Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[David G. Healy]

When considering the mechanical inventions and accomplishments which occurred during the 20th century alone, I do not understand how "anyone" could state that there are mechanical functions, which are not contrary to the basic laws of physics, that could not be carried out when confronted by the best brains in the world !

...

Charlie Black

I don't think the real issue here is the capability to alter the film, per se. We've been doctoring photographs (and film) since the early days of the science/art.

It is a certainty that films, in 1963, could be altered.

The REAL questions, IMO, are:

1) Did ample opportunity exist to alter not only the Z-film, but all the other films and stills?

2) Did the capability exist in 1963 to make alterations that remain undetectable in 2006?

great questions, Frank!

1.) one can begin by; *ANY* source providing the original (with affidavits stating same) of all assassination related films/photos for review, and who had posesson of same up to 60 days after the assassination (with chain of posession) - then one can begin "opportunity"...

2.) best the Lone Nutters could do to date is/was dust of Roland Zavada, enlist Ray Fielding for a re-do of the original Zavada report, that effort has failed miserably (for whatever reason). What we're left with is a few feeble attempts by non-qualified preservers of Dealey Plaza historical photo/film record... Direct response to your 2nd question: No one will know for sure till the "original" in-camera films are scrutinized and forensic testing performed on same.... the question has been asked...

****************

'Robin Unger' wrote:

David.

I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory.

I do however, beleive the technology was around in the 50's to alter any film SHOULD the government have wanted too.

Hollywood California.

Look Out Mountain.

TOP SECRET FILM LAB AND FILM STUDIO'S

_______________

Thanks for the images, Robin.... the source please?

David

*************

'Bill Miller' wrote

Jack

Jack, just answer the big question and stop trying to sell another copy of a book that has been a laughing stock around the JFK assassination community in recent years.

Bill Miller

___________________

open the book and read it, bill -- you've already got a copy, if nothing else I'm sure Josiah or Gary can help you out

Edited November 20, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

looks like your wandering over to my side of the 'IF' fence -- "...but regardless, if possible...", eh?

John Costella dealt with the LIFE "key frames" into print issue, might try reading the book...

I'll start with the latter comment first .... I have read the book, as well as other historians and researchers who actually knew the history of the Zfilm and Life Magazine's involvement in the matter and it was apparent that Costella didn't have his facts right at times. Costella was so far off in his approach that he didn't even understand why Life's prints were clearer than the work MPI created and yet he manages to always reach the same conclusion - now that is a mystery in itself.

The "if" side of the equation I give for arguments sake was presented to show that even if it was possible to alter any of the film copies and somehow magically make Zapruder's copy print take on whatever alterations needed (presumably while Z's copy was in his possession), then one has to go to the next phase and say what exactly was altered in the Zapruder film that is different than what is seen on the other assassination films and photographs ... I look for forward to hearing this explaination, which one will not find in the "HOAX" book.

Something to think about: I keep hearing it said that the technology was so advanced as to accomplish such an alteration feat in 1963/64, yet it is those same alleged masters of manipulation that merely punched a hole in the license plate of the car seen in the photograph taken at General Walker's house and who allegedly failed so miserably at manipulating the infamous Back Yard Photographs. So what we have is alterationist claiming these people could alter images so well as to fool even todays investigators in one instant and in the next breath they claim the alterations were so bad that their dirty work can be easily spotted. So which is it ????

Bill Miller

Edited November 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

'Robin Unger' wrote:

David.

I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory.

I do however, beleive the technology was around in the 50's to alter any film SHOULD the government have wanted too.

Hollywood California.

Look Out Mountain.

TOP SECRET FILM LAB AND FILM STUDIO'S

_______________

Thanks for the images, Robin.... the source please?

David

Hi David

The images are frames from a DVD called "Atomic film makers" behind the scenes.

On the same DVD is "Trinity and beyond" the atomic bomb movie.

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

I'll start with the latter comment first .... I have read the book, as well as other historians and researchers who actually knew the history of the Zfilm and Life Magazine's involvement in the matter and it was apparent that Costella didn't have his facts right at times.

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts

Costella was so far off in his approach that he didn't even understand why Life's prints were clearer than the work MPI created and yet he manages to always reach the same conclusion - now that is a mystery in itself.

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...

The "if" side of the equation I give for arguments sake was presented to show that even if it was possible to alter any of the film copies and somehow magically make Zapruder's copy print take on whatever alterations needed (presumably while Z's copy was in his possession), then one has to go to the next phase and say what exactly was altered in the Zapruder film that is different than what is seen on the other assassination films and photographs ... I look for forward to hearing this explaination, which one will not find in the "HOAX" book.

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent

Something to think about: I keep hearing it said that the technology was so advanced as to accomplish such an alteration feat in 1963/64, yet it is those same alleged masters of manipulation that merely punched a hole in the license plate of the car seen in the photograph taken at General Walker's house and who allegedly failed so miserably at manipulating the infamous Back Yard Photographs.

dgh: stills are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here. Your not NOW doubting the technology was available are you?

So what we have is alterationist claiming these people could alter images so well as to fool even todays investigators in one instant and in the next breath they claim the alterations were so bad that their dirty work can be easily spotted.

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better!

So which is it ????

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67?

Bill Miller

Edited November 20, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

Edited November 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory.

I do however, beleive the technology was around in the 50's to alter any film SHOULD the government have wanted too.

Hollywood California.

Look Out Mountain.

TOP SECRET FILM LAB AND FILM STUDIO'S

My investigation has shown to my satisfaction that in 1963, the Zapruder film could not have been altered so to be undetectable by todays standards of investigation. But regardless, if possible, then there has to be opportunity. I would like someone to tell me how the Government was able to alter film copies that they did not have in their possession? Zapruder kept Two films with him through Saturday where Life then gets possession of the original film so to make slides. By late Satuday night or early Sunday - Life Magazine is putting key frames into print and yet Zapruder still has a first generation copy in his possesion. If any of the other film copies were altered, then they sure didn't have ALL the copies, so tell me how it is that Zapruder's print still shows the EXACT same things as the other prints that some alleged could have been altered?? By Sundsy, if any Zfilm copies had been altered, then how could they know that other assassination films would not show up afterwards and expose the dirty deed??? Marie Muchmore's film for example was not known to exist until after 1PM Monday ... AFTER Life had put key frames into print, so how can an alteration supporter explain this all away and do it rationally and logically????

Bill Miller

Using the OFFICIAL STORY to posit NON-ALTERATION proof is a non-sequitur.

THE OFFICIAL STORY IS WHAT IS BEING QUESTIONED, so no amount of

quoting the official story is meaningful.

Jack

David.

I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory.

I do however, beleive the technology was around in the 50's to alter any film SHOULD the government have wanted too.

Hollywood California.

Look Out Mountain.

TOP SECRET FILM LAB AND FILM STUDIO'S

What is the date of the LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN PHOTOS? One clearly shows

MAINFRAME COMPUTERS WITH LARGE TAPE REELS. One shows what may

be an optical printer. This looks like a perfect facility to do Zfilm alteration.

Jack

When considering the mechanical inventions and accomplishments which occurred during the 20th century alone, I do not understand how "anyone" could state that there are mechanical functions, which are not contrary to the basic laws of physics, that could not be carried out when confronted by the best brains in the world !

I can imagine someone stating in 1906 that "Television" was an impossble theory. Or that the thought of gathering soil samples from the planet Mars was absolutely absurd.

Do we really think that figuring out how to alter a strip of 8mm Kodacolor is beyond the scope of human ingenuity ?

Think about this for a moment ! To me this is "Dark Ages" conjecture !

To my thinking, the "Initial" alteration involved only frame excision. A great deal of time passed before "more" needed to be accomplished.

I, of course, am a most avid believer in film alteration of the Zapruder film as well as possibly some photos. When considering the extremes taken to alter or LOSE other evidence in this investigation,

I feel that it is ridiculously naive to believe that this alteration was not "desirable" and a PRIORITY. These conspirators had access to the most advanced equipment and some of the sharpest minds in the entire world. We must not lose sight that this is the governments primary evidence which establishes shot timing, the number of shots, etc. etc.

Of course, every effort has been made and will continue to be made by those, willingly or not, who are supporting the government position on this matter.

I feel very strongly that modern man, can with enough effort, accomplish "anything" that is not in violation of the laws of the universe. I feel that altering 8mm film is not even "a test" of the caliber of this mechanical ingenuity !

This IMPOSSIBILITY THEORY, is and has been, the major stumbling block to progress in this investigation. If this film has been altered in any way.......the government position completely falls apart. Of course the "non alteration" case cannot be conceded without admitting that there was not only concpiracy.....but conspiracy at the highest levels of U.S. government.

Charlie Black

Excellent commentary, Charlie. The impossibility theory is the most common

argument I have received for more than 40 years, not only on JFK but also

Apollo, 911, RFK, MLK, etcetcetc. The most common version is it is IMPOSSIBLE

FOR VERY MANY PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED WITHOUT SOMEBODY TALKING.

Nonsense.

As in this thread...it is IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY DID NOT EXIST.

Nonsense.

or...it is IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINE.

Nonsense.

or...it is IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE GOVT DID NOT HAVE AND COULD NOT

ALTER ALL OF THE FILMS.

Bullxxxx.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Using the OFFICIAL STORY to posit NON-ALTERATION proof is a non-sequitur.

THE OFFICIAL STORY IS WHAT IS BEING QUESTIONED, so no amount of

quoting the official story is meaningful.

Jack, we are not talking about the OFFICIAL STORY, but rather the OFFICIAL FILMS AND PHOTOGRAPHS. Proof of alteration has come from people like yourself who will claim that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street while saying a photo showing their shadows coming from the south pasture is genuine. This fact alone shows the level of study that has been done in the name of Zfilm alteration. I once again offer an example below.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in

context.

Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to

make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was

not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had

far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then

I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was

a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used.

Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't

use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

it's ALWAYS idiotic and assinine when you aren't familiar with the material, techniques, technology and/or circa. expertise... you need another line, Willie. Again, I realize this is difficult stuff for you and the gang, keep plugging away, you'll get there....

[Craig Lamson]

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in

context.

Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to

make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was

not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had

far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then

I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was

a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used.

Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't

use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions.

Jack

"old opinions" eh? ROFLOMAO!! How old? LOL!

May 6 2006, 04:03 PM Post #3

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 2344

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

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.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

WANNA TRY AGAIN? LOL!

Months ago a forum naysayer or two (regarding possible alteration of the Zapruder film) questioned adequate expertise available to perform film special effects [pre-1963]. A few samples were requested, a list of 80+ films where significant special effects were performed within said film is below:

This page contains a list of the winners and nominees for the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences award (Oscar TM) in the Visual Effects category. Covering the period between 1939-1959 (only)

1939

The Rains Came (w). E.H. Hansen and Fred Sersen, 20th Century-Fox.

Gone With the Wind. John R. Cosgrove, Fred Albin and Arthur Johns. MGM.

Only Angeles Have Wings. Roy Advidson and Edwin C. Hahn, Columbia.

The Private Lives of Elisabeth and Essex. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Topper Takes a Trip. Roy Seawright, UA.

Union Pacific. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

The Wizard of Oz. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

1940

The Thief of Bagdad (w). Lawrence Butler and Jack Whitney, UA.

The Blue Bird. Fred Sersen and E. H. Hansen, 20th Century-Fox

Boom Town. A. Arnold Gillespie, and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Boys From Syracuse. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and Joeseph Lapis, Universal.

Dr. Cyclops. Farciot Edouart and Gordon Jennings, Paramount.

Foreign Correspondent. Paul Eagler and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

The Invisible Man Returns. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgecock, Universal.

The Long Voyage Home. R.T. Layton, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

One Million B.C. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

Rebecca. Jack Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Sea Hawk. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Swiss Family Robinson. Vernon L. Walker and John O. Aalberg.

Typhoon. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

Women in War. Howard J. Lydecker, William Bradford, Ellis J. Thackery and Herbert Norsch, Republic.

1941

I Wanted Wings (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop. Paramount.

Aloma of The South Seas. Faciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

Flight Command. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Invisible Woman. John Fulton, and John Hall, Universal.

The Sea Wolf. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

That Hamilton Woman. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Topper Returns. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

A Yank in the R.A.F. Fred Sersen and E.H. Hansen, 20th Century Fox.

1942

Reap the Wild Wind (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, William L. Pereira and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

The Black Swan. Fred Sersen, Roger Herman, and George Leverett, 20th Century Fox.

Desperate Journey. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Flying Tigers. Howard Lydecker and Daniel J. Bloomberg, Republic.

Invisible Agent. John Fulton and Bernard B Brown, Universal.

Jungle Book. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Mrs. Miniver. A. Arnold Gillespie, Warrn Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Navy Comes Through. Vernon L. Walker and James G. Stewart, RKO Radio.

One of Our Aircraft is Missing. Ronald Neame and C.C. Steven, UA.

The Pride of The Yankees. Jack Cosgrove, Ray Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

1943

Crash Dive (w). Fred Sersen and Roger Herman, 20th Century Fox.

Air Force. Hans Koenekamp, Rex Wimpy and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Bombardier. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

The North Star. Clarence Slifer, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

So Proudly We Hail. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Stand By for Action. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus and Michael Steinore, MBM.

1944

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, Warren Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Adventures of Mark Twain. Paul Detlefsen, John Crouse and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Days of Glory. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

Secret Command. David Allen, Ray Cory, Robert Wright, Russell Malmgren and Harry Kusnick, Columbia.

Since You Went Away. John R. Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Story of Dr. Wassell. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Wilson. Fred Sersen and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1945

Wonder Man (w). John Fulton and A.W. Johns, RKO Radio.

Captain Eddie. Fred Sersen, Sol Halprin, Roger Heman and Harry Leonard, 20th Century Fox.

Spellbound. Jack Cosgrove, UA.

They Were Expendable. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, R.A. MacDonald and Michael Steinore, MGM.

A Thousand and One Nights. L.W. Butler and Ray Bomba, Columbia.

1946

Blithe Spirit (w). Thomas Howard, UA.

A Stolen Life. William McGann and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

1947

Green Dolphin Street (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Warren Newcombe, Douglas Shearer and Michael Steinore, MGM.

Unconquered. Farciot Edouart, Devereux Jennings, Gordon Jennings, Wallace Kelly, Paul Lerpae and George Dutton, Paramount.

1948

Portrait of Jennie (w). Paul Eagler, J. McMillan Johnson, Russell Shearman, Clarence Slifer, Charles Freeman and James G. Stewart, Selznick Releasing Organization.

Deep Waters, Ralph Hammeras, Fred Sersen, Edward Snyder and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1949

Mighty Joe Young (w). RKO Radio.

Tulsa. Eagle-Lion.

1950

Destination Moon (w). Eagle-Lion.

Samson and Delilah. Paramount.

1951

When Worlds Collide (w). Paramount.

1952

Plymouth Adventure (w). MGM.

1953

The War of the Worlds (w). Paramount.

1954

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (w). Walt Disney Studios.

Hell and High Water. 20th Century Fox.

Them! Warner Bros.

1955

The Bridges At Toko-Ri (w). Paramount.

The Dam Busters. Warner Bros.

The Rains of Ranchipur. 20th Century Fox.

1956

The Ten Commandments (w). John Fulton, Paramount.

Forbidden Planet. A. Arnold Gillespie, Irving Ries and Wesley C. Miller, MGM.

1957

The Enemy Below (w). Walter Rossi, 20th Century Fox.

The Spirit of St.Louis. Louis Lichtenfield, Warner Bros.

1958

Tom Thumb (w). Tom Howard, MGM.

Torpedo Run. A. Arnold Gillespie and Harold Humbrock, MGM.

What a major strawman David! The question is not IF it was possible to create special effects on film, but RATHER could those special effects hold up to the level of detailed study applied to the Zapruder film.

When you can deal with that question get back to us.

[David G. Healy]

dgh: by all means have the appropriate PhD. fill us in on mistaken facts [/color]

dgh: you never even heard of a optical film printer till HOAX made print, so please tell us his approach...[/color]

dgh: then by-all-means review my chapter or find the appropriate website where the entire presentation sits... just view the pictures I'm sure thats sufficent[/color]

dgh:still are a piece of cake to alter, now motion, that's a different story -- stay on point here [/color]

dgh:what we have here is more shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving and extreme difficulty dealing with other viewpoint. We do however understand the difficulty wrapping ones arms around revisionist history, just keep coming back -- it does get better![/color]

dgh:I go with the Z-film is altered, you in particular have shown (me) nothing to the contrary...

David, these are the same idiotic say-nothing responses you always give. This forum has an archived database where people can read the responses that have been given to you, thus repeating them will not benefit anyone. For instance, your 'nutty comment about cake and motion is just another example of you playing games rather than addressing the facts in an intelligent way. Jack White has said that to alter the Zfilm - "STILLS" would need to be made, thus 'stills' are exactly what we are talking about here. And do I have to remind you that it didn't take a Ph.D. to know that Moorman's photo was filmed for television not 30 minutes following the shooting and Jack and the Ph.D., because they obviously were not aware of this, screwed the pooch when they claimed Zapruder and Sitzman were added to the pedestal at a later time. For anyone to ignore this and pretend that one needs a Ph.D. to be capable of properly researching these matters is totally asinine and somewhat dishonest in light of the comment you make above which says, "I go with the Z-film is altered" ... because you have admitted more than once to these forum members that you have no proof of Zfilm alteration and/or you have not seen any proof of Zfilm alteration, thus to state the opposite now shows that you merely say whatever you need to say to get by for the moment.

btw, I can post another 60 or so commercial film release *special effects* examples - released right up to Nov 20th 1963 if you like, also... has the in-camera Z-film been laced up in a projector **and ran** since, say 1964? 65-66-67? [/color] [/b]

And I bet that in each case, just as with the Mary Poppin's movie mentioned in "Hoax" that anyone can find the signs of alteration that was done in each film. Examples of the Mary Poppins movie have already been displayed on this forum.

Bill Miller

If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in

context.

Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to

make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was

not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had

far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then

I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was

a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used.

Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't

use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions.

Jack

"old opinions" eh? ROFLOMAO!! How old? LOL!

May 6 2006, 04:03 PM Post #3

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 2344

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

Miller obviously is ignorant of how movies are made!

It is IGNORANT to suggest that the Zfilm alteration was DONE DIRECTLY ON KODACHROME!

Nobody but a dunce would think that!

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.

Complicating it somewhat were the intrasprocket images...but Costella explains that

nicely.

Jack

WANNA TRY AGAIN? LOL!

Months ago a forum naysayer or two (regarding possible alteration of the Zapruder film) questioned adequate expertise available to perform film special effects [pre-1963]. A few samples were requested, a list of 80+ films where significant special effects were performed within said film is below:

This page contains a list of the winners and nominees for the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences award (Oscar TM) in the Visual Effects category. Covering the period between 1939-1959 (only)

1939

The Rains Came (w). E.H. Hansen and Fred Sersen, 20th Century-Fox.

Gone With the Wind. John R. Cosgrove, Fred Albin and Arthur Johns. MGM.

Only Angeles Have Wings. Roy Advidson and Edwin C. Hahn, Columbia.

The Private Lives of Elisabeth and Essex. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Topper Takes a Trip. Roy Seawright, UA.

Union Pacific. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

The Wizard of Oz. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

1940

The Thief of Bagdad (w). Lawrence Butler and Jack Whitney, UA.

The Blue Bird. Fred Sersen and E. H. Hansen, 20th Century-Fox

Boom Town. A. Arnold Gillespie, and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Boys From Syracuse. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and Joeseph Lapis, Universal.

Dr. Cyclops. Farciot Edouart and Gordon Jennings, Paramount.

Foreign Correspondent. Paul Eagler and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

The Invisible Man Returns. John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgecock, Universal.

The Long Voyage Home. R.T. Layton, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, UA.

One Million B.C. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

Rebecca. Jack Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Sea Hawk. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Swiss Family Robinson. Vernon L. Walker and John O. Aalberg.

Typhoon. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Loren Ryder, Paramount.

Women in War. Howard J. Lydecker, William Bradford, Ellis J. Thackery and Herbert Norsch, Republic.

1941

I Wanted Wings (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop. Paramount.

Aloma of The South Seas. Faciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

Flight Command. A.Arnold Gillespie and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Invisible Woman. John Fulton, and John Hall, Universal.

The Sea Wolf. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

That Hamilton Woman. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Topper Returns. Roy Seawright and Elmer Raguse, UA.

A Yank in the R.A.F. Fred Sersen and E.H. Hansen, 20th Century Fox.

1942

Reap the Wild Wind (w). Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, William L. Pereira and Louis Mesenkop, Paramount.

The Black Swan. Fred Sersen, Roger Herman, and George Leverett, 20th Century Fox.

Desperate Journey. Byron Haskin and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Flying Tigers. Howard Lydecker and Daniel J. Bloomberg, Republic.

Invisible Agent. John Fulton and Bernard B Brown, Universal.

Jungle Book. Lawrence Butler and William H. Wilmarth, UA.

Mrs. Miniver. A. Arnold Gillespie, Warrn Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Navy Comes Through. Vernon L. Walker and James G. Stewart, RKO Radio.

One of Our Aircraft is Missing. Ronald Neame and C.C. Steven, UA.

The Pride of The Yankees. Jack Cosgrove, Ray Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

1943

Crash Dive (w). Fred Sersen and Roger Herman, 20th Century Fox.

Air Force. Hans Koenekamp, Rex Wimpy and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Bombardier. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

The North Star. Clarence Slifer, R.O. Binger and Thomas T. Moulton, RKO Radio.

So Proudly We Hail. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Stand By for Action. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus and Michael Steinore, MBM.

1944

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, Warren Newcombe and Douglas Shearer, MGM.

The Adventures of Mark Twain. Paul Detlefsen, John Crouse and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

Days of Glory. Vernon L. Walker, James G. Stewart and Roy Granville, RKO Radio.

Secret Command. David Allen, Ray Cory, Robert Wright, Russell Malmgren and Harry Kusnick, Columbia.

Since You Went Away. John R. Cosgrove and Arthur Johns, UA.

The Story of Dr. Wassell. Farciot Edouart, Gordon Jennings, and George Dutton, Paramount.

Wilson. Fred Sersen and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1945

Wonder Man (w). John Fulton and A.W. Johns, RKO Radio.

Captain Eddie. Fred Sersen, Sol Halprin, Roger Heman and Harry Leonard, 20th Century Fox.

Spellbound. Jack Cosgrove, UA.

They Were Expendable. A. Arnold Gillespie, Donald Jahraus, R.A. MacDonald and Michael Steinore, MGM.

A Thousand and One Nights. L.W. Butler and Ray Bomba, Columbia.

1946

Blithe Spirit (w). Thomas Howard, UA.

A Stolen Life. William McGann and Nathan Levinson, Warner Bros.

1947

Green Dolphin Street (w). A. Arnold Gillespie, Warren Newcombe, Douglas Shearer and Michael Steinore, MGM.

Unconquered. Farciot Edouart, Devereux Jennings, Gordon Jennings, Wallace Kelly, Paul Lerpae and George Dutton, Paramount.

1948

Portrait of Jennie (w). Paul Eagler, J. McMillan Johnson, Russell Shearman, Clarence Slifer, Charles Freeman and James G. Stewart, Selznick Releasing Organization.

Deep Waters, Ralph Hammeras, Fred Sersen, Edward Snyder and Roger Heman, 20th Century Fox.

1949

Mighty Joe Young (w). RKO Radio.

Tulsa. Eagle-Lion.

1950

Destination Moon (w). Eagle-Lion.

Samson and Delilah. Paramount.

1951

When Worlds Collide (w). Paramount.

1952

Plymouth Adventure (w). MGM.

1953

The War of the Worlds (w). Paramount.

1954

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (w). Walt Disney Studios.

Hell and High Water. 20th Century Fox.

Them! Warner Bros.

1955

The Bridges At Toko-Ri (w). Paramount.

The Dam Busters. Warner Bros.

The Rains of Ranchipur. 20th Century Fox.

1956

The Ten Commandments (w). John Fulton, Paramount.

Forbidden Planet. A. Arnold Gillespie, Irving Ries and Wesley C. Miller, MGM.

1957

The Enemy Below (w). Walter Rossi, 20th Century Fox.

The Spirit of St.Louis. Louis Lichtenfield, Warner Bros.

1958

Tom Thumb (w). Tom Howard, MGM.

Torpedo Run. A. Arnold Gillespie and Harold Humbrock, MGM.

What a major strawman David! The question is not IF it was possible to create special effects on film, but RATHER could those special effects hold up to the level of detailed study applied to the Zapruder film.

When you can deal with that question get back to us.

rotflmfao! the *strawmen* around here are weak kneed sisters posing as researchers... deliver me access to the extent Zapruder in-camera original, we'll have a discussion, till then sitdown you haven't a clue.

[Craig Lamson]

rotflmfao! the *strawmen* around here are weak kneed sisters posing as researchers... deliver me access to the extent Zapruder in-camera original, we'll have a discussion, till then sitdown you haven't a clue.

Ah yes, as I thought..David is stuck again without a clue....

Attempting to change the subject when at a loss for an argument is such a lame tactic David, but its one you use constantly.

Get back to us when you can answer my original quetion.

[Bill Miller]

If you continue to quote me, please do so correctly and in

context.

Years ago when I said the way I would alter the film is to

make prints, alter the prints, and rephotograph them...I was

not familiar with how "hollywood" special effects people had

far advanced techninques using optical printers, etc. Back then

I was saying HOW I WOULD DO THE ALTERATION, and it was

a very valid concept I presented which was sometimes used.

Quoting "old opinions" out of context is bad manners. Don't

use me to bolster your uninformed conclusions.

Jack

YEARS AGO! Jack, you were still saying it in May of this year. You said and I quote: "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." The date of the thread where I obtained your post was in a May 2006 thread that can be found on this very forum.

Bill Miller

[Ed O'Hagan]

(1) Assuming that every single attempt up to now , to show that the film was altered, has failed, would that be grounds for concluding that it is 100% authentic ? YES/NO

(2) Are you prepared to explain how you know with absolute certainty that the film was not altered ? YES/NO

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank,

Generally speaking I find your comments to be both appropriate and helpful. You observed correctly that one cannot prove a negative. That is precisely the point I was making, since it highlights the sheer impossibility of anyone being able to respond with a YES to question (2). Nevertheless, there are those who persist in so doing. To put a stop to that kind of nonsense, could doubtless be classified as being wishful thinking, but that in fact was why I posed the questions.

You said:

<Your questions create a logical fallacy in several ways.>

Comment: Not so. You are referring to ' questions '. That is precisely what I was avoiding, namely putting (1) and (2) together to frame some kind of syllogism. The questions can be answered individually without compromising oneself in any way. The logical fallacy is accomplished by those who respond with YES to both questions. Further, I notice that you and others have completely avoided responding to (1). May I take it that you would respond to it with a NO? .... and, yes, both questions are leading questions, but that excuses nobody from having to face up to having to address them, and each individually. Certainly a NO response to both questions was being implied, or if you prefer 'forced' , but that was both logical and absolutey essential , in order to show that even if one rejects/cannot accept alterationist arguments, nevertheless that does not justify the conclusion that the Zapruder is authentic, nor as Charles Black so eloquently implies , does it preclude the liklihood of the alterationist position being verified in the future.

<First, you have created a false dilemma by forcing only a yes/no answer when there are obviously alternatives.>

Comment: If by ' false dilemma' you are implying that some kind of dissembling was being employed, then once again your interpretation is unfortunately being based on the assumption that I was attempting to establish a common 'middle' where none existed. For example the 'B' in deducing that if A=B and B=C, then A=C . In fact, as I stated above, I was arguing the case for separating/not combining the two questions, and thereby attempting to ensure that they would not be interpreted as being major and minor premises of convoluted thinking.

<Secondly, you are shifting the burden of proof, incorrectly, away from the claimant. In essence, the logic goes like: "I believe the z-film was altered. Prove to me that it wasn't." This not only incorrectly shifts the burden of proof, but also requires proving a negative.>

Comment : I had already considered the 'Prove to me that it wasn't.' aspect' prior to posting the questions. Under the circumstances, it is a perfectly legitimate consideration, and not with the intention of transferring what you describe as being the burden of proof, but most certainly to increase awareness of the fact that it is absolutely impossible to respond to a statement which should never have been made in the first place. Once again I am drawing attention to the fact that not alone is the anti-alterationist position untenable, but also that it is nothing more than what it's very name implies. It negates/rejects the claims of dedicated and honest reporters , and then proceeds to defend the Zapruder film as being the genuine article. There is no "B' linkage between their (1) and (2) YES positions , but still they persist in making the inference. ( I also addressed this aspect in the opening paragraph.)

<It is, obviously, perfectly acceptable to call any given theory into question. However, when calling into question a theory that has by in large been accepted, the burden of proof falls squarely on the claimant.

Comment: What I am doing is quite the opposite. I am calling into question the CT anti-alterationist faction who apparently prefer the 'doppelganger' role of 'running with the hare while hunting with the hounds'. When it comes right down to it, their position re the Zapruder film is exactly the same as the LN position. Both hold it to be authentic. How can anyone justifiably claim to be a CT subscriber, claim that the assassination was based on a conspiracy which was then covered-up by the WC, and then naively conclude that while the WC was lying on the one hand, the Zapruder film is a testimony to truth on the other. The only reason that the film was ever made available for public viewing, was to add support to the LN mythology, and for no other reason.

To conclude: It's quite simple really. There is no possible way that (2) can we answered YES, for (2) could equally well have been written ' How do you know that the film was not 'doctored' ? ... as you correctly observed when you referred to the impossibility of proving a negative proposition. In other words, those who proclaim that the film is 100% genuine, would be well advised to admit that logically they have no way of knowing one way or the other, and so, to mend their ways, all they have to do is respond to (1) with an obviously logical truthful NO. The question is... Is there one of them with sufficient intestinal fortitude to admit it ? Therein lies the challenge to preserving integrity.

Just wait and see !

[Guest Mark Valenti]

To conclude: It's quite simple really. There is no possible way that (2) can we answered YES, for (2) could equally well have been written ' How do you know that the film was not 'doctored' ? ... as you correctly observed when you referred to the impossibility of proving a negative proposition. In other words, those who proclaim that the film is 100% genuine, would be well advised to admit that logically they have no way of knowing one way or the other, and so, to mend their ways, all they have to do is respond to (1) with an obviously logical truthful NO. The question is... Is there one of them with sufficient intestinal fortitude to admit it ? Therein lies the challenge to preserving integrity.

Just wait and see !

Ed, I believe the film is authentic. But because I wasn't there, because people sometimes lie, because there are some questions that in my view remain unanswered, I acknowledge the possibility exists that someone might have tampered with it in some way. I would also add that, in my opinion, nobody has disovered any tampering to a degree that would be meaningful in a court of law.