Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[Bill Miller]

Also, you wrote: "The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts'"

The above remark is a sign of ignorance concerning what is actually being claimed in the name of Zfilm alteration. If I understand the comment correctly, Ed says that if a claim of alteration is questioned, then the claim must be true. For instance, the Mary Poppins example clearly shows that 1964 technology did not allow Disney Studios to produce a flawless film alteration. Another example was the rejection that someone had merely painted in Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. We went to the NBC footage and found that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination while Mary's photo was still in her possession and it shows the pedestal to have two people standing on it, thus the claim someone addd Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal was pure hogwash due to a lack of knowledge of the photographical record. So in the final analysis, it is Ed who has no grounds for saying what he did other than he simply is oblivious to the evidence that has been presented to date.

Bill Miller

Edited November 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hello Stephen

You are absolutely correct ! So I will alter my question. Could the best technology on earth NOT alter in an undectable way this strip of 8mm.

When I seriously study this film, I have for years been overwhelmed with the totality of what this film DOES NOT SHOW. The only thing that I know for certain regarding this film is that something strange happened to JFK's head. I know that their was an unnatural "head snap" that was not seen by the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses. A head snap that ballistics experts agree that should not have been caused by a bullet impact or even two bullet impacts. I do not see JFK FALLING FORWARD AND TO THE SIDE. I see Jackie making jerky movements on to the trunk of the car. I see Jackie moving so quickly out from under JFK's head that it must have produced further damage. I see Clint Hill doing some jerky things. I can't tell if the limo stopped or did not. I cannot with the naked eye, detect it slowing down. I do see JFK reacting to what appears to be throat trauma or something choking him. I do not know for certain when JBC was struck. I do not know how many bullets struck either JBC or JFK.

When I review this piece of "evidence", I realize that this "evidence" sheds absolutely no light on the shooting. I might add that it creates more questions than it answers. I therefore think that I know why this piece of "nothing" bears nearly the full burden of carrying the single gunman theory.

It has been argued with authority that this film has flaws and shows signs of alteration. It has been strongly proven that what is seen on this film is not what the Dealey Plaza witnesses who testified on the afternoon of 11/22 stated. The wound depicted in this film is neither what the Parkland medical staff reported nor what is seen in some of the autopsy pictures.

I do not place ANY value in certain "experts" telling me that they see no evidence of film tampering. For all that I know, an entire new film MAY have been created. I am however certain of one thing....what is seen on the Zapruder film is not what was reported in Dealey Plaza "on that afternoon". Is one piece of film possibly distorted, or do you feel that all of those witnesses, who testified, independently of each others testimony, were COINCIDENTALLY all mistaken....as were the medical staff at Parkland, and Clint Hill, and Sibert and Oneil, and the enlisted men who were technicians at Bethesda. during the autopsy.

Do we really believe that the BEST EVIDENCE for the single gunman is the theoretical "IMPOSSIBILITY" of flawlessly altering this film. Get serious. This piece of celluloid is very far from flawless in its present state.

My question remains unanswered. I feel that it remains so because a "non ridiculous" answer cannot be put forth !

I am sorry if I have further bored those of you, who thru the years, have been so relunctant to answer my questions.

Charlie Black

I am sorry if I have further bored those of you

Perhaps others are bored with clear and concise discussions of the problem.

However, I for one find that it is a quite refreshing breath of intelligent discussion of the subject matter.

To date, the circumstantial evidence of some form of alteration to the Z-film has been quite substantial.

However, the "missing link" in the chain has, and continues to be the WHY? of these actions, and most logically minded individuals refuse to accept the multiple assassin/body kidnapping/giant government participation & coverup theories.

Although one would assume that the bottom of the refuse pile in assassination theories was long ago reached with such concepts as the "body snatch & alteration" theory, any observer would note that much of the research community continues to sift through the same refuse as has been dug through for years.

40+ years afterwards and still sifting the same garbage, should tell prudent persons something!

Therefore, when someone presents the logic of the WHY?, which does not include the frequent asinine theories, then an understanding of the necessity to slightly alter the Z-film also comes into perspective.

[Michael Hogan]

Therefore, when someone presents the logic of the WHY?......

WHY would ex-Marine and outstanding shooter Lee Oswald select an inferior rifle that could be traced to him?

[David G. Healy]

Also, you wrote: "The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts'"

The above remark is a sign of ignorance concerning what is actually being claimed in the name of Zfilm alteration. If I understand the comment correctly, Ed says that if a claim of alteration is questioned, then the claim must be true. For instance, the Mary Poppins example clearly shows that 1964 technology did not allow Disney Studios to produce a flawless film alteration. Another example was the rejection that someone had merely painted in Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. We went to the NBC footage and found that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination while Mary's photo was still in her possession and it shows the pedestal to have two people standing on it, thus the claim someone addd Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal was pure hogwash due to a lack of knowledge of the photographical record. So in the final analysis, it is Ed who has no grounds for saying what he did other than he simply is oblivious to the evidence that has been presented to date.

Bill Miller

dgh: wow, you're working in overdrive this holiday season.... LOL.

Till forensic testing is done on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original film currently housed at NARA, you can post a million words in support of the films validity, be my guest. BEST you can do is maintain *status quo*

Who added Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal? Hell, no one can positively ID either of the two [if it is one, two or three who appear on the pedestal...] You're either *daft*, or drinking too much -- and further, who said Disney Studio's produced flawless animation? Only the naive think Disney Studios is the only place on earth [circa. 1963] where film special effects could be applied/performed?

You're avoiding like the plague the 80 or so commercially released film examples I posted above, get out the minions...

BTW, I need to know where you obtained the Mary Poppins film frames you posted, the source please...? I've asked you this multiple times, NO answer-what's the big deal?

Edited November 24, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Charles Black]

Simce I have admitted to my ignorance in several previous posts, I am comfortable in continuing to ask my "ignorant" question, which no one has yet undertaken to answer.

I am not particularly interested in theoretical logic, circular logic, or in posting questions in which one must "prove a negative" in order to reply. My belief / hypothesis / statement is extremely simple.

Based on the technological advances which I have both read of and witnessed during the 20th century, ranging from simple flight to space travel, the cloning of animals and human parts,and the development of means to destroy the very planet upon which we live....the word "impossible", in my thinking, must be given considerable thought.

I cannot imagine any reasonably educated, unbiased, and cognitively unimpaired individual, actually believing that in the year 1963.....if given access the available brainpower, unlimited resources, and dedicated effort.....that there was not only a group that could produce an undetectable alteration of a piece of 8mm film, but there was literally no mechanical problem on earth that could not have been successfully undertaken.

The discussion of mechanical "impossibilities" has eroded into a fairy tale. Solution has become only the ability to combine the "correct thinking" with the "correct materials"!

Both were available in 1963, and long before. This "impossbility" argument was a lame duck well before it was ever introduced.

There is no way that I can view the extant Zapruder film and do nothing other than admire it's introduction, as probably the one "greatest propaganda hoax", since the beginning of recorded history.

When this gross abortion is finally set aside, the simplicity and brilliance of this Coup d' Etat will be long studied.

Charlie Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Therefore, when someone presents the logic of the WHY?......

WHY would ex-Marine and outstanding shooter Lee Oswald select an inferior rifle that could be traced to him?

A. Had he been in possession of a several hundred dollar quality rifle, I would suppose that a few flags would have been raised that could not be easily put down.

B. Since the Carcano is, for all considerations, virtually untraceable by serial#, and was utilized throughout the gun trade and wartime industry, and the fact that it had been around for some 50+ years in which the availability of replicate/duplicate parts was easily obtainable, what better weapon to confuse the trail.

C. In event that Massad Ayoob's research* is correct, then the "targeting" of Klein's Sporting Goods as the provider of this weapon, effectively pointed a finger at a CIA Front Company. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

*Since Mr. Ayoob's discovery of this was an event which even he did not appear to grasp the significance of, it must be assumed that it is correct. And, although these records most probably no longer exist, Mr. Ayoob could inform one exactly where to go to verify this. All of which points to credibility.

D. Since the ammunition utilized in the assassination was some form of sanctioned US Government Contract, this again pointed the finger at some shape/form of US semi-covert operation. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

E. The Carcano represents an easily dis-assembled weapon of an accuracy equitable to the US. Military m-14, (when coupled with quality ammo), for which there were massive amounts of the weapon available without difficulty.

F. Not to mention the "pointing" of the finger away from the single largest provider of military arms in the business. (See John Tower's second wife's family tree)

[Bill Miller]

Till forensic testing is done on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original film currently housed at NARA, you can post a million words in support of the films validity, be my guest. BEST you can do is maintain *status quo*

David, the Zfilm has been examined by more than one expert in one field and has been declared to be the camera original. The points made in favor of those findings have seemingly been over your head or not satisfactory for your level of paranoia, so who will scientifically test the film, David? The reason I point this out is that what ever findings are discovered in relation to the film being authentic - all someone like yourself has to do is then question the veracity of the examiner. It's a never ending game to be played by people who have nothing better to do IMO. Now, valid points that have been raised must now be answered before one can even get to your position over film testing and that is for you to explain how the alterations took place (the old fashion way) and how were they done so not to be detectable by modern standards. It was the smartest thing Zapruder could have done when he had copies made before anyhing could get wrecked and it was even smarter that he kept the best copy print with him. So please tell this forum how one can alter a copy of a print that they never had in their possession???????????? Your position takes on the notion that it didn't matter if Zapruder had his copy with him and I am telling you that to have a cause of probable action, you must first have opportunity because after all - it was you who mentioned what a court of law would think when looking at the allegations of alteration.

Who added Zapruder and Sitzman to the pedestal? Hell, nobody can positively ID either of the two [if it is one, two or three] who appear on the pedestal... You're *daft*, or drinking too much -- further, who said Disney Studio's produced flawless animation? Only the naieve think Disney Studiosis the only place on earth [circa. 1963] film special effects could be applied/performed?

Disney Studio was the best of the best, David ... and Disney Studio was the who was mentioned in the book you keep telling people to read. It is your evidence that has fallen short, so show a hint of class and admit it. (Oh that is right, you have admitted it more than once, then denied it, then admitted it, and then denied it once again despite there being a forum archive recording your past statements.)

You're avoiding like the plague the 80 or so commercially released film examples I posted above, get out the minions...

To date, you have not shown that any of your examples has gone undetected to modern scientific examination. If you have such information, then by all means feel free to share it. It is not my job to let someone like yourself to just throw names out there in hopes something sticks.

BTW, I need to know where you obtained the Mary Poppins film frames you posted, the source please...? I've asked you this multiple times, NO answer-what's the big deal?[/color]

The people who wrote the book "Hoax" and mentioned the Mary Poppins film is who you should be asking for that information. Once you get their copy, then you can do what I did to test the accuracy of your use of that particular movie.

Bill Miller

Edited November 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Therefore, when someone presents the logic of the WHY?......

WHY would ex-Marine and outstanding shooter Lee Oswald select an inferior rifle that could be traced to him?

A. Had he been in possession of a several hundred dollar quality rifle, I would suppose that a few flags would have been raised that could not be easily put down.

B. Since the Carcano is, for all considerations, virtually untraceable by serial#, and was utilized throughout the gun trade and wartime industry, and the fact that it had been around for some 50+ years in which the availability of replicate/duplicate parts was easily obtainable, what better weapon to confuse the trail.

C. In event that Massad Ayoob's research* is correct, then the "targeting" of Klein's Sporting Goods as the provider of this weapon, effectively pointed a finger at a CIA Front Company. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

*Since Mr. Ayoob's discovery of this was an event which even he did not appear to grasp the significance of, it must be assumed that it is correct. And, although these records most probably no longer exist, Mr. Ayoob could inform one exactly where to go to verify this. All of which points to credibility.

D. Since the ammunition utilized in the assassination was some form of sanctioned US Government Contract, this again pointed the finger at some shape/form of US semi-covert operation. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

E. The Carcano represents an easily dis-assembled weapon of an accuracy equitable to the US. Military m-14, (when coupled with quality ammo), for which there were massive amounts of the weapon available without difficulty.

F. Not to mention the "pointing" of the finger away from the single largest provider of military arms in the business. (See John Tower's second wife's family tree)

In event that Massad Ayoob's research* is correct, then the "targeting" of Klein's Sporting Goods as the provider of this weapon, effectively pointed a finger at a CIA Front Company. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

I seriously doubt that Massad Ayoob & Gerry Hemming have co-conspired in regards to the Klein's Sporting Goods issue.

http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec12.htm

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS - MARCH 1963

On March 12, 1963, OSWALD ordered a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a scope sight from the Klein's Sporting Goods Company of Chicago, Illinois, under the name of A.J. Hidell. HEMMING told this researcher: "We had reason to find out about Klein's Sporting Goods, their delivery times and the whole xxxxing thing. Whenever we wanted to tell people about gear, we referred them to Klein's. I drafted a form. The FBI complained in 1961 that we were telling people to go Klein's for their gear.

"Let's presume that he's been guided to order the weapon. Why would he have a weapon? He's got to go to a xxxxing training camp. He's got to practice marksmanship. Any number of things. He had to show some skill with a weapon to the right people." HEMMING said he saw an FBI document about his connection to Klein's Sporting Goods while visiting the Miami FBI Field Office. HEMMING alleged that S.A. Robert Dwyer allowed him to go through the FBI's file on him. This researcher was unable to locate this document. Wallace Shanley: "Dwyer had constant letters of reprimand and was constantly on the edge of being fired. He was a renegade, but he was brilliant." As stated, on HEMMING'S CIA employment application he listed "Klein's 227 W. Washington St. Chicago, Ill." as a financial reference.

HEMMING was asked if this was the same Klein's Sporting Goods where OSWALD ordered his rifle. HEMMING told this researcher: "I don't know what you're looking at. How the xxxx would I know? Maybe they're trying to set me up? I don't know. Send me a copy. I had nothing to do with Klein's. My brothers had a credit thing with Klein's. It's a catalogue that covers sporting goods, clothing, the whole thing. I had a fat brother that bought fat man's clothes from them. It's probably the same Klein's where OSWALD got his rifle from. I didn't put nothing down for references. They told me what the xxxx was going to go on the son-of-a-bitch. There was no Klein's on there. I didn't put Simpson, Spiegel or Klein's. I don't see who the xxxx put that in there. They might have put it in there last week, how the xxxx would I know? Nobody's that xxxxing stupid. You're telling me honestly that somebody put that, linked with my name? That just tells me a story. Ain't nothing new to me. I can give you more damaging xxxx than that, that I know is in the xxxxing files. They're worried, because I know who put it in the xxxxing file, and I know where their xxxxing children live. And they're scared xxxxless. They'd like to call a truce with me. I know what credit references I gave. CIA proprietary Andrew Hamilton fund which I drew $2,500 out of when I came back from Cuba and a couple of others. Number one, Klein's ain't got a credit operation. They have a lay-away-plan like Sears. Spiegel's the same way. You don't give those as credit references because they're not in the credit business. That tells me somebody didn't do their research. Now somebody else put something else down that tells me a xxxxing story. I doubt it, but I'd like to see it. I can go out and print up my own CIA forms and rubber stamps. I can create better documents then they can. And because it's post-1982, they're looking at ten years for doing that xxxx. If it's worth ten years to link me to something, good. And I'll put their xxxx ass away, and I'll know where their kids live."

After HEMMING was confronted with documentation of his connection to Klein's Sporting Goods he denied having told me that he had referred people there: "You transcribed the tape wrong. I had no dealings with Klein's. The FBI was after me for Neutrality Act violations. That's why I saw the inside of so many jails then. I was arrested half a dozen times. I would never tell people where to get weapons."

ANALYSIS

HEMMING goofed when he used Klein's Sporting Goods as a reference in his CIA employment application and then had OSWALD order his weapon from them. If you want to see HEMMING'S application for employment with the CIA and OSWALD'S invoice from Klein's Sporting Goods, double click here. [Hemapp.JPEG] After I brought this to HEMMING'S attention he lost his temper and threatened the children of CIA employees.

OSWALD had the weapon mailed to Post Office Box 2915, Dallas. After November

[Michael Hogan]

Therefore, when someone presents the logic of the WHY?......

WHY would ex-Marine and outstanding shooter Lee Oswald select an inferior rifle that could be traced to him?

A. Had he been in possession of a several hundred dollar quality rifle, I would suppose that a few flags would have been raised that could not be easily put down.

B. Since the Carcano is, for all considerations, virtually untraceable by serial#, and was utilized throughout the gun trade and wartime industry, and the fact that it had been around for some 50+ years in which the availability of replicate/duplicate parts was easily obtainable, what better weapon to confuse the trail.

C. In event that Massad Ayoob's research* is correct, then the "targeting" of Klein's Sporting Goods as the provider of this weapon, effectively pointed a finger at a CIA Front Company. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

*Since Mr. Ayoob's discovery of this was an event which even he did not appear to grasp the significance of, it must be assumed that it is correct. And, although these records most probably no longer exist, Mr. Ayoob could inform one exactly where to go to verify this. All of which points to credibility.

D. Since the ammunition utilized in the assassination was some form of sanctioned US Government Contract, this again pointed the finger at some shape/form of US semi-covert operation. (See "Incoming/Run for Cover")

E. The Carcano represents an easily dis-assembled weapon of an accuracy equitable to the US. Military m-14, (when coupled with quality ammo), for which there were massive amounts of the weapon available without difficulty.

F. Not to mention the "pointing" of the finger away from the single largest provider of military arms in the business. (See John Tower's second wife's family tree)

The "logic of the why" is conspicuously absent.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Perhaps David & others would appreciate it if this topic were brought back onto it's tracks.

Being the proverbial "Doubting Thomas", I have always found it most curious that:

Time/Life could produce a 35mm slide from the Zapruder film which had great clarity and definition.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0112b.htm

When in fact (reportedly), in it's original state, the camera original did not contain such clarity and definition.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z188.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0012a.htm

Question for David???----Exactly how is it that one makes a clear slide from a "fuzzy" original?

[Charles Black]

Well....since NO ONE will once again address my question after having probably asked it 100 or more times......I take it that my speculation is apparently correct !

Once again....there were chosen persons in 1963, who with their intellectual skills, their unlimited sources of technology, financing and general support, apparently produced on the Zapruder film a most clever absence of anything of factual evidentiary value. In addition to this, they did so, as some claim, although it is highly disputed, that these clever manipulations are not discernible to this day.

There is no meaningful reason for me to continue to post to this thread, as I can do nothing more than repeat what I have already re-repeated !

Charlie Black

Edited November 25, 2006 by Charles Black

[David G. Healy]

Perhaps David & others would appreciate it if this topic were brought back onto it's tracks.

Being the proverbial "Doubting Thomas", I have always found it most curious that:

Time/Life could produce a 35mm slide from the Zapruder film which had great clarity and definition.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0112b.htm

When in fact (reportedly), in it's original state, the camera original did not contain such clarity and definition.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z188.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0012a.htm

Question for David???----Exactly how is it that one makes a clear slide from a "fuzzy" original?

a] Time-Life could not produce a 35mm slide of a 8mm Z-frame with MORE clarity-definition than the in-camera original 8mm frame, impossible...

b] then the camera original reviewed/scrutinized was NOT the ACTUAL in-camera...

c] one doesn't print a "clear", read in-focus, 35mm frame from a "fuzzy" 8mm in-camera original frame...

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...

[Frank Agbat]

Well....since NO ONE will once again address my question after having probably asked it 100 or more times......I take it that my speculation is apparently correct !

...

Charlie Black

Charlie,

I could list numerous things that could simply have not been achieved in 1963, regardless of how much time and money was invested or how many smart people were involved. The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963... and the list goes on and on.

Yes, there are times in human history when things are impossible...

Also, even if the ability to do a given thing DID exist at a given time, that doesn't mean that it was done...

[Bill Miller]

Well....since NO ONE will once again address my question after having probably asked it 100 or more times......I take it that my speculation is apparently correct !

Charles, either you cannot understand the answer because this exact thing has been addressed in several threads already or you have chosen not to hear it. Your question was as follows;

"WHY....cannot the most brilliant minds on this Earth.....with totally unlimited resources and space age equipment, NOT figure out a way to alter a simple piece of 8mm Kodacolor film?"

The answer is as simple as to why there was no space shuttle in 1963/64. What answer do you not understand out of the following ....

* Zapruder had the foresight to remain with his camera original film and upon having three copies made of it on the afternoon of the assassination - ABRAHAM KEPT ONE WITH HIM even after loaning two out to the FBI, the SS, and then Life Magazine on the following day. Nothing short of magic would allow the best minds in the world to be able to alter a film that Zapruder kept with himself. After all, one cannot alter a film unless they have acess to ALL the copy prints or else the house of cards will certainly come falling down.

* The window of time to have done all these alterations was not there. Healy stated that the original film may have been destroyed on the first day, but the fact is that Zapruder kept his original film with him (not to mention the first genertation copy print). By Sunday, Life Magazine was publishing numerous film frames from the Zapruder film, but Zapruder still had his first generation print.

* NO ONE knew if all the assassination films and photos of the assassination had been acounted for. In fact, Muchmore's film wasn't even known to exist until the following Monday and was shown on television before the Feds ever knew it existed. Now I ask, wouldn't the smartest minds in the world be sharp enough to realize the danger of this potential problem?

* I previously had pointed out that the so-called smartest people in the world with all the resources available had allegedly failed in making a perfect "BackYard Photo" of Oswald and they had only one to four pictures to alter, so is it your position that they were so inept to fail miserably on a still photo, but were magicians with film which was a far more complicated matter? My position is that one cancels out the other and that it cannot be both ways.

* The problem with Kodachrome film and why one cannot produce the same images after alteration was covered in another thread. Such things as loss of sharpness of the image, color shifting, and grain appearance from blowing-up images and then shrinking them back down the old fashion way was not possible to do without experts detecting what has happened. Some basic insights on this matter can be seen on the attached links. The best link with grain examples is not up at this time, but it was copied and pasted in an earlier thread concerning possible Zfilm alteration. Go back and review it and hopefully it will give you a better insight to the matter.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Photograph.html

http://en.mimi.hu/photography/grain.html

Bill Miller

Edited November 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

Perhaps David & others would appreciate it if this topic were brought back onto it's tracks.

Being the proverbial "Doubting Thomas", I have always found it most curious that:

Time/Life could produce a 35mm slide from the Zapruder film which had great clarity and definition.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0112b.htm

When in fact (reportedly), in it's original state, the camera original did not contain such clarity and definition.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z188.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0012a.htm

Question for David???----Exactly how is it that one makes a clear slide from a "fuzzy" original?

The WC print doesn't look any clearer to me than the same frame from either MPI or Costella.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Frank Agbat