Bill Miller Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time!STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao! David, I took the liberty to move your reply from a forum behavior thread to this portion of the forum so everyone would be sure to see your responses. There are several concerns about the things you said above that deserve a more precise answer from you. For instance, Zapruder had remained with his film all the way through to the processing that took place later that afternoon and he had actually shown his film to his family on the night of the assassination. It wasn't until the next day before Zapruder met with Life Magazine to even consider what they may have to offer him. So with that being said, please tell this forum how Zapruder's camera original film was "altered within hours of the assassination" when it had never left his sight ??? I will have some more questions for you if you can offer a sensible and reasonable response to this important detail. Bill Miller Composing - the setting up of a camera or film image for photographing. Compositing and editing - the altering of an image from its original state. Edited October 5, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Bill Miller' dronned on: Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time!STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao! David, I took the liberty to move your reply from a forum behavior thread to this portion of the forum so everyone would be sure to see your responses. dgh: are you doing mederating chores around here these day's There are several concerns about the things you said above that deserve a more precise answer from you. For instance, Zapruder had remained with his film all the way through to the processing that took place later that afternoon and he had actually shown his film to his family on the night of the assassination. dgh:you can start with providing all of us here, a affidavit stating Zapruder showed the film to his family that SAME night, Nov 22nd. Please include what film format the family members viewed regarding same film? You know, I've never heard Zapruder showed family members the film the evening of Nov 22nd, something new around here everyday, eh? It wasn't until the next day before Zapruder met with Life Magazine to even consider what they may have to offer him. dgh: I don't care what deal Zapruder struck with LIFE for the film, whatever he got, he lied about it, PERIOD! So with that being said, please tell this forum how Zapruder's camera original film was "altered within hours of the assassination" when it had never left his sight ??? dgh: I'll save some space; read HOAX I will have some more questions for you if you can offer a sensible and reasonable response to this important detail. dgh: post to your hearts delight, I'm sure you'll find some fodder to talk about at this years Lancer conference... perhaps Groden can give you a few pointers, better yet RGroden here, then you'll have my attention, till then, back in the peanut gallery Bill Miller Composing - the setting up of a camera or film image for photographing. Compositing and editing - the altering of an image from its original state. dgh: go here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linwood_G._Dunn > get a education about film composing/compositing and editing, then we'll talk. No more .gif animation nonesense, then we'll get to questions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) David, as I expected and others said would happen ... you didn't address a damned thing that was put to you. Allow me to address the ridiculous first of all and then we'll try once again to get a straight answer from you. dgh:you can start with providing all of us here, a affidavit stating Zapruder showed the film to his family that SAME night, Nov 22nd. Please include what film format the family members viewed regarding same film? You know, I've never heard Zapruder showed family members the film the evening of Nov 22nd, something new around here everyday, eh? David, I got the information from the 6th floor Museum as to Zapruder showing his film to his family on the night of the assassination. Zapruder's wife has said that her husband took his film on the night of the assassination and projected it for the family. She said that the daughter didn't wish to see it, but her and Abe did run the film through their projector. What format ??? Zapruder had a projector to play his 8MM film on as they did watch their home movies taken with Zapruder's camera. Some of this information may also be found in Trask's books. The information wbout Zapruder showing his film to his family is not new, unless you have never bothered to research such information, then it would be new to YOU. dgh: I don't care what deal Zapruder struck with LIFE for the film, whatever he got, he lied about it, PERIOD! So is it yor position that Zapruder DID NOT have his camera original film in his safe the morning following the assassination and if so, then what proof can you provide for making such an accusation ??? dgh: I'll save some space; read HOAX Not so fast, David. Where in your article did you distinguish the difference in time allotment for both actual film compositing Vs. TV film ??? 100's of film frames from the camera original would had to of been worked on. This process as Groden pointed out is very time consuming Vs. just merely working on an already completed TV movie. Artificial light changes - color changes - loss of sharpness from using filters to recreate real sunlight - among other things would leave behind signs of what has occurred. I am asking that YOU address these concerns with what was available in 1963. Please try and give precise and responsible answers if at all possible. I will have some more questions for you if you can offer a sensible and reasonable response to this important detail. dgh: post to your hearts delight, I'm sure you'll find some fodder to talk about at this years Lancer conference... perhaps Groden can give you a few pointers, better yet RGroden here, then you'll have my attention, till then, back in the peanut gallery David, this is your moment to show how well you have researched what you are talking about ... I await your brilliant answers. Bill Miller Edited October 6, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Bill, .......people........sometimes............... LIE !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 David, as I expected and others said would happen ... you didn't address a damned thing that was put to you. Allow me to address the ridiculous first of all and then we'll try once again to get a straight answer from you. dgh:you can start with providing all of us here, a affidavit stating Zapruder showed the film to his family that SAME night, Nov 22nd. Please include what film format the family members viewed regarding same film? You know, I've never heard Zapruder showed family members the film the evening of Nov 22nd, something new around here everyday, eh? David, I got the information from the 6th floor Museum as to Zapruder showing his film to his family on the night of the assassination. Zapruder's daughter has said rthat her father took his film on the night of the assassination and projected it for the family. She said that the mother didn't wish to see it, but her and her father did run the film through their projector. What format ??? Zapruder had a projector to play his 8MM film on as they did watch their home movies taken with Zapruder's camera. Some of this information may also be found in Trask's books. The information wbout Zapruder showing his film to his family is not new, unless you have never bothered to research such information, then it would be new to YOU. dgh: I don't care what deal Zapruder struck with LIFE for the film, whatever he got, he lied about it, PERIOD! So is it yor position that Zapruder DID NOT have his camera original film in his safe the morning following the assassination and if so, then what proof can you provide for making such an accusation ??? dgh: I'll save some space; read HOAX Not so fast, David. Where in your article did you distinguish the difference in time allotment for both actual film compositing Vs. TV film ??? 100's of film frames from the camera original would had to of been worked on. This process as Groden pointed out is very time consuming Vs. just merely working on an already completed TV movie. Artificial light changes - color changes - loss of sharpness from using filters to recreate real sunlight - among other things would leave behind signs of what has occurred. I am asking that YOU address these concerns with what was available in 1963. Please try and give precise and responsible answers if at all possible. I will have some more questions for you if you can offer a sensible and reasonable response to this important detail. dgh: post to your hearts delight, I'm sure you'll find some fodder to talk about at this years Lancer conference... perhaps Groden can give you a few pointers, better yet RGroden here, then you'll have my attention, till then, back in the peanut gallery David, this is your moment to show how well you have researched what you are talking about ... I await your brilliant answers. Bill Miller moment? to impress who, you? for what... roflmao -- read my lips, Bill Miller... you, YOU are not on my radar scope... Groden is. So read HOAX, if you don't like the presentation write, then publish your own. Remember champ, I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered, can you prove otherwise? So in closing, find some Lone Nutter chump hereabouts that wants to play with you, there's other people here that DO actual JFK assassination related "r e s e a r c h", those are the folks I have interest in, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 (edited) moment? to impress who, you? for what... roflmao -- read my lips, Bill Miller... you, YOU are not on my radar scope... Groden is. So read HOAX, if you don't like the presentation write, then publish your own. Remember champ, I can't prove the Zapruder film is altered, can you prove otherwise? So in closing, find some Lone Nutter chump hereabouts that wants to play with you, there's other people here that DO actual JFK assassination related "r e s e a r c h", those are the folks I have interest in, not you. You can't prove the Zapruder film is altered ??? You can't even intelligently answer the questions I am putting to you. So far it appears that you don't even know the history of the Zapruder film, thus your article is not based on fact and research, but rather it stems from a lack thereof. So I will ask this question in the name of those researchers you say you are interested in ... The Zapruder film would had to have been processed the old fashion way to make those hundreds of stills so to be altered, had the lighting and color tones balanced, and also done in a way that could not lose any sharpness of the images upon the filtering process that needed to be done. This does not include what alterations that would need to be decided on, nor the amount of time needed to painstakingly get the images back on to 8MM film. YOU said that all this could have been completed within hours of the assassination, so I am asking that YOU explain to everyone how all those things could have been accomplished in the alloted time frame you've represented ??? Bill Miller Edited October 6, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 More to the point: don't you think 2006 technology would be able to spot/uncover alterations to a film using relatively primitive 1963 technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 More to the point: don't you think 2006 technology would be able to spot/uncover alterations to a film using relatively primitive 1963 technology? read HOAX, dufus... get educated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 More to the point: don't you think 2006 technology would be able to spot/uncover alterations to a film using relatively primitive 1963 technology? read HOAX, dufus... get educated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 More to the point: don't you think 2006 technology would be able to spot/uncover alterations to a film using relatively primitive 1963 technology? read HOAX, dufus... get educated! Now THATS FUNNY! Educated from 'HOAX"? ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Bill,.......people........sometimes............... LIE !!! Bill and David: Who cares? If the Zapruder film was altered or not, how does arguing about this advance this case? If the conspirators altered it, they left in the back- and- to- the- left fatal headshot that ended the president's life. Whether or not he is clutching his neck or had his hands very close to doing this: all irrelevent. "Microanalyzing", as VInce Salandria called it in Fonzi's book (The Last Investigation). Why was JFK killed? Show how and why it was not LHO. That the media still covers it up. This is the fight that is important, not the side show over the Zapruder film. Dawn ps I have repeatedly asked for both sides to give me 5 reasons for and against Z alteration. Guess no one's ever going to do so. I have no interest in reading the otherwise wonderful Jim Fetzer's book. I am enormously more interested in hearing what Fetzer has to say on the conspiraay in 9-11. Now that is important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 (edited) 'Dawn Meredith' wrote: Bill and David: Who cares? If the Zapruder film was altered or not, how does arguing about this advance this case? dgh: excellent point, Dawn. Makes one wonder why all the fuss over a these I put forth working from the starting point, IF the Zapruder is altered here's how it MAY of been done. If the conspirators altered it, they left in the back- and- to- the- left fatal headshot that ended the president's life. Whether or not he is clutching his neck or had his hands very close to doing this: all irrelevent. "Microanalyzing", as VInce Salandria called it in Fonzi's book (The Last Investigation). dgh: exactly.... ever review which threads on a consistent basis, get more than their fairshare of views on this forum? JFK related photo/film discussions, perhaps? there's a good reason for that! Nothing less than, in the hopes of diverting competent researchers from other areas to debate, foolish film/photo discrepencies, plain and simple. Oh, lest I forget; demonize Jack White and everything he's done, right or wrong. For reasons knwn to many... Why was JFK killed? Show how and why it was not LHO. That the media still covers it up. This is the fight that is important, not the side show over the Zapruder film. dgh: might address that to Miller and Company for comment.... I agree wholeheartidly. If THEY can't agree the Z-film may of been altered, why should we consider any area of investigation from the Lone Nutter's [regarding the assassination] serious? There's more than a few reasons for Lone Neuters to preserve the integrity of the current alleged in-camera Zapruder film Dawn ps I have repeatedly asked for both sides to give me 5 reasons for and against Z alteration. Guess no one's ever going to do so. I have no interest in reading the otherwise wonderful Jim Fetzer's book. I am enormously more interested in hearing what Fetzer has to say on the conspiraay in 9-11. Now that is important! dgh: being objective in presenting or presentation of certain subject matter seems to me, it is up to the reader-viewer to form his/her own conclusions regarding same. Pretty clear to many, there's more than 5 reasons FOR alteration. Take that with all other JFK assassination related information [uncovered over the past 40 years], there can be no other conclusion than: C O N S P I R A C Y, in the murder of JFK. I've not up-to-speed regarding the 9-11 debate. *************** More to the point: don't you think 2006 technology would be able to spot/uncover alterations to a film using relatively primitive 1963 technology? read HOAX, dufus... get educated! Now THATS FUNNY! Educated from 'HOAX"? ROFLMAO! sitdown Craigster -- you're about as transparent as your brother Slippery Slattery, saran-wrap comes to mind! Edited October 6, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 What about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 (edited) ps I have repeatedly asked for both sides to give me 5 reasons for and against Z alteration. Guess no one's ever going to do so. I have no interest in reading the otherwise wonderful Jim Fetzer's book. I am enormously more interested in hearing what Fetzer has to say on the conspiraay in 9-11. Now that is important! Dawn ... the topic is important because two wrongs do not make a right. Now you posted your question in another thread and this particular thread was created for those who are interested in the accuracy of David's claims, thus feel free to ignore this thread and concentrate on only those threads that interest YOU! Bill Miller dgh: excellent point, Dawn. Makes one wonder why all the fuss over a these I put forth working from the starting point, IF the Zapruder is altered here's how it MAY of been done. The fuss lies over the accuracy of your claims, David. We are still waiting to hear how that Zfilm was altered in a matter of hours following the assassination considering all the known evidence. If the conspirators altered it, they left in the back- and- to- the- left fatal headshot that ended the president's life. Whether or not he is clutching his neck or had his hands very close to doing this: all irrelevent. "Microanalyzing", as VInce Salandria called it in Fonzi's book (The Last Investigation). dgh: exactly.... ever review which threads on a consistent basis, get more than their fairshare of views on this forum? JFK related photo/film discussions, perhaps? there's a good reason for that! Nothing less than, in the hopes of diverting competent researchers from other areas to debate, foolish film/photo discrepencies, plain and simple. Oh, lest I forget; demonize Jack White and everything he's done, right or wrong. For reasons knwn to many... The foolish discrepencies are Jack's alleged proof of alteration. Why was JFK killed? Show how and why it was not LHO. That the media still covers it up. This is the fight that is important, not the side show over the Zapruder film. Why JFK was killed does not show whether one man carried out the murder or not. dgh: might address that to Miller and Company for comment.... I agree wholeheartidly. If THEY can't agree the Z-film may of been altered, why should we consider any area of investigation from the Lone Nutter's [regarding the assassination] serious? There's more than a few reasons for Lone Neuters to preserve the integrity of the current alleged in-camera Zapruder film How can anyone consider Healy serious when he cannot even keep it straight over who is a CTs or LNr? Continuing to misstate the facts is little more than a mixture of trolling and xxxxxxxx. Bill Miller Edited for inappropriate language. Edited February 7, 2008 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) ps I have repeatedly asked for both sides to give me 5 reasons for and against Z alteration. Guess no one's ever going to do so. I have no interest in reading the otherwise wonderful Jim Fetzer's book. I am enormously more interested in hearing what Fetzer has to say on the conspiraay in 9-11. Now that is important! Dawn ... the topic is important because two wrongs do not make a right. Now you posted your question in another thread and this particular thread was created for those who are interested in the accuracy of David's claims, thus feel free to ignore this thread and concentrate on only those threads that interest YOU! Bill Miller dgh: excellent point, Dawn. Makes one wonder why all the fuss over a these I put forth working from the starting point, IF the Zapruder is altered here's how it MAY of been done. The fuss lies over the accuracy of your claims, David. We are still waiting to hear how that Zfilm was altered in a matter of hours following the assassination considering all the known evidence. If the conspirators altered it, they left in the back- and- to- the- left fatal headshot that ended the president's life. Whether or not he is clutching his neck or had his hands very close to doing this: all irrelevent. "Microanalyzing", as VInce Salandria called it in Fonzi's book (The Last Investigation). dgh: exactly.... ever review which threads on a consistent basis, get more than their fairshare of views on this forum? JFK related photo/film discussions, perhaps? there's a good reason for that! Nothing less than, in the hopes of diverting competent researchers from other areas to debate, foolish film/photo discrepencies, plain and simple. Oh, lest I forget; demonize Jack White and everything he's done, right or wrong. For reasons knwn to many... The foolish discrepencies are Jack's alleged proof of alteration. Why was JFK killed? Show how and why it was not LHO. That the media still covers it up. This is the fight that is important, not the side show over the Zapruder film. Why JFK was killed does not show whether one man carried out the murder or not. dgh: might address that to Miller and Company for comment.... I agree wholeheartidly. If THEY can't agree the Z-film may of been altered, why should we consider any area of investigation from the Lone Nutter's [regarding the assassination] serious? There's more than a few reasons for Lone Neuters to preserve the integrity of the current alleged in-camera Zapruder film How can anyone consider Healy serious when he cannot even keep it straight over who is a CTs or LNr? Continuing to misstate the facts is little more than a mixture of trolling and xxxxxxxx. Bill Miller LOL! You've never been a CT'er despite your avid protestations, so sell it to the unaware, we've been on to you for 5 years....you fool none of us. Contrary to your little charade here, I could care less what people believe, that includes YOU thats their responsibility. Now, for a disinfo agent such as your self, the game is a little different.... Edited for inappropriate language in quoted section. Edited February 7, 2008 by Antti Hynonen 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