David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Jack wrote [...] Robert Groden copied the missing frames from the Secret Service copy. The frames are missing only on the LIFE original. [...] Here is the Stemmons 212 missing frames splice, which in my unexpert opinion is impossible...since the ends of the film are butted together, not overlapped. But what do I know? Jack __________________ Jack, I doubt the film was hot spliced at what we know as, the Stemmons splice. As I doubt the WC had ANY question regarding the authenticity of the Z-film... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 27, 2006 Author Share Posted May 27, 2006 (edited) The puzzle may be just in how the info has been presented. IOW combining the pages sequentially makes sense of the thing, now partials including inbetween sprocket ghost images relate and the only two frames not available in any way except as SS copies are frames 210 and 211? Did Life ever publish 210 and 211? anyone else? Edited May 27, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 (edited) dgh01: of course I don't know what I'm talking about, Gary Mack told you so, right ? No, your responses usually give it away! dgh01: no dancing champ, just reach back and find a question that merits me answering it, but first of course your gonna have to provide me and all the lurkers out here your bonfides for even participating in trhese discussions, eh? I wasn't aware that there were restrictions as to forum members joining into discussions and asking questions pertaining to something someone like yourself has said. Until John Simkin tells us otherwise, I will continue to ask for clarification and the sources for the things you say. I will also just figure that you're not able to explain yourself. Also, I appreciate your ridiculous response about you only answering questions that you deem to have enough merit to be worthy of answering ... it shows that you have little interest in the purpose of this forum. dgh01: plant suspicion? LMAO! Got plenty of suspicious questions, that apparently have no clear answers, that's why their questions. Questions are supposed to be asked before drawing conclusions or making assertions. dgh01: duh.... that is the camera AZapruder said he used. Is there **other** film Abe Zapruder ran through the B&H414 during the year he alledgedy owned it, if so, I'll certainly consider it.... But you know, hiding and changing the subject from emulsion and grain structure of the Z-film to this nonsense has not gone unnoticed.... The topic at the time pertained to whether altering film would be detectable or not. The information I presented came from talking to experts and people knowledgeable about the history of the Zapruder film. Who did you consult again? All I recall at this time was you asking was where did Costella ever say that the Zapruder film images in Life Magazine were altered ... something you would have known had you actually read Costella's web page before recommending to others to go see it. dgh01: somebody, please, buy this guy a drink -- listen up Willy, did Zapruder run more film through his B&H414 camera before or AFTER the assassination sequence? If so, has Roland Zavada seen same? This isn't rocket science, Gary's right there, ask him? Glad you feel that Gary would be a good source for such information for he has told me that you obviously have never bothered to read one word of documentation about how and why it was absolutely impossible for more than three prints to have been made. He has also told me that you ignorant as to Zapruder having shot home movies for several years prior to the assassination and that he had a nice Bell & Howell projector so he could actually show his home movies to his family. dgh01: ............ Back to LIFE: those Novemer issue b&w images? LOL -- the ones that look like they were drawn with a crayon? The unnumbered ones, those the ones your talking about? -- Yeah, I've seen 'em, got all the Life Magazines here, what do you need to know about 'em? Got the 'STOP the PRESSES' version too... Maybe you'll feel this question has merit enough for you to address it .... Please tell this forum how soon after the assassination did Life make their prints from the Zapruder film? Don't confuse their printing date with what I have asked ... I am talking about the date Life Magazine actually made their copies off the Zapruder film. I look forward to a simple and honest answer ... for a change! I think you need a refresher course in the .john mcadams school of disinformation, your becoming an embarassment to the Lone Neuter cause -- Seeing how you have become known as the Baghdad Bob of the JFK assassination community - I'll ignore your last remark. If you just address the original question put to you we will have accomplished something. Bill Miller Edited May 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 (edited) Jack, I doubt the film was hot spliced at what we know as, the Stemmons splice. As I doubt the WC had ANY question regarding the authenticity of the Z-film... It would probably be ggod to tell people what the differences are .... A "hot splice" is what the pros use, but amateurs don't. A hot splice is nothing more than an ordinary splicer with a small heating element that helps the film cement dry quicker....it's just a convenience/speed thing for those needing to edit/splice in a hurry. Gary Mack has said, "Pro equipment (which is rarely if ever used for 8mm work) cuts the film ON the frame line. Amateur splicers do not. Amateur splicers cut the film within the image and one must scrape off the emulsion of part of the frame to overlap the film you are attaching to it. When you don't get all of the emulsion scraped off, a slight blue tint can be seen under the overlap. The overlap area is roughly 1/3 of the entire frame. How do I know? I've had first hand experience with 8mm film since the early 70's. Remember, LIFE worked with still photos and would have little use for any 8mm equipment. To get Zapruder frames over the weekend, they probably bought or borrowed a projector and splicer." Bill Miller Say, your so knowledgable maybe you can tell us WHO numbered and WHEN the Zapruder frames were numbered? Huh Sherlock? David, there are several well kown books out there that details the things you seem oblivious of. It might benefit you to take some time and actually study the case. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Bill Miller Edited May 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' continued his dance: <snip> dgh01: duh.... that is the camera AZapruder said he used. Is there **other** film Abe Zapruder ran through the B&H414 during the year he alledgedy owned it, if so, I'll certainly consider it.... But you know, hiding and changing the subject from emulsion and grain structure of the Z-film to this nonsense has not gone unnoticed.... The topic at the time pertained to whether altering film would be detectable or not. The information I presented came from talking to experts and people knowledgeable about the history of the Zapruder film. Who did you consult again? All I recall at this time was you asking was where did Costella ever say that the Zapruder film images in Life Magazine were altered ... something you would have known had you actually read Costella's web page before recommending to others to go see it. dgh02: Bill, the question there isn't what I know, its what you know, I was there when he presented, I don't recall you being there at all, were you? --- ... Glad you feel that Gary would be a good source for such information for he has told me that you obviously have never bothered to read one word of documentation about how and why it was absolutely impossible for more than three prints to have been made. dgh02: Course I think Gary's a good source, he's got a nasty job, how many times daily does he have to tell you what to post for him? That alone would make one shudder.... but he handles it with grace and aplomb. He simply has you do his work.... He has also told me that you ignorant as to Zapruder having shot home movies for several years prior to the assassination and that he had a nice Bell & Howell projector so he could actually show his home movies to his family. dgh02: he had a "nice" projector? Grace, pure poetry in motion.... gotta love these Lone Neuter's. Now, does Zavada know about these "other" Zapruder B&H414 'nice' home films? dgh01: ............ Back to LIFE: those Novemer issue b&w images? LOL -- the ones that look like they were drawn with a crayon? The unnumbered ones, those the ones your talking about? -- Yeah, I've seen 'em, got all the Life Magazines here, what do you need to know about 'em? Got the 'STOP the PRESSES' version too... Maybe you'll feel this question has merit enough for you to address it .... Please tell this forum how soon after the assassination did Life make their prints from the Zapruder film? Don't confuse their printing date with what I have asked ... I am talking about the date Life Magazine actually made their copies off the Zapruder film. I look forward to a simple and honest answer ... for a change! dgh02: I'd ask Dr. Thompson that if I were you. Whats the time LIFE had for anything got to do with alteration of the Z-film and its presentation to the Warren Commission? So, when did FBI agent Shaneyfelt do the numbering of the Z-frames, AGAIN? I think you need a refresher course in the .john mcadams school of disinformation, your becoming an embarassment to the Lone Neuter cause -- Seeing how you have become known as the Baghdad Bob of the JFK assassination community - I'll ignore your last remark. If you just address the original question put to you we will have accomplished something. dgh02: Memorial day, Baghdad Bob, what's a veteran and a patriotic American to think, Bill? You serve by-the-way? -- get your film emulsion and grain facts together -- your gonna need them, no ducking for cover, you're the photographic guy, tsk-tsk! Bill Miller Bill Miller wrote [...] Say, your so knowledgable maybe you can tell us WHO numbered and WHEN the Zapruder frames were numbered? Huh Sherlock? David, there are several well kown books out there that details the things you seem oblivious of. It might benefit you to take some time and actually study the case. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Bill Miller dgh01: ah.... I read his testimony years ago, the question was and still is, WHEN did he (Shaneyfelt) number the frames? Edited May 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 (edited) dgh02: Bill, the question there isn't what I know, its what you know, I was there when he presented, I don't recall you being there at all, were you? --- I don't know what Costella has presented in your presence, David. I can however go back and paste the discussion that you and I had again so to remind you that we were talking about his comments on the Life Magazine images being altered forgeries. That is what I like about these forums - they are archived and you cannot get away from what you had said only days earlier. So there are only two alternatives here, David ... one is that you had never bothered to actually read what Costella wrote on his web page or you had read it, but forgotten what John had said. If it is the latter, then you probably have forgotten what John said in Deluth, as well, thus making your being present at any given event irrelevant seeing how your ability to retain information is so poor. At the same time, if you are saying Costella said something different in Deluth compared to what he wrote on his web page, then there is little defending someone who speaks out of both sides of their mouth and I'd be most interested in what he had to say when you called him on it. dgh02: Course I think Gary's a good source, he's got a nasty job, how many times daily does he have to tell you what to post for him? That alone would make one shudder.... but he handles it with grace and aplomb. He simply has you do his work.... Gary Mack has never asked me to post anything for him any more than Kodac, Groden, Zavada, the 26 Volumes, the HSCA records, and etc., has asked me to post information for them. They are all sources that are available to anyone serious enough to seek them out for information. dgh02: he had a "nice" projector? Grace, pure poetry in motion.... gotta love these Lone Neuter's. Now, does Zavada know about these "other" Zapruder B&H414 'nice' home films? That is a question that you can ask Zavada or people who have spoken to him in the past. The particular camera Zapruder had on the Day of the assassination was purchased no less than seven months prior to the assassination. dgh02: I'd ask Dr. Thompson that if I were you. Whats the time LIFE had for anything got to do with alteration of the Z-film and its presentation to the Warren Commission? So, when did FBI agent Shaneyfelt do the numbering of the Z-frames, AGAIN? To the simple minded who appears to not do much in the way of critical thinking ... it may not appear it had anything to do with it, but to someone capable of seeing that the Life prints depict what is still seen on the Zapruder film today and that those prints were actually made within the first 24 or so hours of the assassination ... those critical thinking researchers will see how impossible it was to have completed such alterations at that time, especially when the whereabouts of all the assassination films and photographs were not known at that time and it would have been suicide to put something on a film that would not be on the possible other assassination films. -- get your film emulsion and grain facts together -- your gonna need them, no ducking for cover, you're the photographic guy, tsk-tsk! No, David ... I am the guy who actually goes to the Photographic experts and relays to the forum what I have learned. dgh01: ah.... I read his testimony years ago, the question was and still is, WHEN did he (Shaneyfelt) number the frames? I gather that Shaneyfelt had numbered the frames for his analysis which started in January 1964. I believe you will also find that information in Trask book "Nightmare in Dallas". I think you'll find the answer to many of your questions if you first take the time to study the case in more depth than just trolling forums. Bill Miller Edited May 28, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 To a novice like myself, this splice is hard to understand. On the one hand there appears to be a misalignment in sprocket holes (indicating a machine was not used to align here?? and some glue exuding out in the lower corner of the sprocket hole? then this apparent spliced segment again appears spliced above and below. How is this explained? What is the actual splice here? Is it as it appears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 To a novice like myself, this splice is hard to understand. On the one hand there appears to be a misalignment in sprocket holes (indicating a machine was not used to align here?? and some glue exuding out in the lower corner of the sprocket hole? then this apparent spliced segment again appears spliced above and below. How is this explained? What is the actual splice here? Is it as it appears? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 (edited) I did not know that there are HOT SPICES and MANUAL SPLICES. In that case why is the FIRST zapruder splice MANUAL and the second one HOT"? And why was neither splice done at a septum, where it might not have been noticed? Jack Edited May 28, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 Jack, you should try some red savina habanero. so if that is correct, and 'six frames are missing' is correct (with a partial counted as a missing), then 212 is the 7th frame after the break. which would make it number 214, not 212?, I'm getting a bit confused here, where is the misstep? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 'Bill Miller' dronned on: [...] I gather that Shaneyfelt had numbered the frames for his analysis which started in January 1964. I believe you will also find that ingotmation in Trask book "Nightmare in Dallas". I think you'll find the answer to many of your questions if you first take the time to study the case in more depth than just trolling forums. dgh02: lurkers, this is Bill's way of saying: "how the hell would I know when he numbered the frames." LMAO, I believe Shaneyfelt started his analysis before Jan. '64 -- You might try reading the books you suggest others read.... eh? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 (edited) dgh02: lurkers, this is Bill's way of saying: "how the hell would I know when he numbered the frames." Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... that's not exactly what I said, but when do you ever repeat anything correctly. Did I not mention "Nightmare in Dallas" by Richard Trask. Do I need to get Trask book out and read it to you? Did not Trask say the frames were numbered in January of 64' ... I'm citing from memory here, so call me on it and let me know how far I'm off, if at all, David. BTW, that's one of the books the 6th Floor Museum carries, so maybe you should order it ... of course that means someone will probably need to read it to you ... and definitely many times over! Also, I was interested in knowing what the 6th Floor Museum had to offer in relation to everyone's question, so here is the information I recieved from Gary Mack ... "Bill, Well, since you asked, here's the answer. The Museum has seven or eight full sets of the Warren Report and 26 volumes in its collection, acquired from several people including the Phil Willis family and Dallas FBI agent Manning Clements. The Warren Report is sold in the gift shop and is required reading for anyone wanting the basic information (regardless of whether they believe the conclusions or not). The public is welcome to make an appointment to read them during regular office hours at no charge. The same applies to any video or book in the Museum's library regardless of content or whether it is also available in the store. Gary" Bill Miller Edited May 28, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 could someone post an 'undamaged' copy from the 2 secret service copies, pref one from each, b/w is fine, not one of the later 'distortion corrected'..cleaned up' altered ones from costellas set or any other sets that are degraded, as good as poss, please, of frame 207 and frame 212 (standard numbering)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' dgh02: lurkers, this is Bill's way of saying: "how the hell would I know when he numbered the frames." Hey Baghdad Bob Healy ... that's not exactly what I said, but when do you ever repeat anything correctly. Did I not mention "Nightmare in Dallas" by Richard Trask. Do I need to get Trask book out and read it to you? dgh03: of course I want a cite, why do you think I believe you? And btw, I could careless what Trask says, when did Shaneyfelt number the Z-frames, to make it really simple for you, when did the Z-frames numbers first appear in public? Did not Trask say the frames were numbered in January of 64' ... I'm citing from memory here, so call me on it and let me know how far I'm off, if at all, David. dgh03: -- pour me one of what your drinking, pal.... I believe I'm asking a question about Shaneyfelt NOT Trask, who cares when Trask *THINKS* Shaneyfelt numbered frames, did Trask testify? -- I know its difficult, keep on point... BTW, that's one of the books the 6th Floor Museum carries, so maybe you should order it ... of course that means someone will probably need to read it to you ... and definitely many times over! Also, I was interested in knowing what the 6th Floor Museum had to offer in relation to everyone's question, so here is the information I recieved from Gary Mack ... "Bill, Well, since you asked, here's the answer. The Museum has seven or eight full sets of the Warren Report and 26 volumes in its collection, acquired from several people including the Phil Willis family and Dallas FBI agent Manning Clements. The Warren Report is sold in the gift shop and is required reading for anyone wanting the basic information (regardless of whether they believe the conclusions or not). dgh03: "required" reading? Does that mean I can't gain entry to the museum if I haven't read the WCR? Lurkers notice the word conclusions, not FACTS. The public is welcome to make an appointment to read them during regular office hours at no charge. The same applies to any video or book in the Museum's library regardless of content or whether it is also available in the store. Gary" dgh03: well thanks Gary, we can READ the WCR and volumes at NO charge, that mean the admittance fee is dropped for those that just want to peek at the WCR and the volumes, lol? So, the WCReport IS sold there---- hmm... That being the case, isn't the Single Bullet Theory (the magic bullet), just that, a theory? NOT grounded in FACT? In FACT, some would say, the theory is ludicrious? A **magic bullet**, makes more sense than a conspiracy, or another shooter? The SBTheory/Magic Bullet is fine with the museums management? When is the museum going to make available 4x5 trannies of the Z-film frames for public viewing and study? While I have you on the horn here -- do you have Life magazines 8mm-16mm blowups (done by Mo Weitzman prior to the 8mm to 35mm) of the Zapruder film, or the NIX film blowups UPI had Weitzman's lab do, or does Groden have those? Keep up the good work, Bill -- Now for Shaneyfelt, when did he say he numbered those frames... Bill Miller Edited May 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 (edited) dgh03: -- pour me one of what your drinking, pal.... I believe I'm asking a question about Shaneyfelt NOT Trask, who cares when Trask *THINKS* Shaneyfelt numbered frames, did Trask testify? -- I know its difficult, keep on point... David, there is one thing worse than a jackass, and that is a jackass who cannot stop running his mouth long enough to know what he has read. If Trask has written when Shaneyfelt numbered the frames, then shouldn't you bother to first find out how Trask came to know that date instead of playing the role of the forum idiot ... I would surely think so! BTW, it really makes you look like nothing more than a xxxxx when you ask for a source of information and then take the position that you don't care what someone has written in their book or how they got the infromation. Bill Edited May 28, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now