Bill Miller Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me... is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you! Colby, for some reason, and I suspect I know how you endeared yourself with the preservers of Dealey Plaza film/phot history -- Miller comes with too much baggage and you were given the nod to deal with Roland, I figure that gives a step up on the rest of the Lone Nut loons around here... that by no means means you pass anything of photographic interpretation value here [unless your passing gas]. If you think that was a compliment, you're spending way to much time running around that jungle down there. Actually all Lone Nutters on this board appear to do nothing but *scramble*, play catch up to JackW. -- gotta be 5000 posts to this board refuting Jack White -- makes one wonder whose dangling on the end of a string..... LMAO -- I've been proven wrong? -- Colby you've proven absolutely Z E R O, NADA, Ziltch... You Miller, Lamson and a few others are a JOKE when it comes to the film/photos of Nov 22nd 1963. We also know, you and the rest of the gang would never appear on a public forum [for the cameras] to debate Dealey Plaza film/photo issues... Muwah, proven wrong, vindicated ? -- ask RZavada, hey, ask Ray Fielding if they've proven me wrong, post their comments right here! BTW, how many books during the past 20 years were published stating the films/photos of Dealey Plaza and other assassination related images (including x-ray's) were altered, and/or labelled as outright fraud (another coming out soon)? How many books published countering those claims? You are a 'tard' when it comes to the photographic record, nothing to be ashamed of -- you're out of your league..... hell, that never stopped Miller either.... don't sweat it, just don't expect respect from those that do have subject expertise. Truck on champ, truck on It must take a real talent to use up so much forum space and never once actually cite any evidence that could benefit anyone wishing to learn something by reading this forum. Bill Miller Edited August 31, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I'll also note: .... the claim of 'altered' JFK assassination releated photos was tagged as *nonesense* for a long, long time. Some are not so sure, now.... for good reason! Yes, the alteration claims were tagged nonsense alright ........... within seconds of seeing them and the ridiculous mistakes that were made that helped create those claims. As far as 'some not being sure about alteration' ... those would be the people who don't know why a first generation Life copy of the Zapruder frames would be sharper than a multi-generation MPI version of the Zapruder film. To thoser people - they will always not be sure about anything pertaining to the photographical record. Bill Miller ahh.... the mantra seems I just saw a post on this board that numbered LIFE Z-film frames (even those that were published within the first week). Perhaps one of these wonder boys can tell this forum who assigned numbers to the Z-frames and why the frame designations were not asigned when the issue were published? Why no Z-film frame of Mary Moorman *on the grass* in the Nov 29th 1963 issue of LIFE, or the Memorial issue? Same for the October 2nd 1964 issue, NO Z-film frame published of Mary Moorman *on the grass*. Surely the Zapruder frames were numbered, why didn't LIFE published the Z-frame numbers when publishing the frames in the October 2nd 1964 issue selling the WCR and its conclusions.... No Mary Moorman *on the grass* in Z-film frames, LIFE issue November 25th 1966. The magazine title/cover story: Did Oswald act alone? A MATTER OF REASONABLE DOUBT. Now, we see in LIFE published frames being assigned Z-frame designation numbers. Did Moorman EVER appear in a Z-frame LIFE published the first 3 years after the assassination? Well, well davie, you supporting the Moorman in the street nonsense? Why not, you are ignorant enough to think that stupid idea is possible. Your hole keeps getting deeper and deeper...here let me give you another shovel! Comment on the Armstrong shadow issue that was raised in another thread (you know the one where you told us all you would look into this) and lets see if YOU are a joke when it comes to dealing with issues photographic. Or are you just a loud mouthed loon who has read a book or two ? You and White make quite the pair, shilling for the wack job Fetzer and his all porpose "PhD" Costella! Those two go down in flames everytime they show up in public! White can't open his mouth without proving once again that he has no clue regarding the principals of photography and you...well lets just say you are a miserable failure as a guard dog and even worse as any kind of photo/film expert. Truck on davie, at least you are entertaining. Edited August 31, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 How did we get from hacked again to this innane in fighting. ? Can you guys make a thread and fight there. Better yet, take if off the forum. I have asked repeatedly that someone give me 5 good reasons on either side for why, ( or why not), the Z film was faked. For those - like me- who don't read all this stuff (because of the never ending arguing) - but would like to know the basics- in a civil tone ... it's hard to follow all the arguments as they begin in the middle someplace. I have not read Assassination Sciences and don't plan to in the near future. So Bill, David: please 5 reasons. Thanx!! Dawn I have a jury trial today or I would start said thread myself. I guess I actually could have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 you were given the nod to deal with Roland No Davie I act on no one's behalf, I contacted Roland and Ray on my own initiative and didn't inform (let alone consult) anyone before hand. (I can't get the quote function to work properly, the rest of David's comments are in bold) I figure that gives a step up on the rest of the Lone Nut loons around here Using strawmen and making baseless accusations (see above) is the sign of being on the loosing side of an argument; you keep falsely trying to frame this as a LN vs. CT battle when you know that's not the case. Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Bill Miller, David Groden, Martin Shakleford etc etc etc are all CTs. If you think that was a compliment, you're spending way to much time running around that jungle down there Are you really that unperceptive? I was being facetious. that by no means means you pass anything of photographic interpretation value here …Come to think of it, you haven't issued or put forth any, ANY type of photo research for us to evaluate regarding the JFK assassination. As they would say down here "Congratulations…you just discovered Brazil!" i.e. you're saying something obvious as if it were a revelation. As stated above I claim no special expertise. My criticism has been more to the logical holes in the arguments made by your side. I guess you are to strawmen was Dom Quixote was to windmills. You're just another cheerleader Josiah recognized -- makes on wonder what the hell your wasting all this valuable bandwidth for? Me wasting bandwidth, you live in a glass house. Actually all Lone Nutters on this board appear to do nothing but *scramble*, play catch up to JackW. -- gotta be 5000 posts to this board refuting Jack White -- makes one wonder whose dangling on the end of a string..... LMAO – Below you complain there isn't enough refutation of your nonsense. Of course if no one rebutted Jack's foolishness you guys would crow victory too, so I guess you want to make this a dammed if you do and dammed if don't type situation. The large number of posts refuting Jack is due the large number of absurd claims he makes. If Jack has made more than a reply or two to his repeated often humiliating debunkings I missed them. I've been proven wrong? -- Colby you've proven absolutely Z E R O, NADA, Ziltch No, I proven that you were flat out wrong when you said Zavada had promised to complete his paper soon. Did you lie or were you simply mistaken? ... You Miller, Lamson and a few others are a JOKE when it comes to the film/photos of Nov 22nd 1963. We also know, you and the rest of the gang would never appear on a public forum [for the cameras] to debate Dealey Plaza film/photo issues... I can't speak for the others but I'm in Brazil and claim no expertise on the subject. When have Craig, Tink and Bill etc ever refused to debate you guys in person? They don't shy away from doing so on the Net Muwah, proven wrong, vindicated ? -- ask RZavada, hey, ask Ray Fielding if they've proven me wrong, post their comments right here! Space allocated for RZavada's and RFielding's comments Remember what I said about strawmen bub? I was referring to your false claim that Zavada said he would complete his latest refutation of your nonsense "soon". He has already released two. Since Ray Fielding was the only authority you cited to support your contention that the technology and know how existed back then his declaration that it didn't alone is pretty daming. Your proven nothing, you been asked repeatedly to cite a contemporary (or older) movie which employed the effects alleged in "Hoax", the list is below Movies cited by David: Oh and let's not forget you promise, made publicly to make your "formal claim soon" a month before Zavada privately (just to you and me) said would write a dissertation but that it would "take sometime". We're still waiting for that aren't we? BTW, how many books during the past 20 years were published stating the films/photos of Dealey Plaza and other assassination related images (including x-ray's) were altered, and/or labelled as outright fraud (another coming out soon)? Perhaps you'll compile a list for us. How many of those books were put out by the same circle of people? How many of those books are considered credible with in the assassination community? Go take a look at the lists of recommended books here and on the Lancer forum, very few people cite them. How many books have published claiming that: Elvis is alive, lizard people run the Earth etc. How many books published countering those claims? I know of at least one (David Wrone's) how many books have been published countering the claims about Elvis and "shape-shifting reptilians"? You are a 'tard' when it comes to the photographic record, nothing to be ashamed of -- you're out of your league..... hell, that never stopped Miller either.... don't sweat it, just don't expect respect from those that do have subject expertise. Do you really think I care one wit what YOU think of me? Guess again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Using strawmen and making baseless accusations (see above) is the sign of being on the loosing side of an argument; you keep falsely trying to frame this as a LN vs. CT battle when you know that's not the case. Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Bill Miller, David Groden, Martin Shakleford etc etc etc are all CTs.As they would say down here "Congratulations…you just discovered Brazil!" i.e. you're saying something obvious as if it were a revelation. As stated above I claim no special expertise. My criticism has been more to the logical holes in the arguments made by your side. I guess you are to strawmen was Dom Quixote was to windmills. Me wasting bandwidth, you live in a glass house. Below you complain there isn't enough refutation of your nonsense. Of course if no one rebutted Jack's foolishness you guys would crow victory too, so I guess you want to make this a dammed if you do and dammed if don't type situation. The large number of posts refuting Jack is due the large number of absurd claims he makes. If Jack has made more than a reply or two to his repeated often humiliating debunkings I missed them. I can't speak for the others but I'm in Brazil and claim no expertise on the subject. When have Craig, Tink and Bill etc ever refused to debate you guys in person? They don't shy away from doing so on the Net Len, you are addressing the remarks of a sick individual who knows little of the evidence pertaining to the JFK assassination - who has had to admit he see's no evidence of alteration, yet tells people to read the evidence in a book that obviously did nothing to convince him of alteration - and someone who trolls a forum such as this for no other reason that to run up forum space ... incite disruption when ever possible ... and to provoke members into responding to things he has said that have no logical basis or facts to back him up. How many times has this asshole called known CT's - LNRs? How many times has that asshole been corrected only to continue saying the same ignorant things? Why would someone who takes JFK's assassination seriously want to behave in such a way? More importantly ... Why would John Simkin allow this person to continually get away with it? This is not a matter of 'Freedom of Speech', but more about sabotaging this forum for the reasons mentioned above. As far as the 5000 post refuting Jack White ... when Jack is ignored he will post to himself saying that people like myself must be stumped or afraid to address his stupid claims, then when we do respond - assholes like Healy complain about it. It's a no win situation! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) How did we get from hacked again to this innane in fighting. ? Can you guys make a thread and fight there.Better yet, take if off the forum. I have asked repeatedly that someone give me 5 good reasons on either side for why, ( or why not), the Z film was faked. For those - like me- who don't read all this stuff (because of the never ending arguing) - but would like to know the basics- in a civil tone ... it's hard to follow all the arguments as they begin in the middle someplace. I have not read Assassination Sciences and don't plan to in the near future. So Bill, David: please 5 reasons. Thanx!! Dawn I have a jury trial today or I would start said thread myself. I guess I actually could have Dawn you raise a good point: why do so many threads on this forum inevitably get hijacked into debates about the authenticity Z-film? The answer to that is very simple, David Healy. The guy is positively obsessed it seems with Roland Zavada's (the inventor of Kodakchrome II) latest treatise (he has already written 2) on why the National Archives copy of the film can not be a copy. He is so obsessed with this question he brings it up on most threads I post on even when, as in this case, the issue is totally off topic. He has even brought it up on threads in the "Political Conspiracies" section that aren't even about the assassination! The digression began with this post of David's http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=73308 Proof that the Z-film is authentic is a complex question, I don't think starting a new thread is the answer because it would end up being a repeat of the existent ones. My main reason for believing it's authentic are: 1) The technology and know how probably didn't exist in 1963/4 to make the alterations alleged by the authors of "Hoax". Healy and White etc have yet to cite a single movie from that period or earlier where such extensive effects are employed. Zavada said the technology and know how didn't exist back then and Ray Fielding, author of one the most important books about special effects, who Healy cited said such alteration were not possible at the time. The director of "The Commission" and Oliver Stone likewise have said such alterations were impossible. 2) Zavada examined the film and stated in no uncertain terms that the copy held by the National Archives is definitely a "camera original" and not a copy. 3) Robert Groden also examined the film and said he believes it's an original and not a copy. 4) The film was shot on Kodakchrome II. Kodakchrome is very complicated to develop at the time the assassination only a handful of labs (3 Kodak and 3 independents IIRC) were able to develop it, the "alterationist" haven't explained where the altered copy might have been developed. It also took several hours to develop, the alterationist have yet to come up with a chronology that leaves enough lime for an altered copy to have reached Zapruder's office early the next morning. Presumably if the plotters were going to such a thing they would want to process the film at a lab they controlled, in that case they would have used Ektachrome which is much simpler to develop. 5) All the supposed anomalies have been debunked 6) The alterationist can't find a single film postproduction expert to back their claims; the closet they get is Healy who is a videographer. Len Edited August 31, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) 6) The alterationist can't find a single film postproduction expert to back their claims; the closet they get is Healy who is a videographer. Len Let's not ever forget that Healy 'the videographer' has seen all the alteration claims and has stated that he has no evidence to show alteration on the Zapruder film. Another reason against alteration is that Life didn't get acces to Zapruder's film until Saturday - by Sunday (less than 24 hrs later) ... Life had made prints from the Zapruder film and had already had them ready to go out on the newstands. In those days, processing film was done the old fashion way, thus film enlargements would have to be made - alterations completed - and then got the new altered frames at the perfect lighting - perfect color tones - and somehow got the exact amount of blur for the alteration to match that of the remaining unlatered frame ... and all this would need to be done the old fashioned way. Those who would say that outdoor lighting could be duplicated do not realize that this would only be a part of the cover-up. Artifical lighting tends to cause color shifts when compared to outdoor lighting like that Zapruder filmed in. So when one thinks one aspect is possible - it becomes impossible when other factors are considered. Other things like the lost of sharpness when enlarging an image and then shrinking it back down was another factor discussed on this forum in recent times. Bill Miller Edited August 31, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 'Len Colby' Dawn you raise a good point: why do so many threads on this forum inevitably get hijacked into debates about the authenticity Z-film? The answer to that is very simple, David Healy. The guy is positively obsessed it seems with Roland Zavada's (the inventor of Kodakchrome II) latest treatise (he has already written 2) on why the National Archives copy of the film can not be a copy. dgh: ahh, you moron, Roland Zavada deceided to re-write his Zavada Report, he told me he was going top do it 3 years ago while he attended a SMPTE conference at North Shore Lake Tahoe. He announced it publicly after the first of this year.... idiot stick here stuck himself in the middle [along with Miller] been shucking and jiving ever since.... He is so obsessed with this question he brings it up on most threads I post on even when, as in this case, the issue is totally off topic. He has even brought it up on threads in the "Political Conspiracies" section that aren't even about the assassination! The digression began with this post of David's http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=73308 dgh: only a idiot would think the JFK assassination WASN'T a political conspiracy... what the hell do they feed you guys down there? Proof that the Z-film is authentic is a complex question, I don't think starting a new thread is the answer because it would end up being a repeat of the existent ones. My main reason for believing it's authentic are: of course you don't want a thread started regarding the the authenticity of the Z-film! You'd have to display something here other than hot air -- of course we know you're incapable of discourse when it comes to the film/photos of Dealey Plaza, unless you can take a few swings at JackW. 1) The technology and know how probably didn't exist in 1963/4 to make the alterations alleged by the authors of "Hoax". Healy and White etc have yet to cite a single movie from that period or earlier where such extensive effects are employed. Zavada said the technology and know how didn't exist back then and Ray Fielding, author of one the most important books about special effects, who Healy cited said such alteration were not possible at the time. Ray did? Funny he's not published anywhere, that I know of saying that, won't comment on anything.... Please provide where I QUOTE Ray Fielding in HOAX regarding ANYTHING. Quick glance in the index shows Fielding's name twice, pg. 120 and 292, the reader may be interested in Ray Fieldings quote on page 292 [in the same HOAX] "Raymond Fielding (A History of the American Motion Picture Newsreel, Univ of So. Cal 1961, pp5-6 reports: 'Apparently there was NOT a single major [film] producer in the period 1894 to 1900 that did NOT fake newsfilm as a matter common practice...' So Leonard, it appears the art of film fakery was a much practiced for quite some time -- straight from a 1961 Ray Fielding dissertation... We haven't even touched commercial films yet.... The director of "The Commission" and Oliver Stone likewise have said such alterations were impossible. 2) Zavada examined the film and stated in no uncertain terms that the copy held by the National Archives is definitely a "camera original" and not a copy. dgh: I do believe he confirmed the in-camera Zapruder film to be original Kodacolor II film as well as the original Jamieson prints [whats left of them] And I suspect Doug Horne's new book will have comments regarding same. I doubt Roland Zavada is competent enough to comment on ANY optical film printing technique. An area certainly beyond his original reports mandate... 3) Robert Groden also examined the film and said he believes it's an original and not a copy. dgh: How this guy acquired all these DP related films/autopsy imagery and whatnot remains a mystery -- his testimony certainly leaves a lot of unanswered questions.... frankly that's where JackW and I part... I don't trust Robert Groden any further than I can throw him... 4) The film was shot on Kodakchrome II. Kodakchrome is very complicated to develop at the time the assassination only a handful of labs (3 Kodak and 3 independents IIRC) were able to develop it, the "alterationist" haven't explained where the altered copy might have been developed. It also took several hours to develop, the alterationist have yet to come up with a chronology that leaves enough lime for an altered copy to have reached Zapruder's office early the next morning. Presumably if the plotters were going to such a thing they would want to process the film at a lab they controlled, in that case they would have used Ektachrome which is much simpler to develop. dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered.... 5) All the supposed anomalies have been debunked 6) The alterationist can't find a single film postproduction expert to back their claims; the closet they get is Healy who is a videographer. dgh: LMFAO! Nothing has been debunked, that's why you guy's have been running around in circles for 4 years, you're just the latest Nutter to join the ranks -- your film/photoexpertise is what again? That's right, of course.... Bill Miller CHEERLEADER tsk-tsk Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 dgh: ahh, you moron, Roland Zavada deceided to re-write his Zavada Report, he told me he was going top do it 3 years ago while he attended a SMPTE conference at North Shore Lake Tahoe. He announced it publicly after the first of this year.... Funny previously you cited the e-mail that he only sent to you and me as when he promised he new treatise. Where and when did "he announced it publicly after the first of this year"? Can you explain your changing story? Please try and give us a straight answer to both questions. dgh: only a idiot would think the JFK assassination WASN'T a political conspiracy Show me exactly where I said otherwise? The point was that you bring this up on threads that have nothing to do with the Z-film and sometime not even the assassination. I think you need to take remedial reading compression classes. of course you don't want a thread started regarding the the authenticity of the Z-film! You'd have to display something here other than hot air -- of course we know you're incapable of discourse when it comes to the film/photos of Dealey Plaza, unless you can take a few swings at JackW. No, I stated that a new thread would be pointless, how many times have we been over the same crap? Most the points the points I raise in this reply I've raised on numerous previous occasions but you continue to make the same debunked points. Ray did? Funny he's not published anywhere, that I know of saying that, won't comment on anything.... Try here as stated previously if you think I made it up you can contact him yourself http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=55431 Please provide where I QUOTE Ray Fielding in HOAX regarding ANYTHING. Quick glance in the index shows Fielding's name twice, pg. 120 and 292, And page 120 is from your chapter, I said cited not quoted. You also repeatedly cited his book on this forum. the reader may be interested in Ray Fieldings quote on page 292 [in the same HOAX] "Raymond Fielding (A History of the American Motion Picture Newsreel, Univ of So. Cal 1961, pp5-6 reports: 'Apparently there was NOT a single major [film] producer in the period 1894 to 1900 that did NOT fake newsfilm as a matter common practice...' So Leonard, it appears the art of film fakery was a much practiced for quite some time -- straight from a 1961 Ray Fielding dissertation... We haven't even touched commercial films yet.... What's with the strawman fetish? No one is dening that fakery wasn't possible long before 1963. What's disputed is that the fakery alleged in Hoax was possible. Is that distinction too complicated for you to understand? John Costella, one of the main contributors to Hoax who Fetzer claims is "the leading technical expert on the film" and "an expert in optics and the way things move" wrote, "They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did [ http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html ]. Where exactly do we see anything like that in turn of the century newsreels or even Mary Poppins? dgh: I do believe he (Zavada) confirmed the in-camera Zapruder film to be original Kodacolor II film as well as the original Jamieson prints [whats left of them] And I suspect Doug Horne's new book will have comments regarding same. I doubt Roland Zavada is competent enough to comment on ANY optical film printing technique. An area certainly beyond his original reports mandate... How many times have we been over this? The goal to create a "Kodachrome original provides furtherinsurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced technology and film resources were able: to create a "Kodachrome original" that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination and evaluation by multiple researchers. The "evidence" offered are scene content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise. […] When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to express my personal views. Simply stated "There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-camera original" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto." The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc. Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03 http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf That's just 2 paragraphs of a 6 page treatise I don't trust Robert Groden any further than I can throw him... I imagine most forum members would beg to differ. dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered.... So you think the film that was seen in Zapruder's office the next morning wasn't Kodakchrome? Obviously the finished product including the copies were on Kodakcrome. IIRC Stoley took possession of the films then an there and stills were printed in Life 2 or 3 days later. dgh: LMFAO! Nothing has been debunked, Here for starters http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/ David unless you can move forward, I see no point in further discussing this with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered.... I believe that Shaneyfelt gave the week of the month that he took possession of the images and the numbering would have been one of the first things he did. Is someone suggesting that we need to know the hour and minute of the day the numbering started??? As has been posted by me already - Shaneyfelt's personal notes are to be donated to the Museum, so possibly the precise answer lies within those notes. However, I doubt that the exact time of day will stop the monkey spanking that Healy enjoys. So you think the film that was seen in Zapruder's office the next morning wasn't Kodakchrome? Obviously the finished product including the copies were on Kodakcrome. IIRC Stoley took possession of the films then an there and stills were printed in Life 2 or 3 days later. Stoley took possession of the film and stills were printed before 24 hrs had elapsed because by Sunday morning the stills had been made and carefully gone over so to send them to publication. I believe that shipments of them magazines were completed by Sunday night because they were being mailed to customers by the next morning. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' dgh: "very complicated process..." LOL who said ANY film was altered on Kodachrome film? That's where rank Lone Nutter amateurishness becomes apparent.... Classic 'nutter' disinformation. The preservers of DP film/photo history can't give us a date as to when Shaneyfelt [if it was him] numbered the Z-frames. How can we expect them to undertake the subject of film alteration when they can't even determine when the frames were numbered.... I believe that Shaneyfelt gave the week of the month that he took possession of the images and the numbering would have been one of the first things he did. Is someone suggesting that we need to know the hour and minute of the day the numbering started??? As has been posted by me already - Shaneyfelt's personal notes are to be donated to the Museum, so possibly the precise answer lies within those notes. However, I doubt that the exact time of day will stop the monkey spanking that Healy enjoys. dgh01: just starting -- the facts Bill, your opinions are irrelevant, what you think is irrelevant... focus up, when were the frames numbered? So you think the film that was seen in Zapruder's office the next morning wasn't Kodakchrome? Obviously the finished product including the copies were on Kodakcrome. IIRC Stoley took possession of the films then an there and stills were printed in Life 2 or 3 days later. dgh01: how you arrive at that, did I say that? your snipping speaks volumes -- old time, LONGTIME Lone Nutter tactic, when you don't know or try to steer the thread to something you can't or won'd discuss -- snip, re-phrase the point, then RUN.... Stoley took possession of the film and stills were printed before 24 hrs had elapsed because by Sunday morning the stills had been made and carefully gone over so to send them to publication. I believe that shipments of them magazines were completed by Sunday night because they were being mailed to customers by the next morning. dgh01: ah so WHAT! Tell me WHY thats relevant to a Z-film alteration scenario? Bill Miller Edited September 1, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) dgh01: ah so WHAT! Tell me WHY thats relevant to a Z-film alteration scenario? It's relevant because the numerous frames Life made stills of (not limited to the ones they chose to put into the magazine) had no time allotment to have been manipulated and this is why, David ... that you do not see any signs of alteration. Bill Miller Edited September 1, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Len: Thanx for the 6 reasons. Compelling. Bill and David, thanx also but you both go into tangents where I am unfamiliar. Someone whose name begins with Z (Not Zapruter)...who is to come out with something??? I trust Bob Groden completely. (FWIW) I have tried to read threads in the past on this but find them confusing because as I said they start with the premise that the reader already knows a lot on this particular subject and I do not. Other than that there is a controversary around the film. I am not in terested in reading Assassination Sciences because I do not feel it will further my understanding of this case. It's what Vince Salandria called micro analysing to me. A false debate. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Like I said... Jack will rarely - if ever - apologise if he is wrong. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7761 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) I trust Bob Groden completely. (FWIW) Good, Dawn ... then I will make it easy for you. Groden says that the alteration believers do not know what they are talking about. Robert says that while Jack White is a nice man - he says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst people he has seen at photo interpretation. Robert's opinion of Healy is not any better ... FWIW. Bill Miller Edited September 1, 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