Paul Kuntzler's Washington Conference

[David G. Healy]

"for instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up."

I hope that regardless of what this experts says ... that he or she will have been throrough enough to address the grain tranfer issues, the contrast and color balance issues, and the other processes of enlarging film and then shrinking it back down that would be noticeable to a film expert. To date, these occurences have been overlooked by the alteration cult leaders ... I will be most interested to see if these issues are finally addressed or if this is just another instance of a photograph expert not knowing things that a film expert would know, thus wasting everyones time.

Bill

Amen, Bill. If they are going to be talking about a second brain and Z-film alteration, then I hope they bring their "A" game and dearly hope it is at least plausible. Generally, I think that ANY publicity is good publicity because it raises the profile of this issue. Indeed, I'm pleased that Fuhrman is plugging his book for that very reason. What concerns me, though, is trumpeting extravagant assertions without a substantial factual basis. That makes it easy for the LN'ers to say, "see, the CT'ers are at it again ... just say no to their Kool Aid." In other words, it makes it easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are enough uncontested facts to torpedo the WCR, and more emerging each day. We don't need to be piling on with what can be easily portrayed as X-Files sensationalism.

Jeff Morley strikes me as a sensible, cautious fellow, and my hope is that he senses what is coming and will not share a podium with apparent lunatics.

Amen, Bill? Looky here another nervous Lone Neuter. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

[Bill Miller]

Looky here another one of those nervous Lone Neuter morons. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

Right, David ... Who in their right mind would think that before someone makes a statement that is being presented as fact that they first make sure they have covered all the bases. In your world, all one has to do is make an assertion like you did concerning optical printers being used to alter the Zapruder film without looking any further to see if that was all there was to making an undetectable forgery. Who cares if one cannot get past the emulsion grain issues ... we're supposed to just pretend it doesn't exist - right, David? Who cares if Costella writes that the conspirators had a year to alter the images only to then say that Life Magazine had made their alleged altered prints off the original film within the first few days following the assassination - right, David? Who cares that all the color balancing to any altered film would had to of been done by hand to each and every film frame by hand through a long photographical process ... as long as someone says the film was altered before Life printed the frames in their magazine, then it must have been done within the first 48 hours of the assassination despite the year long window of time previously mentioned. Who cares that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes after the assassination, if one of you guys says its altered, then it must be so - right, David? Who cares if the use of filters reduce the sharpness of an image ... you just don't tell anyone - right, David?

Do you think that the altering of the Zapruder film is not more of a belief than a scientific fact when you people have left so many impossibilities unaddressed. Like one of your followers said, "I don't care what the evidence says to the contrary, I still believe that the Zapruder film must be altered" .... now that is a cult member by any definition of the word.

By the way, I will say it once again ... just because someone doesn't think that poorly thought out half-assed shoddy altteration claims are acceptable ... that doesn't make them a lone-nutter. The fact that you cannot grasp the difference between someone not wanting to support poor research practices Vs. someone believing that the assassination was carried out by one man tells the members of this forum a lot about your mental state and your severe lacking in comprehension skills.

Bill

Edited May 14, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

The Washington conference makes US News and World Report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whis...22whisplead.htm

From the article:

One discrepancy: Two women at the slaying site are shown wearing white sneakers when they actually wore black shoes. He's got the Polaroids to prove it. Lipscomb's stuff is so compelling that Fox and ABC are negotiating to buy it.

Ah yes, the great Zapruder shoe switcheroo. This is where the conference will turn into the equivalent of an SNL comedy skit. No wonder Fox and ABC want to "buy it." Probably so they can end one of their news programs with a good laugh.

I predict that the shoe switcheroo will be the sound bite that comes out of this conference.

[Bruce Cormier]

The Washington conference makes US News and World Report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whis...22whisplead.htm

From the article:

One discrepancy: Two women at the slaying site are shown wearing white sneakers when they actually wore black shoes. He's got the Polaroids to prove it. Lipscomb's stuff is so compelling that Fox and ABC are negotiating to buy it.

Ah yes, the great Zapruder shoe switcheroo. This is where the conference will turn into the equivalent of an SNL comedy skit. No wonder Fox and ABC want to "buy it." Probably so they can end one of their news programs with a good laugh.

I predict that the shoe switcheroo will be the sound bite that comes out of this conference.

LOL. Brother Healy may be on to something, but not what he intended. The great Zapruder/Brain Conspiracy of 2006 -- a CIA-sponsored extravanga to staunch this wave of WC criticism by creating easy marks for ridicule. Maybe someone should look into the background of the some of the panelists?

[Bruce Cormier]

Bruce,

Do you know if Jeff is at all confident on the ruling? He was playing his cards close to his chest on the mary Ferrell website.

This could be a landmark case against the CIA's retention on documentation and could possibly open it up to media scrutiny, due to the fact that Jeff works for the Washington post online, he may have a few friends that be willing to publicise this.

To anybody else reading this I must say that the interview is well worth a listen, I put them on my ipod and go for a walk, killing two birds with the one stone.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...ted_-_Episode_2

John

John, I don't know how Jeff is feeling about the case right now. He was kind enough to discuss it with me very briefly a few months ago, and at that time Jeff sounded cautiously optimistic (emphasis on cautiously). I've reviewed the court filings, and in my view, he has a good case. But one never knows how these things will go -- and in any event, an appeal is quite possible whatever the outcome in the district court, which could easily drag this out another 18 months to two years.

Best regards,

Bruce

[Richard J. Smith]

The Washington conference makes US News and World Report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whis...22whisplead.htm

From the article:

One discrepancy: Two women at the slaying site are shown wearing white sneakers when they actually wore black shoes. He's got the Polaroids to prove it. Lipscomb's stuff is so compelling that Fox and ABC are negotiating to buy it.

Ah yes, the great Zapruder shoe switcheroo. This is where the conference will turn into the equivalent of an SNL comedy skit. No wonder Fox and ABC want to "buy it." Probably so they can end one of their news programs with a good laugh.

I predict that the shoe switcheroo will be the sound bite that comes out of this conference.

How unfortunate that with all the evidence of conspiracy, the heavily disputed Z film alteration issue will be on center stage. I agree Ron, Fox and ABC will jump on this with both feet. I disagree with the statement any publicity is good publicity. It only makes us look more "out there".

RJS

[Richard J. Smith]

Amen, Bill? Looky here another nervous Lone Neuter. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

Have you been taking lessons from Dankbaar? He pins Files disbelievers as spies, liars and LNs. Why is one pinned as a "lone neuter" for disputing Z film alteration? Why not stick Dankbaar on this committee and have him show his underwhelming Files "evidence"?

A few years ago after the Peter Jennings documentary came out, the uproar in the CT community was as loud as it has ever been. Even Jim Fetzer agreed that a counter response should not involve controversial issues, that accepted proof and documentation should be used. I'm afraid this will go nowhere as usual. The real issues presented by Horne, Morley and others will be overshadowed by disputes over the Z film. It took years to get this stuff together, and it will all go up in smoke because of white sneakers vs black shoes.

RJS

[David G. Healy]

Amen, Bill? Looky here another nervous Lone Neuter. Bill Miller, you draw them like fly's, nice chorus!

Have you been taking lessons from Dankbaar? He pins Files disbelievers as spies, liars and LNs. Why is one pinned as a "lone neuter" for disputing Z film alteration? Why not stick Dankbaar on this committee and have him show his underwhelming Files "evidence"?

A few years ago after the Peter Jennings documentary came out, the uproar in the CT community was as loud as it has ever been. Even Jim Fetzer agreed that a counter response should not involve controversial issues, that accepted proof and documentation should be used. I'm afraid this will go nowhere as usual. The real issues presented by Horne, Morley and others will be overshadowed by disputes over the Z film. It took years to get this stuff together, and it will all go up in smoke because of white sneakers vs black shoes.

RJS

murder is still murder -- grow up! "Afraid it'll go nowhere?"

lmao... you Nutter's ALWAYS talk the same when an advance in the case is in the offing.

As for Myer's cartoon? Hell, he won't debate anyone about it, especially those that are versed in 3D graphics and know Lighwave -- btw, it's not in his best interest to discuss the subject, especially after he won an EMMY for his "texture mapping".... You prepared to take his 3D debate mantle?

The struggle will continue well after ANY press conference - or are you Nutter's conceding DEFEAT after 1 round?

The Washington conference makes US News and World Report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whis...22whisplead.htm

From the article:

One discrepancy: Two women at the slaying site are shown wearing white sneakers when they actually wore black shoes. He's got the Polaroids to prove it. Lipscomb's stuff is so compelling that Fox and ABC are negotiating to buy it.

Ah yes, the great Zapruder shoe switcheroo. This is where the conference will turn into the equivalent of an SNL comedy skit. No wonder Fox and ABC want to "buy it." Probably so they can end one of their news programs with a good laugh.

I predict that the shoe switcheroo will be the sound bite that comes out of this conference.

LOL. Brother Healy may be on to something, but not what he intended. The great Zapruder/Brain Conspiracy of 2006 -- a CIA-sponsored extravanga to staunch this wave of WC criticism by creating easy marks for ridicule. Maybe someone should look into the background of the some of the panelists?

One can tell you're no litigator, get another NUTTER lawyer in here, these guy's are going up in flames --lmao. In your spare time consult with Groden, then find that BRAIN. What a nutter farce!

[Bill Miller]

One can tell you're no litigator, get another NUTTER lawyer in here, these guy's are going up in flames --lmao. In your spare time consult with Groden, then find that BRAIN. What a nutter farce!

Healy, don't you get tired of trolling on these forums. You post absolutely nothing in the way of evidence .... in fact you do nothing but xxxxx looking to jump into a post with your Baghdad Bob Healy BS. Now while I agree that Dale Myers cartoon is a farse and he won't debate the facts - but neither did you when faced with the emulsion grain problem when it comes to detecting alterations on a piece of film ... so how are you any different than Myers with the exception he that he knows better than to run his mouth when he has nothing of significance to say.

BAGHDAD BOB HEALY

Edited November 27, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' inked

Healy, don't you get tired of trolling on these forums. You post absolutely nothing in the way of evidence .... in fact you do nothing but xxxxx looking to jump into a post with your Baghdad Bob Healy BS. Now while I agree that Dale Myers cartoon is a farse and he won't debate the facts - but neither did you when faced with the emulsion grain problem when it comes to detecting alterations on a piece of film ... so how are you any different than Myers with the exception he that he knows better than to run his mouth when he has nothing of significance to say.

***********

nasty-nasty young man, you know - that's downright insulting, Bill -- Myer's nothing of signifigance to say? And a national EMMY to boot, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that. I bet he's turned that into; upper end 6 figures... lol! What is it with you, jealousy? Myer's, one of the biggest advocates of a UN-ALTERED Z-film, "nothing of signifigance to say..." I say he preaches the same message as you, yes?

Let me explain something to you.

Debate what? You haven't any idea what you're talking about... Post a simple "visual" example of the "emulsion grain problem" that will be a "dead giveaway of alteration" -- get with it, enough moaning about it, LURKERS would like to SEE what you're talking about... surely with Gary, Len Colby and the rest of the crew over there, not to mention YOUR extensive 8mm and 35mm motion film experience, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, ANY visual, what do we get from you? Just names, sad --

Could it be, others are leaving you out to dry?

Edited November 27, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

nasty-nasty young man, you know - that's downright insulting, Bill -- Myer's nothing of signifigance to say? And a national EMMY to boot, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that. I bet he's turned that into; upper end 6 figures... lol! What is it with you, jealousy? Myer's, one of the biggest advocates of a UN-ALTERED Z-film, "nothing of signifigance to say..." I say he preaches the same message as you, yes?

David, there is no insulting you IMO. And as I had said, one major difference between you and Myers is that if he has nothing to say of any significance - he doesn't say anything. On the other hand, you will post even if you do not have a single thing of significance to say.

Let me explain something to you.

Debate what? You haven't any idea what you're talking about... Post a simple "visual" example of the "emulsion grain problem" that will be a "dead giveaway of alteration" -- get with it, enough moaning about it, LURKERS would like to SEE what you're talking about... surely with Gary, Len Colby and the rest of the crew over there, not to mention YOUR extensive 8mm and 35mm motion film experience, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, ANY visual, what do we get from you? Just names, sad --

Could it be, others are leaving you out to dry?

David, stop playing the role of the disgruntled clown long enough to answer some simple questions ... feel free to even solicit the answer from an expert(s) in film if you wish, but tell this forum if you understood the basic principles concerning the blurring of the grains when enlarging an image from 8MM to 35MM or even 8 x 10's as Jack suggested? If you did understand it, then lets go to the next step and you tell this forum if you understand how once you have "photographed" those blurred grains by now locking them into 35MM slides, then they will remain blurred even when the image is shrunk back down to 8MM size? Then if you are intelligent enough to have understood this simple process so far that applies to all photographic images, then tell this forum in your opinion why the 35MM grains on the new altered product when reduced down to 8MM size would not be sharp and would look the same as the original grains that transfered with the image and became blurred when the original image was first enlarged?

You see, David ... you can talk in riddles ... you can even attempt to dance around the issues, but you cannot in no way shape or form get around the simple basic rules of physics, which doesn't take a degree in Photography to apply to this case. Take any photograph that you have and blow it up (8 x 10 as White claimed will be a good size) and look at it under magnification and you will see that it has lost its sharpness during the enlarging process. There is just no way of getting around it! So no one is leaving anyone out to dry ... they just don't any better way to explain the most simpliest laws of physics. The problem with you is that you didn't bother to investigate these avenues before wasting all the time you did on the subject of Zfilm alteration. My only advice to you now is that instead of being angry with the messenger - you take the high road and be a man by taking some responsibility for your own shortcomings and get mad at yourself for not doing a thorough investigation on your own before becoming committed to an impossibility.

grains on an original print - sharp along edges

grains that have been blown-up - sharpness is lost along edges

blurred grains from the original blow-up process seen mixed with the sharp grains from the 35MM film stock

The illustrations apply to the basic laws of physics, thus they would apply to Photography issues as well. I have shown these illustrations to Photography and Film experts, as well as to those who have also consulted such experts, and they have confirmed that these illustrations relay the principles pertaining to the issues quite adequetly. Now pretend that you didn't understand any of this and say something else silly and misleading, David ... because that seems to be all you have left to fall back on.

Bill

Edited May 15, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bruce Cormier]

From my sources -- this should generate some interest among researchers of the CT bent

and 'A' lot of gas for the Lone Neuter's amongst us!

MAJOR EVENT (S) MONDAY RE: JFK ASSASSINATION CASE

Two items I will add to the press release below. Jeff Morley of the

Washington Post is joining the panel to discuss his fascinating FOIA

battle with the CIA over 32 pages of documents that may clarify the

much speculated about connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA.

And US News World Report is running a major feature about the press

conference that will be on their website Sunday and on sale Monday. It

looks like we will have several TV crews at this point.

Did the U.S. Government Cover-up JFK Assassination Details?

Five renowned experts present new findings in DC

WASHINGTON, DC, May 15, 2006 - Five prominent John F. Kennedy

assassination experts will convene today at the Willard Hotel in the

nation's capitol to present new findings and make the case that the

U.S. government's investigation of the JFK assassination was replete

with errors and, most likely, a deliberate cover-up.

These experts will also raise an important question: Does the JFK

assassination 43 years ago (and the U.S. government's likely cover-up

of the details of that assassination) hold the key to regaining public

trust in government?

These five experts - appearing for the first time in a national forum

together - each have meticulously assembled key parts of a complex

puzzle that lead any objective observer to just one conclusion: that

the government deliberately covered up the details of the JFK

assassination and misled the American public.

For instance, one expert has assembled new photographic evidence that

raises substantial questions about whether the Zapruder film was

altered while in the government's possession. Others will present new

suggestions that a second brain was, in fact, used in an autopsy

cover-up.

A CBS poll on the 40th observance of the JFK assassination in 2003

indicated that only 10% of the American people believe The Warren

Report, while 74% think believe there was a cover-up. Many experts

believe that the U.S. government's mishandling of its investigation

of the Kennedy assassination began what is by now a deep inclination

for the American public to distrust it.

A Washington publishing company executive, Paul Kuntzler, hopes that,

by bringing nationally renowned JFK assassination experts together for

the first time to reveal important findings on the errors in how the

government handled the JFK assassination, Congress and the

administration will re-open the case in an effort to finally get to the

truth.

Kuntzler's company, Miller Reporting, has a proven record for

integrity in handling records and transcripts for government agencies

for more than 30 years. Ironically the records it transcribed for The

Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 199

8 were the ones that

troubled him the most. They were the most exhaustive attempt at

reconstructing the evidence to date. And he is bringing together a

group of some of the nation's leading experts on the death of JFK to

help sort things out at a meeting at the Willard Hotel at 11AM on

Monday, May 15th.

"My belief is that our country has lost its way," Kuntzler said. "If

we could find out what happened in Dallas, it might help us to figure

out a way to regain a sense of trust in government." His concern is

that this may be a seminal instance in which the American government

lied to the American people.

"If it is possible for someone to assassinate a President in broad

daylight in a major American city, and then have the federal government

fake the autopsy evidence and conceal the nature of the crime itself,

then those who exercised that kind of power are emboldened to repeat

performances of that kind over and over again. The American people are

not unreasonable to suspect that that has happened to them many times

by now."

The ARRB was created by the JFK Records Act passed by Congress in 1992.

It had the unprecedented power to declassify documents and records held

by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other agencies of the

government. Only the President could override its decisions.

President George H.W. Bush opposed the legislation and, when it passed

over his opposition, refused to appoint its members, which had to await

the incoming Clinton administration.

The five experts Kuntzler will present include:

* James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota.

Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK

and has published three books on this event: Assassination Science,

Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Fetzer is

not surprised at the unprecedented level of public disbelief in the

Warren Report. "Considering that the crux of the government's

position, the 'magic bullet' theory, is not even anatomically possible,

it should be even higher."

* David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has worked with the tangled web of

inconsistent and contradictory medical evidence, including the autopsy

X-rays and photographs, for many years. "It's hardly surprising that

most Americans don't know what to make of this case," he observed.

"Even a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D. did not adequately prepare me for

this chaotic record. It was probably fortuitous that John Ebersole,

M.D., who was the officer in charge of radiology at Bethesda during the

autopsy, and I happen to have the same medical specialty, radiation

oncology. Otherwise, I might not have been able to figure out what

happened to the official records during the autopsy."

* Douglas Horne, the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the ARRB

who discovered the existence of records demonstrating the conduct of

two postmortem brain exams, described the experience of searching

through seemingly endless documents for a few nuggets of truth as

frustrating and exasperating. "This just may be the single most

bizarre case in the history of forensic science," he observed. "I can

certainly understand why Mr. Kuntzler has found this case the most

disturbing. I was there during the ARRB's search for records, but I

still find it challenging to take the case apart and put it together

and make all the pieces fit."

* Thomas Lipscomb, the noted journalist and publisher, was President of

Times Books, the New York Times book division when it published The

Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979.

"As a young officer in charge of a US Army Rifle and Pistol Team at the

time of the Kennedy assassination," he said, "I was asked to try to

replicate the feats attributed to Oswald with a mail order carbine

exactly like his. I couldn't. But I feel a lot better now that no one

else has either, including teams at CBS and the Discovery channel." A

senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future, Lipscomb

has been investigating the authenticity of the photographic record,

including the Zapruder film, and has unearthed disturbing

discrepancies.

* Joan Mellen, a professor at Temple University, is the author of

Farewell to Justice, a new study of the trial of Clay Shaw brought by

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, which led her to important

discoveries showing CIA and FBI involvement in the Kennedy

assassination "After going through thousands of documents released

since the Assassination Records and Review Act, and doing 1,200

interviews, I've learned that Jim Garrison had a host of suspects who

played a role in the implementation of the assassination of President

Kennedy. Like any criminal investigator, he sometimes found himself in

a blind alley. He would have been no investigator if that hadn't

happened. Yet he came up with the truth closer than anyone has before

or since."

Miller Reporting has the hotel's grand ballroom booked from 11:00 through 2:00 today, eastern. Why so little advance notice?

[Jack White]

"Miller Reporting has the hotel's grand ballroom booked from 11:00 through 2:00 today, eastern. Why so little advance notice?"

The reason for so little notice is that the event was conceived and

arranged less than two weeks ago. It is more for media than the

general public, but not exactly a press conference...more like

a mini-symposium for media. The organizers are people with media

clout.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

nasty-nasty young man, you know - that's downright insulting, Bill -- Myer's nothing of signifigance to say? And a national EMMY to boot, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that. I bet he's turned that into; upper end 6 figures... lol! What is it with you, jealousy? Myer's, one of the biggest advocates of a UN-ALTERED Z-film, "nothing of signifigance to say..." I say he preaches the same message as you, yes?

David, there is no insulting you IMO. And as I had said, one major difference between you and Myers is that if he has nothing to say of any significance - he doesn't say anything. On the other hand, you will post even if you do not have a single thing of significance to say.

Let me explain something to you.

Debate what? You haven't any idea what you're talking about... Post a simple "visual" example of the "emulsion grain problem" that will be a "dead giveaway of alteration" -- get with it, enough moaning about it, LURKERS would like to SEE what you're talking about... surely with Gary, Len Colby and the rest of the crew over there, not to mention YOUR extensive 8mm and 35mm motion film experience, you should be able to come up with SOMETHING, ANY visual, what do we get from you? Just names, sad --

Could it be, others are leaving you out to dry?

David, stop playing the role of the disgruntled clown long enough to answer some simple questions ... feel free to even solicit the answer from an expert(s) in film if you wish, but tell this forum if you understood the basic principles concerning the blurring of the grains when enlarging an image from 8MM to 35MM or even 8 x 10's as Jack suggested? If you did understand it, then lets go to the next step and you tell this forum if you understand how once you have "photographed" those blurred grains by now locking them into 35MM slides, then they will remain blurred even when the image is shrunk back down to 8MM size? Then if you are intelligent enough to have understood this simple process so far that applies to all photographic images, then tell this forum in your opinion why the 35MM grains on the new altered product when reduced down to 8MM size would not be sharp and would look the same as the original grains that transfered with the image and became blurred when the original image was first enlarged?

You see, David ... you can talk in riddles ... you can even attempt to dance around the issues, but you cannot in no way shape or form get around the simple basic rules of physics, which doesn't take a degree in Photography to apply to this case. Take any photograph that you have and blow it up (8 x 10 as White claimed will be a good size) and look at it under magnification and you will see that it has lost its sharpness during the enlarging process. There is just no way of getting around it! So no one is leaving anyone out to dry ... they just don't any better way to explain the most simpliest laws of physics. The problem with you is that you didn't bother to investigate these avenues before wasting all the time you did on the subject of Zfilm alteration. My only advice to you now is that instead of being angry with the messenger - you take the high road and be a man by taking some responsibility for your own shortcomings and get mad at yourself for not doing a thorough investigation on your own before becoming committed to an impossibility.

grains on an original print - sharp along edges

grains that have been blown-up - sharpness is lost along edges

blurred grains from the original blow-up process seen mixed with the sharp grains from the 35MM film stock

The illustrations apply to the basic laws of physics, thus they would apply to Photography issues as well. I have shown these illustrations to Photography and Film experts, as well as to those who have also consulted such experts, and they have confirmed that these illustrations relay the principles pertaining to the issues quite adequetly. Now pretend that you didn't understand any of this and say something else silly and misleading, David ... because that seems to be all you have left to fall back on.

Bill

__________________________

polka dots? you gotta be kidding? Where's the photographic examples? Lurkers want to see Zapruder film samples and references. The before and after???

Let me assist you;

You have access to 35mm or 4x5 trannies LIFE Zapruder-frames. Utilizing a 2k (4000k by 4000k) first generation digital file .tiff file of same, take a 500x500 pixel section of the DP infield grass of said alledged in-camera Zapruder film frame [any frame showing the infield with or without the limo] - and we'll need the provenance of said frame], that will be your Kodacolor II 8mm example still (sample-image 1), the result of image 1; in its 8mm 35mm 'bumped' form to *negative stock (make that sample, image sample 2) - then to 35mm reversal stock (make that one, image-sample 3), then back down to 8mm Kodacolor II (and finally, image-sample 4). Also, tell us the 8mm and the 1963-4 vintage 35mm film stock you'll be referencing. Show us what we should look for. How we can tell the fake frame from the original...

Care to name your experts? LOL

Edited May 15, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Mark Knight]

Why must these threads nearly always deteriorate into a micturating contest between and among the photo and film folks? The namecalling does nothing to advance the research, and a lot at blackening the image of everyone on both sides of the assassination debate.

If you've got issues with someone's methodology, can the debate at least be civil? A simple "I believe you're wrong, and here's why", or "I don't believe you've proved your case, and here's why" would be SO much more productive...in my humble opinion. It's hard to take EITHER position seriously when the primary product becomes insults rather than information.