Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[David G. Healy]

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

Listen guy, Disney studios did animation, cartoons - PERIOD. You want to contest that, hey break a leg.

The people who wrote the book HOAX said what? Well, I'm one of those, did I mention the film Mary Poppins, was that me? If NOT then WHO, What was their source? We need your sources, Bill!

For someone thats making so much hay over the film Mary Poppins, why don't YOU tell me what's the matter with the Poppins frames you've posted? For all I know, matting for those frames are fine, perhaps the projector in the aerial printer chain wasn't positioned correctly, YET -- That's why when you do research Bill, and make claims regarding things you've no proveable expertise in, we need to question your thoroughness, we need your documentation, your sources, in order to validate your claim....

We're way beyond Disney cartoons, regarding Z-film alteration -- I suspect you haven't a clue about film composing/composition, nor the reason why it was so important to the film industry -- You might find that and other reasons WHY in Ray Fieldings 1963-64 book, you know the book I refer too in my article, which I'm sure you haven't read -- right along with not reading HOAX.... so don't let me interrupt you making a fool out of yourself.

p.s. I don't know of ANY film undergoing "modern day scrutinizing", you know of any commercially released films involved with assassinations?

*********

And Charlie Black -- you're right on target... we invented the transistor, went to the moon, during that decade and Lone Nutter's think we can't alter a piece of film...? ROFLMFAO

Edited November 25, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

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...

Frank...hate to disagree, but computers did exist in the sixties. NASA used them. NASA and the

military were at least twenty years ahead of the public in such matters...which were withheld

from the public for "national security".

When studying Badgeman in the 80s, I saw computers for the first time at MIT and

other government sponsored places, doing things I found incredible and which were

unknown to the public. A place in Dallas Gary Mack and I were able to visit showed

us how they could take a one-dimensional aerial photo and using computers could

create a 3-D view of flying through mountains and valleys at low level. I still have

no idea how it was done. An Israeli company called Scitex showed us things that

in the 80s I thought impossible, but are commonplace today.

Your "computer example" is not apt.

Jack

Edited November 25, 2006 by Jack White

[Frank Agbat]

...

Your "computer example" is not apt.

Jack

Jack,

Of course computers existed in 1963...

I've been involved in computers professionally since the 1970's. On this subject, I know precisely what I'm talking about. And yes, some of the projects with which I have been involved have been *very* much at the leading edge of the technology. I believe the example is completely and perfectly apt for Mr. Black's question.

I can state with 100% confidence that, even including DoD and "leading edge not-known to the public" technology, with all of the DoD, NASA, MIT, and other brainiacs involved, that there are innumerable things that simply were impossible with computer technology in 1963.

What does this have to do with alteration directly? Nothing. I'm merely pointing out that at any given time in human history, there *are* things that are impossible to do.

[David G. Healy]

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 reported 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 appearence 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 thisw 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

roflmfao! You actually get paid, keep a straight face then post this nonesense?

David

[Jack White]

"Bill Miller" wrote:

" the Zfilm has been examined by more than one expert in one field and has been declared to be the camera original. "

Please name these numerous experts and the nature of their claims. We know

about Zavada, whose only declaration is that the film used can be verified

to be Kodachrome, manufactured by Kodak. That is the extent of his claim,

as far as I know. I know of no research that has disputed that the film is Kodachrome.

since the edge markings say that is what it is.

Zavada refuses to comment on the CONTENT of the film. I have

studied the Zfilm extensively and have not heard of the numerous experts

who have declared it to be genuine. Please inform us. I want to study their claims.

Jack

...

Your "computer example" is not apt.

Jack

Jack,

Of course computers existed in 1963...

I've been involved in computers professionally since the 1970's. On this subject, I know precisely what I'm talking about. And yes, some of the projects with which I have been involved have been *very* much at the leading edge of the technology. I believe the example is completely and perfectly apt for Mr. Black's question.

I can state with 100% confidence that, even including DoD and "leading edge not-known to the public" technology, with all of the DoD, NASA, MIT, and other brainiacs involved, that there are innumerable things that simply were impossible with computer technology in 1963.

What does this have to do with alteration directly? Nothing. I'm merely pointing out that at any given time in human history, there *are* things that are impossible to do.

If you had said that originally, I would not have disagreed. But your original

statement said "The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963..."

and I disagreed with that statement. Computers WERE around in the 60s, though not

as advanced as today, nor available to the public.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Listen guy, Disney studios did animation, cartoons - PERIOD. You want to contest that, hey break a leg.

The people who wrote the book HOAX said what? Well, I'm one of those, did I mention the film Mary Poppins, was that me? If NOT then WHO, What was their source? We need your sources, Bill!

For someone thats making so much hay over the film Mary Poppins, why don't YOU tell me what's the matter with the Poppins frames you've posted? For all I know, matting for those frames are fine, perhaps the projector in the aerial printer chain wasn't positioned correctly, YET -- That's why when you do research Bill, and make claims regarding things you've no proveable expertise in, we need to question your thoroughness, we need your documentation, your sources, in order to validate your claim....

Get out your copy of the "Hoax" book and I bet if you look in the index that you will find who mentioned the movie Mary Poppins and why. As far as what is the matter with those Mary Poppins images I posted ... go back and read the text that accompanied them. If then you still do not see what I was talking about, then it is little wonder why you have not been able to follow even the most simplest of the points that I have posted to this forum.

Bill Miller

And Charlie Black -- you're right on target... we invented the transistor, went to the moon, during that decade and Lone Nutter's think we can't alter a piece of film...? ROFLMFAO

And tell us, David ... just how well built was that transistor radio back in 1963 compared to todays technology ??? And BTW, we were not able to get to the moon in 1963 and is that not the issue here!

Bill Miller

Edited November 27, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

...

Your "computer example" is not apt.

Jack

Jack,

Of course computers existed in 1963...

I've been involved in computers professionally since the 1970's. On this subject, I know precisely what I'm talking about. And yes, some of the projects with which I have been involved have been *very* much at the leading edge of the technology. I believe the example is completely and perfectly apt for Mr. Black's question.

I can state with 100% confidence that, even including DoD and "leading edge not-known to the public" technology, with all of the DoD, NASA, MIT, and other brainiacs involved, that there are innumerable things that simply were impossible with computer technology in 1963.

What does this have to do with alteration directly? Nothing. I'm merely pointing out that at any given time in human history, there *are* things that are impossible to do.

If you had said that originally, I would not have disagreed. But your original

statement said "The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963..."

and I disagreed with that statement. Computers WERE around in the 60s, though not

as advanced as today, nor available to the public.

Jack

[Frank Agbat]

If you had said that originally, I would not have disagreed. But your original

statement said "The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963..."

and I disagreed with that statement. Computers WERE around in the 60s, though not

as advanced as today, nor available to the public.

Jack

Jack,

I see where you're coming from -- thanks for the clarification. A better initial phrase from me would have been "many technologies included in the computer you are using now were simply not possible in 1963."

Now, back to the discussion of alteration...

[Bill Miller]

Please name these numerous experts and the nature of their claims. We know

about Zavada, whose only declaration is that the film used can be verified

to be Kodachrome, manufactured by Kodak. That is the extent of his claim,

as far as I know. I know of no research that has disputed that the film is Kodachrome.

since the edge markings say that is what it is.

Our good friend Robert Groden examined the camera original film and has said that it is authentic. I posted several of Groden's findings and how he reached the conclusions that he did and not once did you offer anything to the contrary.

If you had said that originally, I would not have disagreed. But your original

statement said "The computer you are using right now was simply not possible in 1963..."

and I disagreed with that statement. Computers WERE around in the 60s, though not

as advanced as today, nor available to the public.

I read a response one day that said that the software needed to do such alterations had not been invented by 1963, so what does that mean to those of you who have so much invested in saying otherwise? All anyone is asking for is a sensible response to the points we raise and to date you have failed miserably to prove your case.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Our good friend Robert Groden examined the camera original film and has said that it is authentic. I posted several of Groden's findings and how he reached the conclusions that he did and not once did you offer anything to the contrary.

[...]

How the hell would Groden know the difference between a in-camera 8mm original film and a 2nd generation of same? Give us a few clues here will ya! Better yet, maybe he can speak for himself, what the hell are you carrying his water for?

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

For someone thats making so much hay over the film Mary Poppins, why don't YOU tell me what's the matter with the Poppins frames you've posted? For all I know, matting for those frames are fine, perhaps the projector in the aerial printer chain wasn't positioned correctly, YET -- That's why when you do research Bill, and make claims regarding things you've no proveable expertise in, we need to question your thoroughness, we need your documentation, your sources, in order to validate your claim....

Get out your copy of the "Hoax" book and I bet if you look in the idex that you will find who mentioned the movie Mary Poppins and why. As far as what is the matter with those Mary Poppins images I posted ... go back and read the text that accompanied them. If then you still do not see what I was talking about, then it is little wonder why you have not been able to follow even the most simplest of the points that I have posted to this forum.

dgh: gee Bill, I've got it right here, all three editions, nothing in the index for Poppins, Mary Poppins, not even Walt Disney, you lying about this Bill? Remember I wrote an article for the book, I'm pretty familiar with the content... give us a cite or dawn the mantle of xxxx --

If you insist regarding Mary Poppins frames, just tell us, ALL of us, your source for and where the frames came from. AND what's the matter with the Poppins mattes, if anything -- Lamson you better get in here and help this guy out, he's out of his league, AGAIN... of course Bill, you can always find a optical film printing lab tech to help you out. EH? I understand one hangs around DPlaza selling JFK memoriabilia

Bill Miller

Edited November 26, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

"Bill Miller" wrote:

" the Zfilm has been examined by more than one expert in one field and has been declared to be the camera original. "

Please name these numerous experts and the nature of their claims. We know

about Zavada, whose only declaration is that the film used can be verified

to be Kodachrome, manufactured by Kodak. That is the extent of his claim,

as far as I know. I know of no research that has disputed that the film is Kodachrome.

since the edge markings say that is what it is.

Zavada refuses to comment on the CONTENT of the film. I have

studied the Zfilm extensively and have not heard of the numerous experts

who have declared it to be genuine. Please inform us. I want to study their claims.

Jack

First of all, Jack ... I stated that "more than one expert" has said the Zapruder fim was authentic - the term "numerous" is of your doing. We have also seen the results of the vast amount of study you have done on the Zapruder film from wrongly claiming Moorman was in the street, people not moving, Toni Foster being 7 feet tall, to Mrs. Franzen growing between frames and in every instance you appear to have not studied the Zfilm at all. For instance, your study of the Zfilm came up with the idea that Mrs. Franzen must have grown betwen frames, but in reality she had merely stepped backwards which raised her elevation in Zapruder's field of view. So while I admire your interest in the JFK case ... your mentioning the amount of study you have given the photographical record is like someone saying they have been going to high school for the past 43 years in an effort to finally get a diploma.

Bill Miller

Edited November 27, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

If you insist regarding Mary Poppins frames, just tell us, ALL of us, your source for and where the frames came from. AND what's the matter with the Poppins mattes, if anything -- Lamson you better get in here and help this guy out, he's out of his league, AGAIN... of course Bill, you can always find a optical film printing lab tech to help you out. EH? I understand one hangs around DPlaza selling JFK memoriabilia[/color]

If I understand you correctly, David - you are calling Groden an "optical film printing lab tech" when in reality Groden has achieved the highest level of expertise in optical printing. Now having made you aware of this - what level have you reached in actual film developing and processing and analyzing?

Let's look at your nonsense this way ... If the ridiculous things you say were even remotely accurate, then you'd be getting some attention for what you have discovered. So far, you haven't even gotten the National Inquirer interested in repeating what you've got to say.

Bill Miller

Edited November 27, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Charles Black]

Hello All

Of course computers are far more advanced now than in the early 1960's. The first hi tech military computers that I had ever been in close contact with, were so large that that bank of computers would not have fit into my house and the air conditioning system in that building would have cooled a hotel.

However, the question has never been posited that computers were as good in 1963 as they are presently. "GOOD ENOUGH" in 1963, is the only

fact which needs to be considered. Good enough to do the job ! Not perfect....simply good enough.

The nuclear weapons were not "AS GOOD" in 1963 as they are now.....BUT, they were "good enough"!

We could not take quite as good aerial photographs from altitudes over 90,000 feet as we can now. But we could still take them from airplanes that could fly as high and as fast then as they can now. And "that" film processing and interpretation was quite "GOOD ENOUGH.

Bright people, who were in posession of more advanced photographic equipment than was available from anywhere else, had the ability to apparently do it "GOOD ENOUGH".

Once again, I will repeat....the brightest people, using equipment more advanced than the best "other" equipment available....being highly "motivated"... set out to solve a "mechanical problem". They did so. Whether that same caliber individual, with even better equipment etc., could do a better job now?

Possibly.

But that isn't the point ! They did it well enough. That is why some of you are still trying hopelessly to prove that it was impossible.

Mechanically "IMPOSSIBLE", if far too encompassing a phrase to be used by any but the highest caliber mechanical minds. This phrase used by any less qualified, has no value in the area which we are discussing.

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

Hello All

Of course computers are far more advanced now than in the early 1960's. The first hi tech military computers that I had ever been in close contact with, were so large that that bank of computers would not have fit into my house and the air conditioning system in that building would have cooled a hotel.

However, the question has never been posited that computers were as good in 1963 as they are presently. "GOOD ENOUGH" in 1963, is the only

fact which needs to be considered. Good enough to do the job ! Not perfect....simply good enough.

The nuclear weapons were not "AS GOOD" in 1963 as they are now.....BUT, they were "good enough"!

We could not take quite as good aerial photographs from altitudes over 90,000 feet as we can now. But we could still take them from airplanes that could fly as high and as fast then as they can now. And "that" film processing and interpretation was quite "GOOD ENOUGH.

Bright people, who were in posession of more advanced photographic equipment than was available from anywhere else, had the ability to apparently do it "GOOD ENOUGH".

Once again, I will repeat....the brightest people, using equipment more advanced than the best "other" equipment available....being highly "motivated"... set out to solve a "mechanical problem". They did so. Whether that same caliber individual, with even better equipment etc., could do a better job now?

Possibly.

But that isn't the point ! They did it well enough. That is why some of you are still trying hopelessly to prove that it was impossible.

Mechanically "IMPOSSIBLE", if far too encompassing a phrase to be used by any but the highest caliber mechanical minds. This phrase used by any less qualified, has no value in the area which we are discussing.

Charlie Black

EXCELLENT, CHARLIE...GOOD ENOUGH for me!

Some people regard 1963 as the DARK AGES of science. Remember,

LHO in Atsugi was involved in the U-2 flights over Russia and China.

The U-2 used sophisticated cameras in the '50s that were not

your kodak brownie. It was said they were GOOD ENOUGH to

photograph a golf ball on a putting green from the sub-stratosphere.

You are correct. "Good enough to do the job" is good enough.

Photo alteration and manipulation by 1963 already had at least

forty years of experience in doing a "good enough" job...

400+ frames...a minor job. The alteration was GOOD ENOUGH

that it was undetected for more than thirty years.

Jack