Bill Miller Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 (edited) Photo alteration and manipulation by 1963 already had at leastforty 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 The problem I have with what you guys are saying is that all along we have been talking about a piece of film that has been alleged to be altered and whether or not it could be undetectable by modern scientific study and expertise. If you (Jack) have missed this repeated point, then I will be happy to direct you to those statements. To take the position that any alleged alterations were good enough many years ago is like saying that the proof offered that people were witches, which caused them to be burned at the stake, was good enough! Even now you say the alterations were undetectable for more than 30 years and I am still asking WHAT ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN DETECTED??? The Enquirer ran a story some years ago that JFK was still alive and living in the basement of the White House, so if they would publish that garbage, then why do you think they don't run with the claims you make? I believe it is because they can draw a cartoonish looking picture of JFK being pushed around the Rose Garden in a wheelchair, but they cannot sell the type of mistakes that has been made concerning JFK's assassination in the name of alteration concerning real images. Bill Miller 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, if you were an expert in film and its transfer properties, then you would know the answer to your question. Even more stacked against you is the fact that we covered this before when I posted Groden's reasons for saying what he did and you came across as not being able to follow the data. Also, the book that mentioned Mary Poppins was "Assassination Science" and it was Fetzer and Mantik who mentioned that movie and the technology of that era. Both authors participated in the HOAX book that followed. My referencing HOAX was an error on my part and while I have corrected the record - the point still stands. Bill Miller Edited November 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 (edited) I haven't read the Film Hoax book, but it's on order. I did find this URL in an earlier ed thread on the subject, and it's the most compelling thing I've seen so far. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ It supplies a film of Zapruder in the "click here" link almost half way down the page, and explains the importance of watching a stabilized version at normal speed. The examples I found most persuasive were here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html The impossibly fast head movements of Mrs. Connelly and the ever suspicious Greer. This page is also noteworthy, showing the lack of blur of both car and stationary objects in the Life magazine stills. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html They address the critical "why" question, and I'm pretty satisfied with their answer. The altered film does not show that the limo stopped, which is incriminating to the driver and the SS. In fact it shows the limo speeding up at the same time four people are thrown forward from the force of a stop that is not shown. That's not to say that the stop is the only thing they're trying to hide, but it's a biggie. On edit: Another significant reason for alteration is to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head, supporting the bullet from behind theory, rather than shooting backward, which shows a shot from the front. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html It's quite noticable that the blood explosion disappears after just one frame (the infamous 313). So all that brain and skull and blood are supposed to have dissipated in 1/16 of a second? I don't think that's possible. This is aside from the question of available technology in the era in question, which you all are hashing out. Edited November 27, 2006 by Myra Bronstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I haven't read the Film Hoax book, but it's on order.I did find this URL in an earlier ed thread on the subject, and it's the most compelling thing I've seen so far. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ It supplies a film of Zapruder in the "click here" link almost half way down the page, and explains the importance of watching a stabilized version at normal speed. The examples I found most persuasive were here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html The impossibly fast head movements of Mrs. Connelly and the ever suspicious Greer. This page is also noteworthy, showing the lack of blur of both car and stationary objects in the Life magazine stills. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html They address the critical "why" question, and I'm pretty satisfied with their answer. The altered film does not show that the limo stopped, which is incriminating to the driver and the SS. In fact it shows the limo speeding up at the same time four people are thrown forward from the force of a stop that is not shown. That's not to say that the stop is the only thing they're trying to hide, but it's a biggie. This is aside from the question of available technology in the era in question, which you all are hashing out. Thanks, Myra...for taking the time to study the Costella proofs of alteration. Miller and other obstructionists refuse to address them. They had rather invent "gaps" in the Moorman photo and rely on Zavada and other "nameless" experts. I suggest anyone with doubts about alteration to visit the sites Myra cites. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Thanks, Myra...for taking the time to study the Costella proofs of alteration.Miller and other obstructionists refuse to address them. They had rather invent "gaps" in the Moorman photo and rely on Zavada and other "nameless" experts. I suggest anyone with doubts about alteration to visit the sites Myra cites. Jack Jack, you rely on peoples lack of knowledge of the subject so to feel as though they support your nonsense. The alleged limo stop has been addressed many times. When witnesses said the motorcade stopped for several seconds at the time of the kill shot to the President - people like yourself attributed their remarks to the limo, which is in error. Moorman's photo, which was filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination, shows the limo in motion. Maybe Myra doesn't know this stuff and I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to be honest enough to point it out to her. Costella's alleged proof for alteration has also been mentioned in the past. Costella didn't seem to have a clue as to why the Life Magazine images were sharper than the MPI version. For some odd reason, Costella got it backwards and thought the MPI version should have been sharper than the Life stills published in their magazine. So once again I will point out that MPI used filters and other processes that caused a loss of sharpness to their Zfilm. Myra can think what she wishes and if she really buys into the mistakes you guys have made, then let her assist in trying to get even the most disrespected tabloids to pick up the story! You guys made claims that should have shaken the world and yet once educated people looked at what you came up with - they shook their heads and considered your claims ridiculous and this is why you have not gotten an ounce of interest shown from any news agencies - tabloid or otherwise. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 (edited) Thanks, Myra...for taking the time to study the Costella proofs of alteration. Miller and other obstructionists refuse to address them. They had rather invent "gaps" in the Moorman photo and rely on Zavada and other "nameless" experts. I suggest anyone with doubts about alteration to visit the sites Myra cites. Jack Jack, you rely on peoples lack of knowledge of the subject so to feel as though they support your nonsense. The alleged limo stop has been addressed many times. When witnesses said the motorcade stopped for several seconds at the time of the kill shot to the President - people like yourself attributed their remarks to the limo, which is in error. Moorman's photo, which was filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination, shows the limo in motion. Maybe Myra doesn't know this stuff and I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to be honest enough to point it out to her. Costella's alleged proof for alteration has also been mentioned in the past. Costella didn't seem to have a clue as to why the Life Magazine images were sharper than the MPI version. For some odd reason, Costella got it backwards and thought the MPI version should have been sharper than the Life stills published in their magazine. So once again I will point out that MPI used filters and other processes that caused a loss of sharpness to their Zfilm. Myra can think what she wishes and if she really buys into the mistakes you guys have made, then let her assist in trying to get even the most disrespected tabloids to pick up the story! You guys made claims that should have shaken the world and yet once educated people looked at what you came up with - they shook their heads and considered your claims ridiculous and this is why you have not gotten an ounce of interest shown from any news agencies - tabloid or otherwise. Bill Miller Interesting that you don't address the impossibly fast head motions and the impossibly fast dissapating blood Bill. You seem to ignore the points you can't explain. Which makes you a timesink. I seriously doubt I can learn anything useful from you. Edited November 27, 2006 by Myra Bronstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) Repeated response, thus I deleted its content. see next posted response. Thanks! Edited November 29, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Interesting that you don't address the impossibly fast head motions and the impossibly fast dissapating blood Bill. You seem to ignore the points you can't explain. Which makes you a timesink. I seriously doubt I can learn anything useful from you. Myra, it is just as interesting to me that you have not bothered searching the archives for this information for it has been addressed not only here, but on Lancer, as well. I will address it once again just for you .... Let's get the blood issue straight first of all .... it was not blood, but rather the cranial fluid which when released from JFK's head - it was more of a watery mist. That mist was thrown into a stiff breeze which quickly pushed the mist cloud back over the President's head. If you wish to test this - try spitting into the wind and see what happens. If you doubt the wind gust that occurred at the time of the head shot, then watch the coats on Hill, Moorman and the BL at that moment and you will see them been blood wildly to the east to southeast. The error over the Greer head turn was a result of its author thinking that Greer's head didn't move during a couple of frames once he started his head turn. When I checked this out for myself, I found that Greer's head was in fact turning with each frame once his actual head motion started and that his head turn was no faster than other peoples head turns during the motorcade trip from Love Field to Dealey Plaza. You will note a light shift on the top of Greer's head which the alteration author missed. That shift was a result of the head turning between those frames and the grid example clearly shows this IMO. The examples I speak of are offered to you below so that you may learn something from them. Again I will say this ... there is a reason why even the smuttiest tabloids don't even touch these claims even if you fell for them. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Myra, it is just as interesting to me that you have not bothered searching the archives for this information for it has been addressed not only here, but on Lancer, as well. I will address it once again just for you .... My aren't your presumptious? Like you could possibly know if I've searched a forum. Nonetheless you've managed to back into a truth. Instead of "searching" I've actually looked at every thread on every page of the forum from start to finish. Not that I need to present my credentials to someone who mistakes coming to my own conclusions with not researching. Let's get the blood issue straight first of all .... it was not blood, but rather the cranial fluid which when released from JFK's head - it was more of a watery mist. That mist was thrown into a stiff breeze which quickly pushed the mist cloud back over the President's head. If you wish to test this - try spitting into the wind and see what happens. If you doubt the wind gust that occurred at the time of the head shot, then watch the coats on Hill, Moorman and the BL at that moment and you will see them been blood wildly to the east to southeast. I've already tried spitting into the wind, in metaphorical fashion, in this dialogue. Again you're ignoring the fact that the President's head exploded and one sixteenth of a second later there was no trace of it in the air--in any direction. If a "stiff breeze" blew it backward then it would be visible behind him. But it's not. There's no blood, no brain matter, no "cranial fluid," whatever you insist on calling it, after one sixteenth of a second. It covered the motorcycles and cops behind him in a totally invisible way in one sixteenth of a second. Bullxxxx. The error over the Greer head turn was a result of its author thinking that Greer's head didn't move during a couple of frames once he started his head turn. When I checked this out for myself, I found that Greer's head was in fact turning with each frame once his actual head motion started and that his head turn was no faster than other peoples head turns during the motorcade trip from Love Field to Dealey Plaza. You will note a light shift on the top of Greer's head which the alteration author missed. That shift was a result of the head turning between those frames and the grid example clearly shows this IMO. The examples I speak of are offered to you below so that you may learn something from them. Again I will say this ... there is a reason why even the smuttiest tabloids don't even touch these claims even if you fell for them. I don't care what the author said, I'm talking about my own observations. Greer's head and Mrs' Connelly's head turn impossibly fast. That can be seen in the moving film and in a frame by frame inspection. But you ignore the evidence, so I'll ignore you. Timesink someone more gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 CSF (Cerebral-Spinal Fluid) is totally colorless. I know. When I was attacked in 1991, CSF dripped from my ear for two weeks from a skull fracture until an operation was performed to close the fracture. The brain itself CONTAINS NO BLOOD. The CSF looks like water, but is slightly oily, and tastes like vaseline. I know. For two weeks it leaked into my mouth through the eustacian tube. The purported BLOODY SPRAY alleged by the Zfilm cannot show blood from the brain; any blood would have to be from arteries, veins, and capilliaries feeding the scalp. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) Interesting that you don't address the impossibly fast head motions and the impossibly fast dissapating blood Bill. You seem to ignore the points you can't explain. Which makes you a timesink. I seriously doubt I can learn anything useful from you. Myra, it is just as interesting to me that you have not bothered searching the archives for this information for it has been addressed not only here, but on Lancer, as well. I will address it once again just for you .... Let's get the blood issue straight first of all .... it was not blood, but rather the cranial fluid which when released from JFK's head - it was more of a watery mist. That mist was thrown into a stiff breeze which quickly pushed the mist cloud back over the President's head. If you wish to test this - try spitting into the wind and see what happens. If you doubt the wind gust that occurred at the time of the head shot, then watch the coats on Hill, Moorman and the BL at that moment and you will see them been blood wildly to the east to southeast. The error over the Greer head turn was a result of its author thinking that Greer's head didn't move during a couple of frames once he started his head turn. When I checked this out for myself, I found that Greer's head was in fact turning with each frame once his actual head motion started and that his head turn was no faster than other peoples head turns during the motorcade trip from Love Field to Dealey Plaza. You will note a light shift on the top of Greer's head which the alteration author missed. That shift was a result of the head turning between those frames and the grid example clearly shows this IMO. The examples I speak of are offered to you below so that you may learn something from them. Again I will say this ... there is a reason why even the smuttiest tabloids don't even touch these claims even if you fell for them. Bill Miller Jesus -- you find a MD that will certify what you call *watery mist* is just THAT cranial fluid, and NOT blood? "...try spitting in the wind...."! roflmfao, you REALLY know how to win folks over to your way of thinking, don't yeah? "...there is a reason why the smuttiest ..." -- ya mean those supermarket rags in Florida, you know the ones that do the JFK stories all time might "gag" because the Z-film is altered? You really should get out more! Edited November 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I don't care what the author said, I'm talking about my own observations. Greer's head and Mrs' Connelly's head turn impossibly fast. That can be seen in the moving film and in a frame by frame inspection. But you ignore the evidence, so I'll ignore you. Timesink someone more gullible. Shoot a gun next to an unsuspecting person and see how "impossibly fast" they move. There's nothing impossible about the speed with which Greer turns his head. It's a matter of the film quality not being clear enough in most versions. Greer starts turning his head earlier than it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Oh you are great JL. That's a keeper. The Persistence of Timesinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Thanks, Myra... I felt it at least deserved a mention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) My aren't your presumptious? Like you could possibly know if I've searched a forum. Nonetheless you've managed to back into a truth. Instead of "searching" I've actually looked at every thread on every page of the forum from start to finish. Not that I need to present my credentials to someone who mistakes coming to my own conclusions with not researching. Your credentials are presented in the quality and accuracy of the information that you post. Your 1/16th of a second remark for the time frame for the mist cloud to be seen is in error for several frames of the Zapruder frame show the mist drifting back over the President's head despite you saying otherwise. Below is one such example. I have personally posted a slowed down frame by frame clip with red arrows inserted showing the blood mist in motion, so if you have not found it, then you didn't search hard enough, so keep looking! Below is a link from an EXPERT who teaches people like Cyril Wecht about blood spray .... maybe it will better help you in your study. Bill Miller http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=7695&hl= Edited November 29, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now