Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

John;

The "clues" that I have found appear to be a cleverly hidden and disguised means of assuring some form of political blackmail, if necessary.

Kind of like the old saying with ENRON, everyone needs two safety deposit boxes to keep their secrets in.

With the WC, it appears that it was mostly a "hide in plain sight" sort of operation.

[Bill Miller]

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...

I was invited here by the administrator. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince you of anything for I feel that trolls are not on a forum such as this so to learn anything. Let the record show that 99.9% of what you post is either disjointed say nothing ramblings that never address the issues being discussed or you are purposely and repeatedly misstating the evidence. One example of this is Len's posting of Fielding's email.

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

David, you not only cannot discount alteration, but you cannot choose one side or the other either! One day you'll be saying that you have seen NO PROOF of alteration and the next day you will say that you believe the Zapruder film is altered. Now in your last remark you are back to not "discounting" alteration which implies you have nothing to substantiate that alteration is present in the Zfilm. With you it is a belief system that needs no proof in your mind. In another response you mention color shifting and Kodachrome II film as if I don't know what I'm talking about, but what I have said comes from actual experts .... unlike some forum xxxxx who can't even see the noticeable mistakes in the Mary Poppins clips I posted or who pretends not to know how to get a copy of such a film so to see if what I have posted is accurate or not. You offer no examples to rebut what the experts say, but instead you just post the same non-informative crap you always post. In your mind Zavada is wrong, Fielding is wrong, Groden is wrong, the numerous experts Mack has spoken to is wrong, and only YOU (who is on record for flip flopping on the issue without any proof for doing so), the guy who cannot produce a shred of proof to the contradict the experts, is correct. So no one is trying to convince you of anything, but rather we set out to expose your modus-operandi so others can see what's based on the facts and what is propaganda that is being used in place of facts.

Bill Miller

Edited December 7, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

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!

I cannot speak about the LNr side, but I know that the experts I have cited have gone further than high school. I, for one, have attended college and even before doing so - I could read, research, and knew how to obtain materials needed to test any allegations being presented to me. Unlike Costella, I was smart enough to not waste a ton of time telling people how Moorman's photo had this big window of time to be altered because I had learned the subject matter beforehand and knew Mary Moorman's photo was taped for television not 30 minutes after the assassination and that what NBC showed on the afternoon of the assassination was the same image we see today. So college obviously doesn't make one smart about a subject they have not studied in depth. I've seen people who have PH.D's in one area who couldn't pour piss out of a boot even if the directions were written on the heel. I also have witnessed someone who claims to know optical printing who cannot cite correctly the difference between a lone nutter Vs. a conspiracy theorist, so what's the point you are trying to make? As far as color shifting goes ... the proof is in the eye of the beholder ....

Bill Miller

Edited December 7, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

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!

I cannot speak about the LNr side, but I know that the experts I have cited have gone further than high school. I, for one, have attended college and even before doing so - I could read, research, and knew how to obtain materials needed to test any allegations being presented to me. Unlike Costella, I was smart enough to not waste a ton of time telling people how Moorman's photo had this big window of time to be altered because I had learned the subject matter beforehand and knew Mary Moorman's photo was taped for television not 30 minutes after the assassination and that what NBC showed on the afternoon of the assassination was the same image we see today. So college obviously doesn't make one smart about a subject they have not studied in depth. I've seen people who have PH.D's in one area who couldn't pour piss out of a boot even if the directions were written on the heel. I also have witnessed someone who claims to know optical printing who cannot cite correctly the difference between a lone nutter Vs. a conspiracy theorist, so what's the point you are trying to make? As far as color shifting goes ... the proof is in the eye of the beholder ....

Bill Miller

dgh:

even the dumbest of researchers knows better than posting images with NO lineage and NO references to where these images can be found and your work verified. If that's in-depth study ... we're in for deep hurt! Is it any wonder this case has languished for years, and years and YEARS

btw, evidently someone forgot to tell you, you have to take your boot OFF, before you pour the *piss* out of it. <sigh>

Edited December 7, 2006 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

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...

I was invited here by the administrator. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince you of anything for I feel that trolls are not on a forum such as this so to learn anything. Let the record show that 99.9% of what you post is either disjointed say nothing ramblings that never address the issues being discussed or you are purposely and repeatedly misstating the evidence. One example of this is Len's posting of Fielding's email.

evidently you've had a difficult time reading HOAX, so sorry -- I understand its in layman terms, perhaps I should remove my reccommendation for your employment at Adobe? If you can't understand my chapter you've no hope in the graphics world

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

David, you not only cannot discount alteration, but you cannot choose one side or the other either! One day you'll be saying that you have seen NO PROOF of alteration and the next day you will say that you believe the Zapruder film is altered.

dgh: oh Bill, your so silly, of course I can say I see NO proof of Z-film alteration, what you fail to include in your rant is: because I haven't examined the alleged Zapruder in-camera ORIGINAL currently housed at NARA. Your difficulty understanding that is?

Shall I take this continuing misguided error by you, as intentional?

Now in your last remark you are back to not "discounting" alteration which implies you have nothing to substantiate that alteration is present in the Zfilm. With you it is a belief system that needs no proof in your mind. In another response you mention color shifting and Kodachrome II film as if I don't know what I'm talking about, but what I have said comes from actual experts .... unlike some forum xxxxx who can't even see the noticeable mistakes in the Mary Poppins clips I posted or who pretends not to know how to get a copy of such a film so to see if what I have posted is accurate or not. You offer no examples to rebut what the experts say, but instead you just post the same non-informative crap you always post.

dgh: unlike you chap, I discount nothing and believe little, but then again I'm serious and not looking to fit, nor do I need Lone Nutter friends, unlike some I'm aware of...

So, just post where you found the Poppins frames, Bill and tell me what's wrong with them, is that to tough for a serious researcher such as yourself? btw, has Lamson given you a little lesson regardingoptical film printing light paks and color attributes of certain double 8mm Kodak films yet?

In your mind Zavada is wrong, Fielding is wrong, Groden is wrong, the numerous experts Mack has spoken to is wrong, and only YOU (who is on record for flip flopping on the issue without any proof for doing so), the guy who cannot produce a shred of proof to the contradict the experts, is correct.

dgh: they're all opinions Bill, try as you might you can't change that, there's been zero, zip, nada, nil -- forensic testing on the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film housed at NARA, nor the 3 Jamison prints (#0183/0185/0186/0187)

All the wishin and a hopin isn't going to change that... So what's a serious researcher to do, Bill? Wring my hands? Or watch you defend the indefensible?

So no one is trying to convince you of anything, but rather we set out to expose your modus-operandi so others can see what's based on the facts and what is propaganda that is being used in place of facts.

dgh: Facts being what the are, just forensic test the Zapruder film, only a few non-descript frames, we'll take it from there, then Zavada and Fielding can do their gig!

MY modus operandi? Hell Bill, anyone can find out where I've been over the years, if they know where to look, they can find my resume. You just popped out of nowhere, no experience just a few wild images you saw in a few JFK-DP related bushes and trees, claimed to be a photo analyst, hence, you were a overnight expert on the DP films and photos. When called to show your research you pitched a fit, managed to get thrown off a forum, ran to another and started all over - so:

Who are you Bill? And who is WE? How do YOU spell 'agent provaceteur'

Bill Miller

Edited December 7, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

even the dumbest of researchers knows better than posting images with NO lineage and NO references to where these images can be found and your work verified. If that's in-depth study ... we're in for deep hurt! Is it any wonder this case has languished for years, and years and YEARS

David, you can xxxxx with a mouse in one hand and something else in the other all you like, but you and I have discussed these images before and I am sure most anyone following this topic knows where they came from. Maybe your memory is as bad as your research, but these are the frames that Costella used from Life Magazine and MPI. As I recall, you were able to see that one was a first generation print and that MPI's images were several generations away from the original. The color changes between these film generations are noticeable to even a laymen.

btw, evidently someone forgot to tell you, you have to take your boot OFF, before you pour the *piss* out of it. <sigh>

Actually, a reasonable person would know that if the directions are written on the heel and you still are not able to follow the directions .... you already have your boot off, unless you pissed in it while still wearing it - right, David!

Bill Miller

Edited December 7, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

even the dumbest of researchers knows better than posting images with NO lineage and NO references to where these images can be found and your work verified. If that's in-depth study ... we're in for deep hurt! Is it any wonder this case has languished for years, and years and YEARS

David, you can xxxxx with a mouse in one hand and something else in the other all you like, but you and I have discussed these images before and I am sure most anyone following this topic knows where they came from. Maybe your memory is as bad as your research, but these are the frames that Costella used from Life Magazine and MPI. As I recall, you were able to see that one was a first generation print and that MPI's images were several generations away from the original. The color changes between these film generations are noticeable to even a laymen.

btw, evidently someone forgot to tell you, you have to take your boot OFF, before you pour the *piss* out of it. <sigh>

Actually, a reasonable person would know that if the directions are written on the heel and you still are not able to follow the directions .... you already have your boot off, unless you pissed in it while still wearing it - right, David!

Bill Miller

uh-hum Bill you've never posted a source for the MPoppins frame, no need to lie about it. I've never discussed with YOU or anyone else any issues with MPoppins frames. Just show us your source and we can get down to what you think is wrong with them -- hell, for all I or the lurkers know there's nothing wrong with the frame mattes. What's the need for a secret here, Bill? Where did the frames come from you posted?

[Bill Miller]

uh-hum Bill you've never posted a source for the MPoppins frame, no need to lie about it. I've never discussed with YOU or anyone else any issues with MPoppins frames. Just show us your source and we can get down to what you think is wrong with them -- hell, for all I or the lurkers know there's nothing wrong with the frame mattes. What's the need for a secret here, Bill? Where did the frames come from you posted?

David, I have already said where the Mary Poppins clip came from - Len also told you where the Mary Poppins frames came from, which brings me to this point I made yesterday .... if you cannot understand the simplest of answers, then how can you follow the more detailed reports concerning Kodachrome II film. (see post #168)

So David, lets see how much of this has been grandstanding on your part ... let us say that you have the alleged camera original Zfilm sitting right in front of you. You have been harping forever that YOU need to see the alleged Zapruder film for yourself to know if it is the original or not, so by all means tell us without all your nonsense just what specific tests that you'd be capable of doing that aren't already in Zavada's September 1998 report to the ARRB?

From a recent phone call that Mack had with Zavada, Gary said to me, "Zavada confirmed the discussions we've had in recent years, that Kodachrome II film was designed for daylight use and to be pleasing to the amateur photographer's eye - and yet is not a perfectly accurate visual record of the scene. For those with a high level of expertise and who know what to look for, the differences between the camera original film and a duplicate made to any kind of film stock will be noticeable and measurable.

Once again, he has confirmed to me that it is physically impossible to duplicate Kodachrome II film in a way that is not detectable by those who know what to look for."

Bill Miller

Edited December 8, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote

[...]

From a recent phone call that Mack had with Zavada, Gary said to me, "Zavada confirmed the discussions we've had in recent years, that Kodachrome II film was designed for daylight use and to be pleasing to the amateur photographer's eye - and yet is not a perfectly accurate visual record of the scene. For those with a high level of expertise and who know what to look for, the differences between the camera original film and a duplicate made to any kind of film stock will be noticeable and measurable.

Once again, he has confirmed to me that it is physically impossible to duplicate Kodachrome II film in a way that is not detectable by those who know what to look for."

[...]

dgh: Let's cut to the chase:

"...the differences between the camera original film and a duplicate made to any kind of film stock will be noticeable and measurable. " Measureable HOW and against WHAT

-and-

"...physically impossible to duplicate Kodachrome II film..." then you can point us towards samples that show/indicate this absurd statement! And please confirm right here that Roalnd Zavada said same. Take the golf shoes OFF, this has gotta hurt

Edited December 8, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: Let's cut to the chase:

"...the differences between the camera original film and a duplicate made to any kind of film stock will be noticeable and measurable. " Measureable HOW and against WHAT

David, you have been saying over and over that YOU NEDED THE EXTANT CAMERA ORIGINAL IN YOUR HANDS before you can say whether its authentic. I have asked you to tell this forum just what exactly would you do if that was to happen that would convince you that the said in-camera Zapruder film is the original or not? I'd like to point out that you didn't copy and paste that part of my previous response so to address it, so I am asking it once again and I am going to keep asking you this question because I don't believe that you even know what to look for if you had the said film before you. All this time you have been grandstanding to the lesser knowledgeable members on this topic by attempting to make them think otherwise. So lay it on us, David, but before you do - read the rest of this post!

"...physically impossible to duplicate Kodachrome II film..." then you can point us towards samples that show/indicate this absurd statement! And please confirm right here that Roalnd Zavada said same. Take the golf shoes OFF, this has gotta hurt

I think you could probably ask Zavada like Len did, but of course you may have to spell his name correctly just to have a chance for the email to go through properly. I also want to point out that while you are trying like hell to divert attention away from your inability to follow through with even a sensible response to the questions that have been put forth to you .... you have already confirmed the things Zavada and Groden, not to mention other experts, have said about the tell tale signs of 1st, 2nd, and further generation prints made from the camera original. Let me share what YOU UNWITTINGLY SAID ABOUT HOW TO TELL IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL FILM OR A COPY MADE FROM THE ORIGINAL FILM .....

David Healy in post #57 said: "In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse..."

What you said, David, is exactly what I posted that Groden had done and confirmed when he looked at the said in-camera Zapruder film. Groden had told me that the said original Zapruder film shows no signs of the things you stated would be present even in a FIRST GENERATION COPY. Jack White also pointed out that only an idiot would think you could alter an 8MM film is its minature size. Jack admits that to make such alterations that enlargements would need to be made. (Groden pointed out the same thing) Now you have admitted that even a first generation print would show slight fuzziness. So now having said this .... and knowing that this observation has been checked by people who are experts in either 8MM Kodachrome film and/or photography .... and that these tell-tale signs that you proclaim to are not on the said in-camera Zapruder film .... what argument do you have left now? I find it odd that when Groden relayed this simple fact to me and I posted it - you fought it. Yet without you thinking what such a statement would mean to your alteration belief .... you stated the same exact principle as fact. And because what you, Groden, Zavada, and others have said about about the tell-tales signs of a 1st generation film Vs. an original in-camera film, you no longer have an argument from where I sit.

Bill Miller

Edited December 9, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter.

Hey David ... you forgot to mention this to Jack when he said and I quote:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30

Post #41

“I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience

is with still cameras”

Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter.

Hey David ... you forgot to mention this to Jack when he said and I quote:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30

Post #41

“I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience

is with still cameras”

D-U-H! Jack has ALWAYS maintained THAT (he knows nothing about motion picture film or cameras) still photography is his bag...., he's posted that many, many, MANY times that I'm aware of.... Wake-up, Champ! LMAO!

Hi Gary!

Edited January 4, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

D-U-H! Jack has ALWAYS maintained THAT (he knows nothing about motion picture film or cameras) still photography is his bag...., he's posted that many, many, MANY times that I'm aware of.... Wake-up, Champ! LMAO!

Yet Jack maintains how easily the Zapruder film (Kodachrome II film) could have been altered so to go undetected .... now how does that sound compared to what you just said about him admitting that he knows nothing about movie film and cameras ... think about that one for a moment?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

Jack has said, "There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above."

Bill Miller

Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

D-U-H! Jack has ALWAYS maintained THAT (he knows nothing about motion picture film or cameras) still photography is his bag...., he's posted that many, many, MANY times that I'm aware of.... Wake-up, Champ! LMAO!

Yet Jack maintains how easily the Zapruder film (Kodachrome II film) could have been altered so to go undetected .... now how does that sound compared to what you just said about him admitting that he knows nothing about movie film and cameras ... think about that one for a moment?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=15

Jack has said, "There are numerous ways of doing film alteration, but none involves making altertions

directly on film. Kodachrome is no different than other films in this respect.

Most processes involve COPYING, MATTING, GLASS PAINTING, SOFT MATTES, TRAVELING

MATTES, LOW CONTRAST FILMS, OPTICAL PRINTERS, RECOPYING...and a host of other

techniques of which Miller has no understanding.

But a simple technique, which could have been used with the Zfilm, because it is so short,

would have been to MAKE A COLOR PRINT OF EACH FRAME, RETOUCH EACH FRAME AS

DESIRED, AND RECOPY EACH ALTERED FRAME ONE AT A TIME WITH A B&H CAMERA,

USING KODACHROME FILM. That is animation at its simplest. All that is required is about

500 color prints (8x10s will do) and a retouch artist.

Any amateur could have done this. It is basic copystand work. Check anyone who

knows anything about movies, and they will verify the above."

Bill Miller

Thanks, "Miller", for providing my exact explanation of how the Zfilm "could be faked".

I stand by this explanation now, as I have for years. Your ridicule only reveals your

ignorance of animation.

This is not a matter of cinematography, but a GRAPHICS OPERATION. I have been

in graphics reproduction for more than sixty years, and KNOW HOW things can be

done. I repeat...on such a few frames as this, the quickest, easiest, and cheapest

way to alter such a film is to make color prints of each frame, retouch and edit as

desired, and reanimate on a copy stand using the desired camera. This could be

done by anyone with the right know how and equipment. If you deny this, you

have no knowledge of how animated films are made. Each frame is individually

painted or drawn, and then photographed one frame at a time on an animation

stand. If you do not understand this simple basic principle, you are just howling

at the moon. It is NOT photography...but art done by artists, and camera operators

who need not be cinematographers, merely skilled button pushers who follow a

script and storyboard.

As for Kodachrome being used...an expert can produce perfect copies under

the right circumstances...PROVIDED IT IS NOT COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL.

After forty plus years, I have never seen such a comparison; but with no verifiable

provenance of THE IDENTITY OF THE "ORIGINAL"...any such comparison would

not be valid anyway, and thus of no value.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Thanks, "Miller", for providing my exact explanation of how the Zfilm "could be faked".

I stand by this explanation now, as I have for years. Your ridicule only reveals your

ignorance of animation.

This is not a matter of cinematography, but a GRAPHICS OPERATION. I have been

in graphics reproduction for more than sixty years, and KNOW HOW things can be

done. I repeat...on such a few frames as this, the quickest, easiest, and cheapest

way to alter such a film is to make color prints of each frame, retouch and edit as

desired, and reanimate on a copy stand using the desired camera. This could be

done by anyone with the right know how and equipment. If you deny this, you

have no knowledge of how animated films are made. Each frame is individually

painted or drawn, and then photographed one frame at a time on an animation

stand. If you do not understand this simple basic principle, you are just howling

at the moon. It is NOT photography...but art done by artists, and camera operators

who need not be cinematographers, merely skilled button pushers who follow a

script and storyboard.

As for Kodachrome being used...an expert can produce perfect copies under

the right circumstances...PROVIDED IT IS NOT COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL.

After forty plus years, I have never seen such a comparison; but with no verifiable

provenance of THE IDENTITY OF THE "ORIGINAL"...any such comparison would

not be valid anyway, and thus of no value.

Jack

Jack, I hardly need to explain your errors anymore for I have been archiving your past remarks that counter your current ones.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30

Post #41

Jack White: “I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience

is with still cameras”

Even David Healy and Groden have said that a first generation copy can be determined ....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=45

Post #57

David Healy: “In short, if the in-camera Z-8mm film frames are 'in focus' the BEST (1st generation) 35mm prints/copies of same 8mm frame will be slightly fuzzy -- as 35mm's go down in generation (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) they DO get worse...”

Bill Miller

Edited January 4, 2007 by Bill Miller