Jump to content

Is this how it was done?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why?

Jack

Jack,

I think some of us were waiting to see just how much paranoid propaganda you'd spew out over this piece of film without bothering to investigate it further. I mean, did you even ask Chris Davidson where he got the film ... did he find it on a bus, in an alley, in a garbage can, where??? This would be the first thing I would want to know if someone told me of a discovery. But that's OK, I'll tell you where it came from, Jack! It's the NARA preservation copy, which is the cleaned version, has some extraneous film attached before the Zapruder footage. Chris or someone just ordered a tape dub from NARA and the version they supply has what is known as film leader spliced onto the front of the reel. Leader is normally blank film, sometimes with an identification slate (or slide), that provides protection for the rest of the reel. It's standard film procedure to attach extra leader before the beginning of a film. Monaco Film Laboratory was the name of the company that did the work. They are based in San Francisco and I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you what is written on the leader film.

I believe this stuff is mentioned in the Richard Trask book (National Nightmare) that's been out for a few years now. Gary Mack told me of these things some time ago .... maybe you might want to use the Museum sometimes for an educational tool to learn things if you are not going to bother ever reading Trask's book concerning the latest data on the Zapruder film.

Bill Miller

I've heard this film called something else.... it's OLD news, we know what it is. Having said that, the quality, even a severly compressed internet QT version, beats the hell out of the "good quality" MPI DVD version! But let's not make the quality of same THE issue... a good question, and yes, to stay on point; the necessity to reduce ANY Zapruder film blowup 16mm (or 35mm) film to 8mm? Explain please....

Lest I forget, how'd this Z-film clip get to a blowup status, and who approved same, and of course WHEN?

Seems as though you were discussing at a earlier time, a specific problem, that being, alterationists being able to deliver a reasonable, good quality altered 8mm Zapruder film. Your position: the film would be instantly recognized as a fraud by non-alterationist "photo experts" some on the Lone Nut side of the equation. why? (To fool all those non-suspecting believers in the WCR :)) Specifically: CONTRAST and GRAIN and film properties issues...

Looks like another issue Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding will need to address in their new and improved Zavada report.

Quite familiar with Monaco Film Labs, I worked for a few TV stations in the "CITY" San Francisco bayarea, film of course was the king in those day's...

Why would NARA or ANYONE want to convert 16mm to 8mm? That

is clearly what has been done here.

Jack

How about these reasons xxxx xxxxx.

Maybe to VIEW it on an 8mm machine? Maybe thats the format they had available to shoot at the time? Out of 16mm stock? Maybe copy version one was created on 16mm, copy version two was created in 8mm? Lots of posibilities, one being you have no imagination?

Why shoot an 8x10 chrome and then reduce it down to a 4x5 dupe? Its done all the time.

you ALWAYS want your source imagery at the best resolution possible, 16mm has problems, take it direct to 35mm exactly as Moe Weitzman did in the 60's -- dumb it down to whatever the market will accept/buy -- done ALL the time. Ask MPI!

No xxxxe sherlock, tell that to pinhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that THE IMAGE SHOWS AN 8 MM COPY

BEING MADE FROM 16 MM. Please explain who would

do that and why. The camera being used apparently

is like Zapruder's. It is doing a frame by frame capture

from 16 MM.

Figure it out and let us know.

Jack

Jack, I think you are assuming a lot from a frame grab. The "leader" of that film shows a picture of a 16MM frame that would have nothing to do with the Zfilm. Ask Chris what other images are on that leader piece of film and if it is an image in a line of other unrelated images, then I am correct. And if you are still feeling paranoid, then Chris can contact the company and ask them where they got the piece of leader film that they added to their Zapruder film work.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a peep from the anti-alterationists. Wonder why?

Jack

Jack,

I think some of us were waiting to see just how much paranoid propaganda you'd spew out over this piece of film without bothering to investigate it further. I mean, did you even ask Chris Davidson where he got the film ... did he find it on a bus, in an alley, in a garbage can, where??? This would be the first thing I would want to know if someone told me of a discovery. But that's OK, I'll tell you where it came from, Jack! It's the NARA preservation copy, which is the cleaned version, has some extraneous film attached before the Zapruder footage. Chris or someone just ordered a tape dub from NARA and the version they supply has what is known as film leader spliced onto the front of the reel. Leader is normally blank film, sometimes with an identification slate (or slide), that provides protection for the rest of the reel. It's standard film procedure to attach extra leader before the beginning of a film. Monaco Film Laboratory was the name of the company that did the work. They are based in San Francisco and I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you what is written on the leader film.

I believe this stuff is mentioned in the Richard Trask book (National Nightmare) that's been out for a few years now. Gary Mack told me of these things some time ago .... maybe you might want to use the Museum sometimes for an educational tool to learn things if you are not going to bother ever reading Trask's book concerning the latest data on the Zapruder film.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Bill!

Extremely helpful information! You are very likely correct that

MONACO FILM LAB made a copy of the Z-film for the National

Archives! And ABC got their Zapruder copy from the Archives!

Elementary! You should have made this information available

earlier to help researchers.

Since this apparently is true, that should mean that anyone

can order a DVD of the copy from the Archives at a nominal

cost for research purposes, right? Especially since we the

people PAID SIXTEEN MILLION DOLLARS FOR IT, right?

The ABC DVD has only about HALF of the frames on the

widely available DVD...but I would like a copy of the ENTIRE

film. ABC probably paid a huge royalty for commercial use,

but RESEARCHERS will not be charged a royalty by the

Archives, right? And such a pristine, excellent copy...of

course, much BETTER than the original! (an alteration?)

Contacting Monaco does not help, since they will not talk about

it. But the Archives should be more forthcoming, right? They

are there to serve the people, right? For a nominal cost you

can buy a copy of any JFK photo from the Archives, right?

And copies of any documents relating to the images, right?

You order many photos from the Archives, so tell us how to

get our own copy of the film! Monaco apparently has been

ordered not to discuss their work. So maybe documents

from the Archives relating to the NARA/Monaco project are

available to the public, right? Or is this a matter of National

Security under the Patriot Act?

Since Monaco will not answer questions, I want to know

from the Archives:

1. Why was the NEW ANIMATION SHOT USING AN 8MM CAMERA?

2. Why was the copy source of the new animation 16MM FILM?

3. Why were the SEPTUM LINES between frames left in?

4. What is the provenance of the 16mm film which was copied?

5. Why did they not copy directly from the 8mm copy like MPI did?

6. What "changes" were made in the new animation, including

cleaning defects, color correction, cropping, JIGGLE removal,

reframing, rotoscoping, and the like? They surely have a copy of

the standard ANIMATOR'S SCRIPT for each frame don't they?

The "original" was ROTOSCOPED and reframed by Groden

to remove the "jiggles"; does the Monaco copy retain the jiggles

of the original, or is it more like a Groden ROTOSCOPED copy?

Bill...you have lots of contacts at NARA...how about getting them

to answer these questions? As public servants, I am sure they

will be eager to answer questions from the public.

You are being very helpful in providing answers to important

questions. Thanks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that THE IMAGE SHOWS AN 8 MM COPY

BEING MADE FROM 16 MM. Please explain who would

do that and why. The camera being used apparently

is like Zapruder's. It is doing a frame by frame capture

from 16 MM.

Figure it out and let us know.

Jack

Jack, I think you are assuming a lot from a frame grab. The "leader" of that film shows a picture of a 16MM frame that would have nothing to do with the Zfilm. Ask Chris what other images are on that leader piece of film and if it is an image in a line of other unrelated images, then I am correct. And if you are still feeling paranoid, then Chris can contact the company and ask them where they got the piece of leader film that they added to their Zapruder film work.

Bill Miller

16mm DOUBLE SPROCKET leader cannot be spliced to single sprocket

8mm film AFTER IT IS SPLIT. Was this version animated from an

unsplit 8mm?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...you have lots of contacts at NARA...how about getting them

to answer these questions? As public servants, I am sure they

will be eager to answer questions from the public.

Hi Jack. While waiting for One-Who-Yells-With-Bold-Codes to get back from NARA, and as dispassionately as possible:

1. What is the overview regarding the film, Cecile B. DeZapruder, and the changeling Sitzman?

2. How does it fit in with who put Kennedy in the shooting gallery and cover-up thereof?

3. What do you feel was/is the purpose of the Zapruder film (in any form)?

4. Referencing the black-and-white medium-CU of Sitzman you use for scarf reference, and other images you have displayed to prove (not to my satisfaction) that her bag was on the pedastal at any and all relevant times, why do you then say she/they weren't on the pedestal shooting a movie?

5. If Zapruder/Sitzman didn't shoot a movie from that angle, who did?

6. What is the role of One-Who-Yells-With-Bold-Codes in regard to all the above?

These are not challenges. This is an attempt to understand the underlying issues.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremely helpful information! You are very likely correct that

MONACO FILM LAB made a copy of the Z-film for the National

Archives! And ABC got their Zapruder copy from the Archives!

Elementary! You should have made this information available

earlier to help researchers.

Jack, you have been advised to get a copy of Trask's book and read it, but I think you said something along the line about not having time to do this because you are so busy on such important matters like 9/11 and the moon landings. If you are thinking that I should fly 2200 miles back to the midwest and get out my assassination books and read them to you over the forum because you are too goddamned busy to do your own research, then I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon. Because I didn't have Trask's book with me, I placed a long distance call to the 6th Floor Museum and asked Gary Mack to look up that information for me. You live in Fort Worth, so can't you at least make a simple phone call to Dallas or does someone like myself have to keep taking my spare time and money to spoon feed you so-called serious researchers??? I am sorry if I seem a bit short, but you people seem to have plenty of time and energy to look for poor copy prints so to make ridiculous claims from them, but you don't seem to have any time to do the basics concerning other aspects of investigative research.

Since this apparently is true, that should mean that anyone

can order a DVD of the copy from the Archives at a nominal

cost for research purposes, right? Especially since we the

people PAID SIXTEEN MILLION DOLLARS FOR IT, right?

We the people PAID OVER A BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE, but for some unfair reason they won't let me climb aboard it and fly it ... NASA, like the the NARA sure has a lot of nerve - don't they! Seeing how you or your admirers don't have the ability to contact the NARA or the 6th Floor Museum, I'll contact them myself and see if they will take the time to address your questions so I can free up a little time for myself here in BC. But I will however only ask that they address any questions that are not answered in Trask's book for I do not feel that I should take advantage of their time just because someone else is too lazy to do some research on their own.

Bill Miller

Hi Jack. While waiting for One-Who-Yells-With-Bold-Codes to get back from NARA

Just so we are straight, Ashton ... I have heard it said that the use of "CAPS" is representative of yelling. The bold letters in my view are to separate my answer from the poster that I am responding to. Wasn't it Martin Luther King who said that a response should be 'judged by the accuracy of its content and not by the boldness of its letters'.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it Martin Luther King who said that a response should be 'judged by the accuracy of its content and not by the boldness of its letters'.

Whoever said it, it's a good 'un.

Just so we are straight, Ashton ... I have heard it said that the use of "CAPS" is representative of yelling.

While CAPS is a form of emphasis, so is boldface.

The bold letters in my view are to separate my answer from the poster that I am responding to.

Okay. But that's what the little boxes above with curly-que quotations marks are for, so it's kind of gilding the lilly. I haven't reproduced your bold codes here (which are a pain in the ass to reproduce when replying to different sections of a message), and I don't think anybody will get confused.

Some people use color to quote, too, and it's equally a PITA.

I'm not the formatting police, and of course people can and will do whatever they want, but following the built in forum conventions is a help and a courtesy. It also makes bold and color actually mean something when used.

And just to attempt to get on-topic here: I tend to agree generally that Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal and shooting a film. On the other hand, I find some of their connections to smell a bit like sardines left in the sun, and do think there are some grounds for there having been some monkeying with the film. I just wish the discussion could be a little more orderly and could focus (I couldn't "dodge" that one; sorry) on more relative certainties and on fewer fuzzy features of folderol.

I also would like to hear Jack's overview on all of this. I'm still wondering if there isn't some point of agreement that might be reached that might actually be worth pursuing.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so we are straight, Ashton ... I have heard it said that the use of "CAPS" is representative of yelling.

While CAPS is a form of emphasis, so is boldface.

The bold letters in my view are to separate my answer from the poster that I am responding to.

I must not be as educated on word definitions as you are, Ashton.

emphasis

n 1: special importance or significance; "the red light gave the

central figure increased emphasis"; "the room was

decorated in shades of gray with distinctive red

accents" [syn: accent]

yell (yĕl)

v., yelled, yell·ing, yells.

v.intr.

To cry out loudly, as in pain, fright, surprise, or enthusiasm.

And just to attempt to get on-topic here: I tend to agree generally that Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal and shooting a film. I also would like to hear Jack's overview on all of this.

In the book by Trask's (National Nightmare) there is a good image of Zapruder's face as he is standing just inside the shelter with Mr. Hester. Several photos and films all that interact with one another where one was taken within second or two of the other, so the man in the dark suit and hat and the woman in the light dress and black head scarf can be seen leaving the pedestal and walking away. So not only can we identify the man in the photo I just mentioned that is found in Trask's book, but in the same book is a really good close-up of Sitzman's face still in the same dress and scarf and at the same pedestal seen in the films and photos. It appears that Jack hasn't bothered to correlate these things because he is too busy still trying to figure out why a shadow being cast over something will make it look darker on film.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so we are straight, Ashton ... I have heard it said that the use of "CAPS" is representative of yelling.

While CAPS is a form of emphasis, so is boldface.

The bold letters in my view are to separate my answer from the poster that I am responding to.

I must not be as educated on word definitions as you are, Ashton.

emphasis

n 1: special importance or significance; "the red light gave the

central figure increased emphasis"; "the room was

decorated in shades of gray with distinctive red

accents" [syn: accent]

yell (yĕl)

v., yelled, yell·ing, yells.

v.intr.

To cry out loudly, as in pain, fright, surprise, or enthusiasm.

And just to attempt to get on-topic here: I tend to agree generally that Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal and shooting a film. I also would like to hear Jack's overview on all of this.

In the book by Trask's (National Nightmare) there is a good image of Zapruder's face as he is standing just inside the shelter with Mr. Hester. Several photos and films all that interact with one another where one was taken within second or two of the other, so the man in the dark suit and hat and the woman in the light dress and black head scarf can be seen leaving the pedestal and walking away. So not only can we identify the man in the photo I just mentioned that is found in Trask's book, but in the same book is a really good close-up of Sitzman's face still in the same dress and scarf and at the same pedestal seen in the films and photos. It appears that Jack hasn't bothered to correlate these things because he is too busy still trying to figure out why a shadow being cast over something will make it look darker on film.

Bill Miller

Ah, what? Identify who, Zapruder? There's a photo ID'ing him OR Sitzman on the pedestal? Post it here, please -- AND Jack asks probing questions, certainly enough to keep a ARMY on their toes. So Bill, you're a dreamer!

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

I must not be as educated on word definitions as you are, Ashton.

emphasis

n 1: special importance or significance; "the red light gave the

central figure increased emphasis"; "the room was

decorated in shades of gray with distinctive red

accents" [syn: accent]

Yep, I guess you aren't:

emphasis1.gif

Do notice the root of the word. And while they mention only the example of italics in typography for emphasis, typographic references uniformly give at least these five:

typeemphasis.gif

That's from an article called, appropriately enough, Five Tools of Typographic Emphasis. Clever name, don't you think?

Wherever one goes one finds universal agreement (present august and supremely haughty company excepted, of course) that boldface is a form of emphasis, as it has been since the first boldface was designed for movable type. Even modern webstylists agree:

  • There are time-honored typographical devices for adding emphasis to a block of text, but be sure to use them sparingly. If you make everything bold, then nothing will stand out and it will seem as if you are shouting at your readers.

That's from The Web Style Guide, 2nd edition, a section called, curiously enough, Emphasis

And the typographic bible, the Chicago Manual of Style, supports all the above.

If you want any more private tutoring in public, feel free to lip off at me again. I'll gladly accommodate you.

In the book by Trask's (National Nightmare) there is a good image of Zapruder's face as he...

A forum search on "Trask" and your name sure turns up lots of hits. I'm not going to run out and buy it. If you have it, is there anything preventing you from just presenting the image or images from Trask that you keep referring to?

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, what? Identify who, Zapruder? There's a photo ID'ing him OR Sitzman on the pedestal? Post it here, please -- AND Jack asks probing questions, certainly enough to keep a ARMY on their toes. So Bill, you're a dreamer!

Yes, David ... in a sense there is. The thing is that you have to be capable of following a bloody elephant in a fresh fallen snow. While this has been told to you before, I will repeat it once again.

It seems pretty obvious by now that at least Sitzman was on the pedestal, unless you wish to say that another woman in the same clothes and head scarf (Altgens 8) was a stand-in for Marilyn. The close-up photo of her has been posted before as she was talking to a man right next to the pedestal. The Paschal film catches a man in a dark suit and hat getting onto the ground having just hopping off the pedestal. That man is captured on film by James Altgens (Altgens 8). The Bell film captures that man stopping as he walks only a few steps and as Bell films on - he quickly passes over this man again as the subject walks into the shelter. (Sitzman, I believe, had given an oral history saying that she, Zapruder, and the Hetser's all met in the shelter immediately following the assassination.) Art Rickerby then takes a photo showing Sitzman, Charles Hester, and Abe Zapruder standing inside the shelter. A nice bright image of Abe's face in rthat Rickerby photo can be seen in Trask's book - National Nightmare. The alternative is that someone stood-in on the pedestal and then did a switch-a-roo with Abe, presumeably in front of Sitzman and the Hester's and they are all part of a conspiracy to hide that alleged incident from the American public following the assassination.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, what? Identify who, Zapruder? There's a photo ID'ing him OR Sitzman on the pedestal? Post it here, please -- AND Jack asks probing questions, certainly enough to keep a ARMY on their toes. So Bill, you're a dreamer!

Yes, David ... in a sense there is. The thing is that you have to be capable of following a bloody elephant in a fresh fallen snow. While this has been told to you before, I will repeat it once again.

It seems pretty obvious by now that at least Sitzman was on the pedestal, unless you wish to say that another woman in the same clothes and head scarf (Altgens 8) was a stand-in for Marilyn. The close-up photo of her has been posted before as she was talking to a man right next to the pedestal. The Paschal film catches a man in a dark suit and hat getting onto the ground having just hopping off the pedestal. That man is captured on film by James Altgens (Altgens 8). The Bell film captures that man stopping as he walks only a few steps and as Bell films on - he quickly passes over this man again as the subject walks into the shelter. (Sitzman, I believe, had given an oral history saying that she, Zapruder, and the Hetser's all met in the shelter immediately following the assassination.) Art Rickerby then takes a photo showing Sitzman, Charles Hester, and Abe Zapruder standing inside the shelter. A nice bright image of Abe's face in rthat Rickerby photo can be seen in Trask's book - National Nightmare. The alternative is that someone stood-in on the pedestal and then did a switch-a-roo with Abe, presumeably in front of Sitzman and the Hester's and they are all part of a conspiracy to hide that alleged incident from the American public following the assassination.

Bill Miller

Bill, makes no difference what's obvious to you, so there is NO identifying photo of Abe on the pedestal, yes?

Further, "that man" this, "that man" that, (I find that curious, why not say Zapruder?) -- are you trying to make a conspiracy argument out of the simple comment: there is NO photo identifying Abe Zapruder or Marily Sitzman standing on the pedestal?

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

I asked Gary Mack your questions and found out a lot of information, some of which is not in Trask’s book. However, much of what you are asking "is" in Trask book if you would just take the time to read it. Pay attention to page 340 for it details the process of the work done to the film. Also, Trask tells his reader how to obtain a copy of the film that you are seeking by contacting the NARA and asking for it.

1. Why was the NEW ANIMATION SHOT USING AN 8MM CAMERA?

BM: You have it wrong. It's a 16MM copy of the original 8MM film. No 8MM camera was used. I think that by getting Trask's book and reading it that many of these questions can be answered.

2. Why was the copy source of the new animation 16MM FILM?

BM: The NARA wanted two preservation copies: an as-is "as is" “forensic” copy and a "preservation" “descratched” copy with as much dust and dirt removed as safely as possible 35MM was considered adequate for making those preservation copies. NARA apparently also made 16mm prints from the 35mm preservation master.

3. Why were the SEPTUM LINES between frames left in?

I’m not clear, but apparently two or more 35mm preservation copies were made. One shows the normal viewing area and the other shows the entire film, form edge to edge, including the sprocket holes and part of the frames above and below each frame. This was done to document each frame throughout the entire film.

4. What is the provenance of the 16mm film which was copied?

BM: At NARA’s request, Monaco made 35mm copies of the original 8mm film. The 16mm copies made for NARA came from the new 35mm preservation copy. They may also have made color separation transparencies, which is how many important Hollywood color motion pictures are preserved.

5. Why did they not copy directly from the 8mm copy like MPI did?

BM: MPI made 4 x 5 color transparencies of each frame of the original film. Trask says NARA will eventually make 35mm slides of the frames.

6. What "changes" were made in the new animation, including

cleaning defects, color correction, cropping, JIGGLE removal,

reframing, rotoscoping, and the like? They surely have a copy of

the standard ANIMATOR'S SCRIPT for each frame don't they?

The "original" was ROTOSCOPED and reframed by Groden

to remove the "jiggles"; does the Monaco copy retain the jiggles

of the original, or is it more like a Groden ROTOSCOPED copy?

BM: No changes were made to the film and no digital cleaning was performed.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked Gary Mack your questions and found out a lot of information, some of which is not in Trask’s book. However, much of what you are asking "is" in Trask book if you would just take the time to read it. Pay attention to page 340 for it details the process of the work done to the film. Also, Trask tells his reader how to obtain a copy of the film that you are seeking by contacting the NARA and asking for it.
1. Why was the NEW ANIMATION SHOT USING AN 8MM CAMERA?

BM: You have it wrong. It's a 16MM copy of the original 8MM film. No 8MM camera was used. I think that by getting Trask's book and reading it that many of these questions can be answered.

2. Why was the copy source of the new animation 16MM FILM?

BM: The NARA wanted two preservation copies: an as-is "as is" “forensic” copy and a "preservation" “descratched” copy with as much dust and dirt removed as safely as possible 35MM was considered adequate for making those preservation copies. NARA apparently also made 16mm prints from the 35mm preservation master.

3. Why were the SEPTUM LINES between frames left in?

I’m not clear, but apparently two or more 35mm preservation copies were made. One shows the normal viewing area and the other shows the entire film, form edge to edge, including the sprocket holes and part of the frames above and below each frame. This was done to document each frame throughout the entire film.

4. What is the provenance of the 16mm film which was copied?

BM: At NARA’s request, Monaco made 35mm copies of the original 8mm film. The 16mm copies made for NARA came from the new 35mm preservation copy. They may also have made color separation transparencies, which is how many important Hollywood color motion pictures are preserved.

5. Why did they not copy directly from the 8mm copy like MPI did?

BM: MPI made 4 x 5 color transparencies of each frame of the original film. Trask says NARA will eventually make 35mm slides of the frames.

6. What "changes" were made in the new animation, including

cleaning defects, color correction, cropping, JIGGLE removal,

reframing, rotoscoping, and the like? They surely have a copy of

the standard ANIMATOR'S SCRIPT for each frame don't they?

The "original" was ROTOSCOPED and reframed by Groden

to remove the "jiggles"; does the Monaco copy retain the jiggles

of the original, or is it more like a Groden ROTOSCOPED copy?

BM: No changes were made to the film and no digital cleaning was performed.

Bill Miller

Few more follow-up questions: 1] When did San Francisco's Monaco Labs do the work and 2] was the finished Zapruder film product utilized by Dale Myers (16mm or 35mm film) for ABC's documentary?

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...