Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[Len Colby]

You and the rest of your tribe could remove me from this entire discussion and you'd still have to deal with RAY FIELDING'S: THE ART OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY-1965. Not to mention the 300 or so references to SMPE/SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Engineering-1915/Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering-1955) discussing some of the very same techniques used in films dating from the 1920's.... (of which I've given you only a small fraction of [80] to comment on). So piss and moan all you want, your wish'in and a hop'in isn't gonna change that.

I have lost track at how many times it has been pointed out that no one has said that altering images didn't exist in 1963/64. The argument has been that they could not have occurred to Kodachrome II film and gone undetected to those people qualified to know what to look for. Now what would qualify someone to make such a call .... I'd start by finding someone who could understand the simple points that you continue to miss.

Dave your playing dumb/use of strawmen routine is getting old but I still find your referencing a book whose author said you're wrong amusing. For the upteenth time, can you actually cite any passages from his book (or those rags) which bolsters your "case"? Funny you would have us believe Fielding didn't know what he was talking about in 2006 but was an authoritative source back in 1965

As for you use of a computer to make your composites are you a fool or just pretending? Using technology that doesn't even resemble what was available at the time does nothing to strengthen your case.

So when exactly are you gonna get around to renting the Mary Poppins DVD? Perhaps repetition can help you comprehend, Bill got the frames from the DVD, Bill got the frames from the DVD, Bill got the frames from the DVD, Bill got the frames from the DVD. You should stop making yourself look stupid and stop asking the question. As I pointed out if you don't think the defects he pointed out are really there you have a perfect oppurtunity to humiliate him.

Len

[Charles Black]

Hello Bill, Craig, Len et al

After seriously questioning my mental capacity by reading again your appraisals of it, I took the time to return and re-read this thread in entirety.

I find nothing ridiculous or illogical about "ANYTHING" that I have stated.

I am not going to expend a great deal of effort here, as I have already stated everything that I believe to be true regarding this. A great majority of this discussion has been given to explaining to the world your "individual prowess" regarding film making, which is really irelevent to my point.

I will give but one example of the type of argument that I am hearing. This is not an exact quote, but it was stated that if there were advances in film technology, the commercial film industry would have been the first to display them. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS ! The film industry devotes its efforts to those areas that generate the most potential profit. How much demand do any of you think that there has been for the undectable alteration of 8MM Kodacolor II film ?

The government and its covert agencies have very different demands. The Airline Industry did not have a demand for planes that would fly and photograph from altitudes over 100,000 feet at speeds above Mach III. There were government agencies however that did, so enough resources were invested that this could be done. It is obvious that the airlines did not attempt to make a commercial air liner out of the SR71.

At the time that the Z film was altered, there was "no" commercial demand.....a "profitable" demand, to alter undetectably 8mm Kodacolor II film.

However there did suddenly come a demand from a source which had unlimited financial power, with access to unlimited mechanical expertise. A one time demand in which money and effort were to be unlimited and that results were "paid for" to be maintained secret.

Why do any of you believe that there was the slightest chance of this being impossible? We are talking about a mechanical problem being challenged by the best, brightest and wealthiest....and the most "scary" and ominous forces on earth.

It was an great achievement, but one which in the "ordinary world" was virtually valueless !

I ardently stand solidly behind everything that I have previously posted in this thread, and I really take no personal offense at your suggestions of my intellectual ineptness.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I have re-read this entire thread......I find nothing that I have written to even verge on unbelievable and certainly not "impossible".

I see nothing more that I can add to this, without continuing to restate my initial points, which in my mind, have not even been "challenged".

Charlie Black

[Bill Miller]

As I pointed out if you don't think the defects he pointed out are really there you have a perfect oppurtunity to humiliate him.

Len

Len,

I recall a saying once that went something like this ..... 'If a lie is told enough times, then it becomes the truth'. I think that this is all someone like David has left to hope for. These guys started with a theory and worked backwards. Along the way they limited themselves on how much to test their theory in order not to have to give it up. So when they come across someone who is bringing up these things that the alterationist had hoped not to ever address - they take the 'Baghdad Bob Healy' approach. We all know David can get a copy of Disney's movie whether it be movie film, video tape, or DVD and he will still find the flaws I have pointed out. But to keep from having to say he is wrong - he pretends not to know the source or how to check it out on his own. It surely doesn't reflect well on his ability to research anything, which brings us back to the reason of why David is here in the first place? Healy will question Zavada's findings or Groden's conclusions concerning the Zapruder film while at the same time show everyone that he (David) hasn't the ability to not only understand what has been repeatedly said, but that he also isn't even capable of knowing how to get a Disney movie and check the errors for himself. The reason that David simply doesn't get the movie so to humiliate me because he knows the problems are real that I presented to this forum.

Bill Miller

I find nothing ridiculous or illogical about "ANYTHING" that I have stated.

Charles,

I think the reasons for your feeling you have not stated anything illogical is said best when someone once wrote that 'the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man will never know when he is wrong'. The government recruits some of the finest minds in the world to work for them, but they don't hire them all. This means that there are also some minds still out in the world who have equal intelligence and you have not produced a single one of them to rebut what has been said about Kodachrome II film.

Bill Miller

Edited December 5, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Charles Black]

Bill Miller

Congratulations ! I didn't know that you had it in you. In addition to the expertise that you seem to have in so many various fields, I never imagined that you also engaged in philosophy.

BRILLIANT !

Bill stated "...the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man will never know when he is wrong".

I truly have long held this statement as one of the most sadly true acknowlegements.

I however, not knowing the depths of your ability to "self critique", would never have expected this admission.

I think that your statement should earn you the respect of this entire forum !

Amazing.....all of these attributes in one man !

You apparently had an spiritual enlightenment of some form which enabled you to finally acknowlege that there is very little that can be affirmed as mechanically impossible.

Charlie Black

[Bill Miller]

Congratulations ! I didn't know that you had it in you. In addition to the expertise that you seem to have in so many various fields, I never imagined that you also engaged in philosophy.

Charles, I have stated that one must first educate themselves on a subject before being qualified to reach a logical conclusion. I have spent countless hours doing just this by going to those people who do have the expertise. So far all I have seen you go on is your own paranoid beliefs. I will ask you once again - name an expert who says that Kodachrome II film could be undetectably altered in the way you people have been suggesting??? Healy likes to cite Fielding as a reference, but David misstates what Fielding had said, which then misleads the paranoids like yourself who don't have the time or interest in seeing if what you are being told is true or not. Below is a message sent to Len in Fielding's own words.

Bill Miller

From: (Ray Fielding)

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST

Suject: Zavada

To: (Len Colby)

Mr. Colby:

I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence.

I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me.

Raymond Fielding

Edited December 5, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Guest Mark Valenti]

"Many are those who trade in tricks & simulated miracles, duping the foolish multitude; and if nobody unmasked their subterfuges, they would impose them on everyone."

Good ol' Leonardo da Vinci. He reminds me that neither side in this debate is free of charlatans and simpletons. For me, I remain skeptical of alteration but the suspicion never quite dissipates completely.

MV

[Bill Miller]

"Many are those who trade in tricks & simulated miracles, duping the foolish multitude; and if nobody unmasked their subterfuges, they would impose them on everyone."

Good ol' Leonardo da Vinci. He reminds me that neither side in this debate is free of charlatans and simpletons. For me, I remain skeptical of alteration but the suspicion never quite dissipates completely.

MV

I for one think that is a great approach and that this case certainly deserves all the suspicion that one can muster. However, once a particular trail has been found to be a dead end - is it right to continue misleading others that it leads somewhere? This alteration thing has become nothing more than a belief system. It's like noticing that a coat and hat hanging on a coat rack can look like a mysterious stranger under the right circumstances, but once someone has turned on the light and seen it for what it is ... how justified is it for one to continue telling others that it still could be a mysterious stranger? To date there has not been one alteration claim that has withstood scrutiny. I would like nothing more than to see some valid proof for a change that the Zapruder film has been altered to hide the facts.

Bill Miller

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I for one think that is a great approach and that this case certainly deserves all the suspicion that one can muster. However, once a particular trail has been found to be a dead end - is it right to continue misleading others that it leads somewhere? This alteration thing has become nothing more than a belief system. It's like noticing that a coat and hat hanging on a coat rack can look like a mysterious stranger under the right circumstances, but once someone has turned on the light and seen it for what it is ... how justified is it for one to continue telling others that it still could be a mysterious stranger? To date there has not been one alteration claim that has withstood scrutiny. I would like nothing more than to see some valid proof for a change that the Zapruder film has been altered to hide the facts.

Bill Miller

I am dubious about alteration but I can only go 99.9% there. While I agree that there has been no evidence that could withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom thus far, I reserve a tiny bit of suspicion, as with all things JFK. Unfortunately, I have no logical reason for this .1%, maybe it's superstition.

The Z-film is the JFK murder's Rorschach Test, it brings out rational thought in some, mean-spirited, drunken, swaggering garbage in others. I do appreciate your approach to this issue and I agree that once a fact is established, a line in the sand should be drawn. It's just that the panoply of theories in this case can be daunting and overwhelming, it's hard to keep track.

[Bill Miller]

Mark,

You one a few people who looks at the JFK case with logic and common sense. How interesting it would be if some of us could go through the evidence together and offer our own report based on all the facts with an unbiased common sense approach. If you ever find a forum like that - count me in if they'll have me.

Bill

Edited December 6, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

I am dubious about alteration but I can only go 99.9% there. While I agree that there has been no evidence that could withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom thus far, I reserve a tiny bit of suspicion, as with all things JFK. Unfortunately, I have no logical reason for this .1%, maybe it's superstition.

The Z-film is the JFK murder's Rorschach Test, it brings out rational thought in some, mean-spirited, drunken, swaggering garbage in others. I do appreciate your approach to this issue and I agree that once a fact is established, a line in the sand should be drawn. It's just that the panoply of theories in this case can be daunting and overwhelming, it's hard to keep track.

Mark,

That is not too far away from where I am. I just can't shake that last little bit of doubt, reservation, suspicion, etc. Perhaps it is some combination of wishful thinking (alteration all but proves conspiracy once and for all) and just plain distrust of the government (gee, I wonder where THAT came from). As such, I really take nothing at face value, and try to verify as much as possible independently.

But you're right -- the topic does seem to produce epic amounts of vitriol.

[David G. Healy]

Mark,

You one a few people who looks at the JFK case with logic and common sense. How interesting it would be if some of us could go through the evidence together and offer our own report based on all the facts with an unbiased common sense approach. If you ever find a forum like that - count me in if they'll have me.

Bill

we would be so appreciative if you found that ellusive forum, but I suspect you couldn't keep yourself away, from HERE -- you see, you've got to convince me and few others who lean towards alteration -- not the Mark's of the world, of which they're leigon...

You ask why? simple, I can't discount alteration! And, lone nutters holler way to loud when discussing it, very VERY curious!

[David G. Healy]

Congratulations ! I didn't know that you had it in you. In addition to the expertise that you seem to have in so many various fields, I never imagined that you also engaged in philosophy.

Charles, I have stated that one must first educate themselves on a subject before being qualified to reach a logical conclusion. I have spent countless hours doing just this by going to those people who do have the expertise. So far all I have seen you go on is your own paranoid beliefs. I will ask you once again - name an expert who says that Kodachrome II film could be undetectably altered in the way you people have been suggesting??? Healy likes to cite Fielding as a reference, but David misstates what Fielding had said, which then misleads the paranoids like yourself who don't have the time or interest in seeing if what you are being told is true or not. Below is a message sent to Len in Fielding's own words.

Bill Miller

From: (Ray Fielding)

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST

Suject: Zavada

To: (Len Colby)

Mr. Colby:

I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence.

I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me.

Raymond Fielding

*********

dgh: LMAO..... and Ray's review of the Zapruder film is where? Perhaps you or he can tell us how he arrived at above conclusion and who if anyone in the industry reviewed the frames with him.... Better yet, have Ray drop by here and give us ALL, his unabashed opinion...

I don't cite Fielding, I cite Fielding's book, The Art of Special Effects Cinematography, 1965. The one with all those SMPE/SMPTE cites, the one with his experience pouring forth -- you'd serve your purposes much better if you opened the book and read it....

Ray knows how get in-touch with me if he so chooses, as does Roland Zavada.....

I'd like to see the header on that email, then the entire email, intact -- who knows, it may not be authentic

Bill Miller

Congratulations ! I didn't know that you had it in you. In addition to the expertise that you seem to have in so many various fields, I never imagined that you also engaged in philosophy.

BRILLIANT !

Bill stated "...the difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid man will never know when he is wrong".

I truly have long held this statement as one of the most sadly true acknowlegements.

I however, not knowing the depths of your ability to "self critique", would never have expected this admission.

I think that your statement should earn you the respect of this entire forum !

Amazing.....all of these attributes in one man !

You apparently had an spiritual enlightenment of some form which enabled you to finally acknowlege that there is very little that can be affirmed as mechanically impossible.

Charlie Black

Charlie, these guys have to prop each other up, Miller made a fool out of himself earlier when it comes to "color" and Kodachrome II/A film, any type pf divergence from same, helps him out....

I seriously doubt there's many on the lone nutter side of the Z-film alteration argument have gone further than high school, not that THAT makes any difference!

Spiritual enlightment seems to be the only hope

Edited December 6, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Myra Bronstein]

(I still haven't read the Great Zapruder Film Hoax, so this may be common knowledge. I'm in the remedial class of JFK research.)

From "The Man Who Knew Too Much," page 374, about the Zapruder film:

"Robert Groden, who worked for almost nine years studying a bootleg copy he had managed to obtain, discovered that in fact there were ten missing or damaged frames in the film. Certain key moments, which might have proven the existence of more than three shots, had been spliced out.

But a pristine copy of the Zapruder film may still exist. In 1992, Paul Rothermel, Jr., a former chief aide to Dallas oil billionaire H.L. Hunt, told me an incredible story. Rothermel said he was dispatched by the Hunt family, in the late afternoon following the assassination, "with a substantial amount of money, to buy the original. I got the first copy, as far as I know."

"Before Time-Life negotiated for theirs?" I asked. "Yeah," Rothermel said.

"Why?" I persisted. "Why did the Hunts so badly want this film?"

"Well," Rothermel replied, "it was pretty hard to believe that, with as little moxie as Oswald had, he did it all

by himself. There was a lot of speculation about how all this happened, who was really behind it. I think

certain people wanted to find out who did it.""

It then goes on to describe the vehemence of Hunt's hatred for President Kennedy, and his determination to help his pal "Lyndon."

[David G. Healy]

(I still haven't read the Great Zapruder Film Hoax, so this may be common knowledge. I'm in the remedial class of JFK research.)

From "The Man Who Knew Too Much," page 374, about the Zapruder film:

"Robert Groden, who worked for almost nine years studying a bootleg copy he had managed to obtain, discovered that in fact there were ten missing or damaged frames in the film. Certain key moments, which might have proven the existence of more than three shots, had been spliced out.

But a pristine copy of the Zapruder film may still exist. In 1992, Paul Rothermel, Jr., a former chief aide to Dallas oil billionaire H.L. Hunt, told me an incredible story. Rothermel said he was dispatched by the Hunt family, in the late afternoon following the assassination, "with a substantial amount of money, to buy the original. I got the first copy, as far as I know."

"Before Time-Life negotiated for theirs?" I asked. "Yeah," Rothermel said.

"Why?" I persisted. "Why did the Hunts so badly want this film?"

"Well," Rothermel replied, "it was pretty hard to believe that, with as little moxie as Oswald had, he did it all

by himself. There was a lot of speculation about how all this happened, who was really behind it. I think

certain people wanted to find out who did it.""

It then goes on to describe the vehemence of Hunt's hatred for President Kennedy, and his determination to help his pal "Lyndon."

Hello Myra,

David Lifton, in his Great Zapruder Film HOAX chapter discusses how Robert Groden obtained the Zapruder film, his relationship to the Zapruder film AND other Dealey Plaza films and of course, JFK x-ray photos. David does so at great length. Roland Zavada in his 1998 Zapruder Film/B&H 8mm camera report made reference to Robert Groden's relationship with Moe Weitzman's (for LIFE magazine) 8mm-to-35mm blow-up of the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original.

HOAX is available at most university library's, can be purchased on the web at various places (used and new)...

David Healy

Edited December 7, 2006 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

Interestingly the WC published film frames has the two Z-frames following the headshot reversed in order, and the Nix frame referred to as the headshot corresponding to 313 is misrepresented. It is in fact one or two frames before this.

So two films with 'funny business' associated with a critical moment. One would perhaps simply be a mistake. TWO similar mistakes is different.

Who typeset or pepared the frames for printing? Could it be that someone who refused to go wholly along with the whitewash planted a clue of sorts? Kennedy's men, including Warren himself, surely didn't just roll over? Publicly perhaps, privately maybe no.