers.

dgh02: read the above then re-read the above, there is NO argument here Bill Miller, you haven't a clue, you and Rollie and everyone else on the Lone Neuter side of the equation propound a theory then provide not one ounce of proof to support that theory --- your emulsion argument is a joke, how long are they expecting you to tread water....., you taking one for the ole gipper, here? LMAO...

<rest of nonsense snipped>

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller'
dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE

dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray...

dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko!

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter.

The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated.

I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well.

dgh02: here's what YOU need to do champ.... you need to demonstrate (on a Z-frame example) what said Z-film frame has gone through during the 8mm - 35mm 8mm" blowup - blowdown process, simulating the KodachromeII emulsion-grain problem.

LIFE magazine thought Mo's 8mm to 16mm blowup looked great (its in the testimony), he said he could do it from 8mm direct to 35mm,and DID (its in the testimony) I suspect he used 35mm Ektachrome film, he did state he didn't use Eastman Film for blowups (its in the testimony) some here know what those 35mm blowup frames look like. In fact, Mo bragged about how good the 8mm blowup to 35mm looked like - kept a few prints around to show off that very fact (its in the testimony) ... Groden's intimate with these films, if he can't comment in public, he's useless when it comes to the debate -- why do you need a 78 year old guy to do the debating for your side...? So let's can the bullxxxx about 8mm film emulsion, that is until you can provide a first generation Z-film frame to compare problem your emnulsion to....

How difficult do YOU think it would be to go from 35mm to 8mm?

Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers.

dgh02: read the above then re-read the above, there is NO argument here Bill Miller, you haven't a clue, you and Rollie and everyone else on the Lone Neuter side of the equation propound a theory then provide not one ounce of proof to support that theory --- your emulsion argument is a joke, how long are they expecting you to tread water....., you taking one for the ole gipper, here? LMAO...

<rest of nonsense snipped>

LOL! Its always entertaing when Squealy writes...oink oink.

You have a lot of nerve demanding someone else provide ANYTHING when your proof of concept work (you know that enlarging 8mm to 35mm and then doing some "optical printing" magic is a simple task) is still MISSING IN ACTION after what THREE YEARS?

OF course we ALL know what a failure your computer composites were, so I'm not suprised you have done nothing "film based".

Talk about no argument! LOL! Of course it is Squealy we are talking about....oink oink!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller'

dgh01: LURKERS please note: If this was so easy why have we NOT seen a detailed sturdy of a "alledged Z-frame, ANY Z-frame? Just more noise, simply NOISE

dgh01: Rollie isn't going to post anything, anymore than KODAK is going to post, WHY? You have to deliver the in-camera Zapruder film in order to make comparispons, to dispel alteration scenarios... Now, if you can't deliver to this forum those whom your speaking for, how in the hell are you going to deliver the Zapruder? film. time to go home, Bill. You fought the good fight -- We need Groden and Gary and Rollie and Ray...

dgh01: post us some Z-film examples of this UNIQUE emulsion...time to deliver bucko!

David, I think the noise you are talking about was happening when you asked me to show where Costella had ever said that Life Magazine had printed altered Zapruder film images. How irionic that you didn't even know enough about the facts to intelligently discuss this matter.

The problems I have described apply to any film being altered, but even more so to Kodachrome II film and you have yet to show any signs of understanding those points. Groden said that he has examined the Zapruder film for sharpness and color balance, among other things. Zavada has described the things he had done when examining not only the original Zfilm, but the three copies, as well. You have continuously come across as someone who is trying to salvage a poorly thought out theory that you people have formulated by demanding that someone produce an original Zfilm frame example on this forum, which wouldn't even accurately replicate how the film image looked before all the changes that putting it on the Internet would have caused. If you want to see how grains build up on film transfers - go view the copies made from the camera original. You will find that they are much grainer than the original and it occurred for the reasons that the experts stated.

I have presented the information presented by the experts, some of them who have actually examined the Zapruder film first hand. If you or any of the other 'alteration' cult leaders would like to get an expert to go examine the Zapruder film and its copies, then do so and post their findings here as well.

dgh02: here's what YOU need to do champ.... you need to demonstrate (on a Z-frame example) what said Z-film frame has gone through during the 8mm - 35mm 8mm" blowup - blowdown process, simulating the KodachromeII emulsion-grain problem.

LIFE magazine thought Mo's 8mm to 16mm blowup looked great (its in the testimony), he said he could do it from 8mm direct to 35mm,and DID (its in the testimony) I suspect he used 35mm Ektachrome film, he did state he didn't use Eastman Film for blowups (its in the testimony) some here know what those 35mm blowup frames look like. In fact, Mo bragged about how good the 8mm blowup to 35mm looked like - kept a few prints around to show off that very fact (its in the testimony) ... Groden's intimate with these films, if he can't comment in public, he's useless when it comes to the debate -- why do you need a 78 year old guy to do the debating for your side...? So let's can the bullxxxx about 8mm film emulsion, that is until you can provide a first generation Z-film frame to compare problem your emnulsion to....

How difficult do YOU think it would be to go from 35mm to 8mm?

Until then, you have nothing to bring to the table. So far you haven't even presented an expert to refute the data presented to you concerning the grain transfers.

dgh02: read the above then re-read the above, there is NO argument here Bill Miller, you haven't a clue, you and Rollie and everyone else on the Lone Neuter side of the equation propound a theory then provide not one ounce of proof to support that theory --- your emulsion argument is a joke, how long are they expecting you to tread water....., you taking one for the ole gipper, here? LMAO...

<rest of nonsense snipped>

LOL! Its always entertaing when Squealy writes...oink oink.

You have a lot of nerve demanding someone else provide ANYTHING when your proof of concept work (you know that enlarging 8mm to 35mm and then doing some "optical printing" magic is a simple task) is still MISSING IN ACTION after what THREE YEARS?

OF course we ALL know what a failure your computer composites were, so I'm not suprised you have done nothing "film based".

Talk about no argument! LOL! Of course it is Squealy we are talking about....oink oink!

Yor speaking for Miller now? Typical Lone Neuter tactic: one that doesn't know anything is subbing for one who even knows less... One of these day's one of you overblown experts, in nothing, might post something constructive. Here I thought you'd of found another bus to photograph or is this a slow time of year???? lmao!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a lot of nerve demanding someone else provide ANYTHING when your proof of concept work (you know that enlarging 8mm to 35mm and then doing some "optical printing" magic is a simple task) is still MISSING IN ACTION after what THREE YEARS?

Healy is just someone who has shown time and time again that he doesn't even know the simple basics concerning the laws of physics that makes what he says pure nonsense. These guys cannot even present a sensible and plausible case for how so may alterations were done before Life started making prints for their Magazine not 24 hours after the assassination had taken place. It is a known fact that Muchmore's film wasn't even known to exist at that time as with many of the other assassination images when Life Magazine started making a lot of prints from the film. I believe that the same can be said about the Nix film, as well. Altering the Zapruder film before being sure that all the other films had been confiscated would have been insane. Someone pointed out to me earlier today that no one takes Healy seriously, except Healy. Groden said it best when he told me, "Instead of these 'Jackasses' talking about how it could be done, let them actually do it. It cannot be done given all the factors!" Healy takes the position that if someone points out a known law of physics that destroys his position, then he doesn't consider the point valid unless you get the person who made the discovery eons ago to come onto the forum and present the in formation for themselves. These alterationist have spent countless time writing books, flooding forums with proaganda that many times didn't even address the issues at hand, and promting web pages that they didn't even know what was written on it. (The latest being Healy acting like he was unaware that Costella claimed the Life pics were forgeries) So much time and energy wasted instead of them seeking out a well qualified expert and having he or she address their concerns. Could it be that they have made such attempts, but were told the same things that I passed along from those I had spoken too ... it would certainly explain why they have not come up with anyone.

I think the entire alteration cult mindset can be best shown by reminding everyone how they went around talking into rain sensors as if they were listening devices. How can anyone take them seriously. Below is some data that I was able to obtain from Gary Mack concerning this discussion.

Bill

G.Mack: LIFE's November 29, 1963 issue went to press late Sunday afternoon, 11/24,

and subscribers started receiving their copies in the Tuesday, 11/26 mail.

Orville Nix, Jr. has said he picked one up at a Dallas newsstand on Monday,

11/25, but there's no way to know for sure if his memory is accurate about

that.

For subscribers to have received that issue on Tuesday or Wednesday means

that within 48 hours of the assassination - before the Muchmore, Nix or

Bronson films of the shooting were taken out of their cameras to be

processed - LIFE chose and started printing 31 Zapruder frames in black &

white. Here are the frame numbers appearing in that magazine:

126, 144, 166, 216, 226, 228, 232, 237, 244, 248, 254, 258, 261, 267, 269,

323, 325, 328, 337, 340, 342, 348, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, 366,

and 369.

To promote the sale of the issue, LIFE temporarily licensed at least seven

frames to the Associated Press and United Press International for

distribution. Newspapers all over the world published them beginning on

Wednesday, 11/27. For example, The Sixth Floor Museum's collections include

the Brisbane, Australia Telegraph for 11/27. Almost half of its front page

is frame 230. Additional frames 237, 274, 307, 348, 369, and 382 appeared

on pages 2 and 3 of that newspaper.

Less than two weeks after LIFE's 11/29 regular issue, the magazine released

a special Memorial Edition devoted entirely to the assassination. That

issue included nine Zapruder frames in color, some of which were published

for the first time: 183, 226, 232, 258, 277, 309, 346, 369, and 392.

This means LIFE magazine published a total of 39 different frames of the

Zapruder film within two weeks of the assassination. The frames showing

President Kennedy, 144-392, cover a time period of 13.6 seconds.

Edited by Bill Miller
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...