Zapruder film alteration expertise examples

[Ed O'Hagan]

...and here is my regular rant about digital vs. optical zooming/enlarging...

Despite the ' lossiness', and by simply dragging and dropping the picture from the website into PhotoDeluxe 2.1, all that had to be done was to despeckle it. The one on the left now looks cleaner and sharper than the one on the right .

The Z. frame # was not provided when the file was originally downloaded. However, all of the 'Purse & Co' frames merit close inspection. In the one posted, here is what should be attracting attention:

Just by looking at the picture should tell one that it makes little sense. However, it's up to individual viewers to decide for themselves. Who knows what might turn up.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan

[Bill Miller]

So Mack and Groden relayed to you INFORMATION FROM ZAVADA! So you

are just quoting a single expert, not many. And Zavada's quotes are entirely

in terms meant for a layman...nothing technical.

Jack, once again you are incorrect because you do not pay close enough attention to what has been said. Groden has worked with Kodachrome II film and it was his experience that he spoke of. Mack refers me to Zavada's report and also told me that he had read the same things from sources on Kodachrome II film unrelated to Zavada. I hope this has been made clear enough for you to follow.

Bill Miller

dgh: roflmfao -- ROFLMFAO -- those that know what to look for, geesh! Think Mary Poppins, btw, where'd those frames come from, AGAIN?

[...]

The frames came from Disney because they were taken from Disney's movie "Mary Poppins". How hard can it be to understand that point!

Bill Miller

Pro photographers like Lamson knew these qualities very well and could

compensate for them with excellent results with either film. Inexperienced

amateurs could not. Pros chose Kodachrome for its fine grain and indoor

work generally, but better results outdoors were usually a job for Ektachrome,

with its better scenic rendition.

Jack, you are so incorrect that it is embarrassing to even be discussing this with someone who claims to know as much as you do. You claim to be Groden's dear friend, so call the man and have him explain to you why you are incorrect. Even the copies made of the camera original showed color shift and for the reasons I have mentioned prior. Maybe to someone who just merely glances at one copy compared to the camera original - they would not see a difference, but to someone who is experienced and knows what to look for - the differences are there.

Bill Miller

[Frank Agbat]

...and here is my regular rant about digital vs. optical zooming/enlarging...

Despite the ' lossiness', and by simply dragging and dropping the picture from the website into PhotoDeluxe 2.1, all that had to be done was to despeckle it. The one on the left now looks cleaner and sharper than the one on the right .

Ed,

The one on the left was always sharper than the one on the right. My point was, evidently, totally missed.

The left-side picture was a crop from MPI's OPTICALLY zoomed Z-film. The right side picture was the result of taking the same crop from the REGULAR SIZE z-film (not optically zoomed) and then digitally zooming it.

The tiny picture in the middle is the crop from the regular size z-film frame, un-enlarged, etc. The tiny one in the center was then enlarged (i.e. "digital zoom") to make the one on the right.

I'll say it again. If you start with a small area (ergo a small number of pixels) and use digital enlargement, you are not gaining information. If anything, you are losing information. That is why the picture on the right was less clear than the one on the left. (Note, the same thing happens with optical zooming, but it is due to the grain of the film)

And, notice, that another point about digital imaging has been made... The text in the version you re-posted after "despeckling" or whatever you did is now illegible. It was legible in the original version that I posted. However, because we are dealing with lossy formats (jpg), after several iterations of compression, the text cannot be read. The "improvements" are immeasurable...

[Jack White]

...and here is my regular rant about digital vs. optical zooming/enlarging...

Despite the ' lossiness', and by simply dragging and dropping the picture from the website into PhotoDeluxe 2.1, all that had to be done was to despeckle it. The one on the left now looks cleaner and sharper than the one on the right .

Ed,

The one on the left was always sharper than the one on the right. My point was, evidently, totally missed.

The left-side picture was a crop from MPI's OPTICALLY zoomed Z-film. The right side picture was the result of taking the same crop from the REGULAR SIZE z-film (not optically zoomed) and then digitally zooming it.

The tiny picture in the middle is the crop from the regular size z-film frame, un-enlarged, etc. The tiny one in the center was then enlarged (i.e. "digital zoom") to make the one on the right.

I'll say it again. If you start with a small area (ergo a small number of pixels) and use digital enlargement, you are not gaining information. If anything, you are losing information. That is why the picture on the right was less clear than the one on the left. (Note, the same thing happens with optical zooming, but it is due to the grain of the film)

And, notice, that another point about digital imaging has been made... The text in the version you re-posted after "despeckling" or whatever you did is now illegible. It was legible in the original version that I posted. However, because we are dealing with lossy formats (jpg), after several iterations of compression, the text cannot be read. The "improvements" are immeasurable...

Frank...you are absolutely right. As an art director for many years I always

specified largest obtainable "originals" if possible, because reproductions always

look better when reduced, and generally lose quality when enlarged.

Working with computers, I have found the same to be true. When I scan any

original image, I set my scanner for the largest practical screen size to capture

best detail. Immediately after scanning, I then reduce it to screen size, and

the difference in quality is noticeable. A good scanning rule is scan at least

200 percent or more than desired size, and reduce. Never scan at "same size",

because you are scanning at 72 dpi, which in the old days would be considered

a "coarse" screen. At double size, your original scan, even though still 72 dpi,

is the equivalent of a 144-line screen, considered "fine".

When scanning 35mm slides, I always start at 2000 percent...which can then

be reduced to any size. If scanned at 100 percent and enlarged, they would

be so pixelated they would be unidentifiable.

For quality, always start large and reduce...never start small and enlarge.

And as you say, OPTICAL enlargement = good; DIGITAL enlargement = bad.

Jack

Edited December 1, 2006 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

I was traveling and didn't notice this thread till yesterday.

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 (emphasis added- Len)

No Jack Frank was 100% correct in his original statement but you failed to comprehend what he said. He said that a computer like the one Charlie Black was using was not possible back then not that computers didn't exist. Do you really believe that 1963 computers had anywhere near the capabilities of current ones? Someone else speculated that in 1906 people would have said television was impossible that they would have been wrong doesn't change the fact that it was not possible at the time.

As Steven succinctly put it, the question is not whether the alleged alterations are possible today or even if alterations via optical printing were possible back then but whether the technology to make the alleged alterations so as to be undetectable today existed then. Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination.

It is instructive to remember what is being alleged, Hoax's "top technical expert" John Costella wrote:

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did." (emphasis added- Len)

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

Elsewhere it is alleged that items such as lampposts and a street sign where not as they should have been and presumably were added by the forgers (though why they would have to do this if the film was shoot on the real Elm St. is never made clear).

Perhaps Dave as been asked of him repeatedly can identify scenes from 'his' movies in which there were alterations like those and the fakery isn't detectable.

"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.

Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown" http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Also "more than one" = two or more nor necessarily 'numerous'.

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!

I'm not sure if the movie was cited in the book itself but it certainly was cited by its authors.

Fetzer himself cited it.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/shex12.html

As did Costella

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

and Jack.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry48849

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.

It's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination.

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

Dave are you sure we went to the Moon? White says it never happened and Fetzer and Costella have their doubts. Funny how he keeps repeating the 'anti-alterationists' = Lone Nuts straw man.

Charles, take the time to learn as much as possible about the type of film Zapruder used. Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Kodachrome II was also made for filming in sunlight and to a copy film one needs artificial light, which experts could detect the differences right away. Someone like Healy may tell you that this information is incorrect because he has seen it done, but I can assure you that he has worked with PROFESSIONAL FILM whereas the difference in this case is that I am talking about AMATEUR FILM, which is what Zapruder used.

Bill Miller

"Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is what

matters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples.

Jack

What kind of silly semantic argument is that? The color temperature of light is directly related to what 'kind of light' it is.

http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm

As already pointed out more than once on this forum Roland Zavada the inventor of Kodacrome II said that the difference in color temperature would have been detectable. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf pg. 2

KODAK-Dallas provided 3 rolls of Kodachrome 11A film rated at 40ASA 3200K for the printing of Zapruders film, the story goes: they, KODAK had no 'print' film on hand (tough to believe for the film of the century).

So Dave you think they could have known a head of time they would be developing the Z-film? IIRC they said they didn't have any copy film.

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.

Actually Myra not even Costella claims it (they) completely disappeared in 1 frame as even he shows some blood (or cranial fluid) until frame 315 (see your link) and his copy of the film shows splatter at least until frame 318 [ http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg ]. If your claim that you've read every page of every thread on this forum is true you should have read the thread in which a forensic expert explained the obvious, that the blood would have been accelerated by the bullet, funny that some one with a PhD in physics (Costella) couldn't figure it out. Edited December 1, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ed O'Hagan]

Still no reaction to the picture itself? Or is so 'lossy' that it can be justifiably ignored? I don't think so..... and the message stands, even though the messenger is in constant danger of being pilloried. Obviously once again you cannot 'see', and that's fine....but why not let others decide for themselves. Does 'lossiness' mean that images change shape or disappear?

Both the right and left pictures proved to give little difficulty when examined in Adobe PhotoDeluxe. The one on the left was simply treated by the push of a single button . and it came up even clearer on the screen. The text was left as it appeared. I could have erased it, but I knew that if I left it untouched, it would show that it resulted from the despeckling. I expected that you would have something to say about it, but nonetheless that did not stop my presenting things exactly as I had found them.

Both the image of the van on Commerce St. and the 'Purse' frame posted above, have images embedded which depict....What? If nobody even looks, then of course the Zapruder film remains ever the 'unaltered' depiction of the truth. .. and that was being proclaimed by some 'not-ables' many years before Zavada reported his findings. They toil not, but they certainly do spin!

Finally, here is a zoomed in portion of the frame depicting images immediately to the left of the obscured letter 'P' in 'PURSE':

The two smaller inset pics were cropped from Willis 5 and Betzner. All three are showing the same images in the exact same spot on the east side of the GK. What you need to do is to find them in Willis and Betzner respectively, since that's where they are depicted.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan

[Charles Black]

Hello Len

Frankly as I have so often pointed out, I know nothing about the production and processing of film. But I do understand a little about the potential difference in the results of mechanical processes and alterations of such, when attempted by different individuals in different settings.

Do you really feel that Roland Zavada, or anyone who has "invented" a product, can state that minds other than his, or equipment other than his, are incapable of accomplishing results, only because he himself was unable to accomplish those same results. Inventing a process does not mean that someone, other than the inventor, cannot go beyond the inventors capability. I believe that Mr. Zavada probably believes what he says.

But how can anyone authoritively claim that they know that something is impossible, merely because they themselves cannot accomplish something.

Can you dismiss the idea that there was someone, or a consortium of someones, that had the ability to go beyond Mr. Zavada's limits ? Can you further believe that if these persons had such an ability, that they would broadcast it and thereby qualify as contributing to a murder conspiracy ? A conspiracy which was their duty to cover up ?

I learned long ago that I was wrong regarding a great deal which seemed impossible. Impossible to some persons may represent but an interesting and conquerable challenge to others.

When attacked with enough force, I feel that there are very few problems that do not deny the basic laws of physics, that cannot be seriously challenged.

"Mechanically impossible" is a phrase that I cannot digest. I feel that there have been processes already developed in secret, that would shake me to my core. Processes far more problematic than film processing.

I think that the impossibility argument has for some time been quite stale.

I am not arguing for someone to prove a negative by asking that what has been referred to as an "impossibility" be proven. I am only suggesting that much care should be taken before declaring something to be "impossible" !

Charlie Black

[Frank Agbat]

...

Does 'lossiness' mean that images change shape or disappear?

...

Actually, yes, it does.

Go back and look at the result of lossy compression on the letters in the image I posted.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not opposed to searching the images for new details, inconsistencies, and the like. However, some of the digital images to which we as a research community have access are not suitable for revealing fine details.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hello Len

Frankly as I have so often pointed out, I know nothing about the production and processing of film. But I do understand a little about the potential difference in the results of mechanical processes and alterations of such, when attempted by different individuals in different settings.

Do you really feel that Roland Zavada, or anyone who has "invented" a product, can state that minds other than his, or equipment other than his, are incapable of accomplishing results, only because he himself was unable to accomplish those same results. Inventing a process does not mean that someone, other than the inventor, cannot go beyond the inventors capability. I believe that Mr. Zavada probably believes what he says.

But how can anyone authoritively claim that they know that something is impossible, merely because they themselves cannot accomplish something.

Can you dismiss the idea that there was someone, or a consortium of someones, that had the ability to go beyond Mr. Zavada's limits ? Can you further believe that if these persons had such an ability, that they would broadcast it and thereby qualify as contributing to a murder conspiracy ? A conspiracy which was their duty to cover up ?

I learned long ago that I was wrong regarding a great deal which seemed impossible. Impossible to some persons may represent but an interesting and conquerable challenge to others.

When attacked with enough force, I feel that there are very few problems that do not deny the basic laws of physics, that cannot be seriously challenged.

"Mechanically impossible" is a phrase that I cannot digest. I feel that there have been processes already developed in secret, that would shake me to my core. Processes far more problematic than film processing.

I think that the impossibility argument has for some time been quite stale.

I am not arguing for someone to prove a negative by asking that what has been referred to as an "impossibility" be proven. I am only suggesting that much care should be taken before declaring something to be "impossible" !

Charlie Black

Hi Charles,

This piece here Clavius tech seems to argue your point, less eloquently. Albeit in relation to some, IMO, spurious reasons why man won't/can't go back to the moon.

Worth a read, if only to see the flip side of your technology argument, with which I am in agreement.

Gary

Edited December 1, 2006 by Gary Loughran

[Bill Miller]

Frank...you are absolutely right. As an art director for many years I always

specified largest obtainable "originals" if possible, because reproductions always

look better when reduced, and generally lose quality when enlarged.

Jack, the above is what I said about enlarging a very small 8MM Zframe and enlarging it to an 8 x 10 so to alter the image and how the loss of sharpness it would cause would be obvious to a trained eye even once shrunken back down to 8MM size. I find it amazing that you accept that fact here and wanted to argue against it when pointed out to you over possible Zfilm altering. I went even further and said that the film grain would be become blurred when enlarged in this manner and if placed back onto 8MM film stock - the previously enlarged grains would remain blurred around the edges and would be noticeable upon extreme magnification. Groden pointed this problem out - Mack pointed this problem out - and you guys wanted to act like it wouldn't happen, yet in this case you openly admit the loss of sharpness when you think it doesn't apply to your position concerning the effects of the processes used to make a film alteration.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Frank...you are absolutely right. As an art director for many years I always

specified largest obtainable "originals" if possible, because reproductions always

look better when reduced, and generally lose quality when enlarged.

Jack, the above is what I said about enlarging a very small 8MM Zframe and enlarging it to an 8 x 10 so to alter the image and how the loss of sharpness it would cause would be obvious to a trained eye even once shrunken back down to 8MM size. I find it amazing that you accept that fact here and wanted to argue against it when pointed out to you over possible Zfilm altering. I went even further and said that the film grain would be become blurred when enlarged in this manner and if placed back onto 8MM film stock - the previously enlarged grains would remain blurred around the edges and would be noticeable upon extreme magnification. Groden pointed this problem out - Mack pointed this problem out - and you guys wanted to act like it wouldn't happen, yet in this case you openly admit the loss of sharpness when you think it doesn't apply to your position concerning the effects of the processes used to make a film alteration.

Bill Miller

Miller cannot recognize that I was talking about computer scanning

and halftoning...not optical photocopies. I have made hundreds of

slide copies that I defy anyone to examine visually or by projection

and distinguish the difference between originals and copies. In fact,

my copies were quite often SUPERIOR to the originals. "Blurriness

of edges" is TOTAL NONSENSE if focus is accurate. Hollywood would

be out of business if copying degraded images...because ALL HOLLYWOOD

FILMS ARE COPIES THAT ARE MULTIGENERATIONAL without loss of

quality!

Miller ought to leave such matters to people who know what they

are talking about.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

dgh:do us a favor, go back on the road.... while your out there find out what Zavada was charged with doing and what his qualifications were/are for special effects film composing...

Funny Ray Fielding never said anything about that to me -- only thing he told me was, Fielding: "... I want nothing to do with the Zapruder film..." Then miracle of miracles Zavada drops me a note telling me, Ray is going to join him with his report rewrite...imagine that...

Any Len, when you get a chance I posted about 80 movies you can review concerning compositing sequence examples, do your self a favor, get educated, make your comments then, till then you're wasting lurkers time and mine...

Evidently you too have a Mary Poppins fixation, why don't you rescue Miller and tell me where the Poppins frames came from (the exact source), till you or he does Len, your blowing smoke... as usual... and if by chance you find the source, tell me what's wrong with the frames -- surely you wannabes can find a film lab techie that can tell you, thus all the rest of us whats wrong with the Poppins mattes , eh?

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

I was traveling and didn't notice this thread till yesterday.

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 (emphasis added- Len)

No Jack Frank was 100% correct in his original statement but you failed to comprehend what he said. He said that a computer like the one Charlie Black was using was not possible back then not that computers didn't exist. Do you really believe that 1963 computers had anywhere near the capabilities of current ones? Someone else speculated that in 1906 people would have said television was impossible that they would have been wrong doesn't change the fact that it was not possible at the time.

As Steven succinctly put it, the question is not whether the alleged alterations are possible today or even if alterations via optical printing were possible back then but whether the technology to make the alleged alterations so as to be undetectable today existed then. Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination.

It is instructive to remember what is being alleged, Hoax's "top technical expert" John Costella wrote:

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did." (emphasis added- Len)

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html

Elsewhere it is alleged that items such as lampposts and a street sign where not as they should have been and presumably were added by the forgers (though why they would have to do this if the film was shoot on the real Elm St. is never made clear).

Perhaps Dave as been asked of him repeatedly can identify scenes from 'his' movies in which there were alterations like those and the fakery isn't detectable.

"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.

Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown" http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Also "more than one" = two or more nor necessarily 'numerous'.

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!

I'm not sure if the movie was cited in the book itself but it certainly was cited by its authors.

Fetzer himself cited it.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/shex12.html

As did Costella

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

and Jack.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry48849

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.

It's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination.

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

Dave are you sure we went to the Moon? White says it never happened and Fetzer and Costella have their doubts. Funny how he keeps repeating the 'anti-alterationists' = Lone Nuts straw man.

Charles, take the time to learn as much as possible about the type of film Zapruder used. Kodachrome film DOES NOT copy accurately. No filters can compensate for the shift in color when dealing with Kodachrome II film. Kodachrome II was also made for filming in sunlight and to a copy film one needs artificial light, which experts could detect the differences right away. Someone like Healy may tell you that this information is incorrect because he has seen it done, but I can assure you that he has worked with PROFESSIONAL FILM whereas the difference in this case is that I am talking about AMATEUR FILM, which is what Zapruder used.

Bill Miller

"Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is what

matters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples.

Jack

What kind of silly semantic argument is that? The color temperature of light is directly related to what 'kind of light' it is.

http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm

As already pointed out more than once on this forum Roland Zavada the inventor of Kodacrome II said that the difference in color temperature would have been detectable. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf pg. 2

KODAK-Dallas provided 3 rolls of Kodachrome 11A film rated at 40ASA 3200K for the printing of Zapruders film, the story goes: they, KODAK had no 'print' film on hand (tough to believe for the film of the century).

So Dave you think they could have known a head of time they would be developing the Z-film? IIRC they said they didn't have any copy film.

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.

Actually Myra not even Costella claims it (they) completely disappeared in 1 frame as even he shows some blood (or cranial fluid) until frame 315 (see your link) and his copy of the film shows splatter at least until frame 318 [ http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg ]. If your claim that you've read every page of every thread on this forum is true you should have read the thread in which a forensic expert explained the obvious, that the blood would have been accelerated by the bullet, funny that some one with a PhD in physics (Costella) couldn't figure it out.

Edited December 2, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

I'd like to point out a few things that I agree with and disagree with and state why I take the position that I do and because it is a bit confusing to me as to who is saying waht - I'll just speak directly to each quote of interest.

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.

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".

This is just one example of someone finding two pieces of a puzzle that can be made to fit together while ignoring the fact that the other sides do not match anywhere else with the remaining pieces. It is not enough to say that computers existed in the 1960's or that NASA had them because it is the SOFTWARE that would be needed to make computer animations. Jack has admitted in the past that such technology didn't exist back then and went on to point out how the alterations would have been done by hand the old fashion way by creating 8 x 10 images of the Zframes.

Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination.

Of course David cannot say what scenses were as extensive as the ones discussed in "Hoax". Furthermore, David has stated for quite a while that he has seen NO PROOF of alteration to the Zfilm, at least until recently, but has not explained what is altered and why it didn't register with him when he made his prior statements of never seeing proof of alteration.

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Is it not interesting that the alleged forgers couldn't alter the so-called Backyard photos without detection, but somehow were said to be good enough to do it to the Zfilm and not have it noiced for 30 plus years. Once again, the problem is that the grains on a film are all unique, thus inserting film grain on a image such as an arn or leg from one roll of film would show a different pattern of grain than the rest of the image which was present on the original film.

Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown"

Sometimes it appears that Jack just isn 't playing dumb, but actually is dumb. Jack knows Groden has examined the alleged oriiginal Zfilm and has offered his opinion as to the films authenticty and why Robert believes what he does. Jack's way of dealing with the facts is to ignore them.

I

t's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination.

It's called "double-talk". Its tthe same as saying you have not seen proof of the Zfilm beling altered only to tell people you believe the Zfilm is altered.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

TOP POST

dgh: ahh, "a bit confusng"? I SEE, your ego just won't let you say, "I don't know where I found the M. Poppins frames I posted, and even if I did, I can't tell you what's the matter with them, nor do I know anyone that can..."

Further, regarding the below, you're sounding very, Very, VERY confused -- Warner Brothers, NARA, NASA, Elm Street, the LIMO, software, backyard photos, Zapruder Film, me, Jack White, Zavada, HOAX... all in one POST. What can we expect NEXT? What about Mary Poppins?

I'd like to point out a few things that I agree with and disagree with and state why I take the position that I do and because it is a bit confusing to me as to who is saying waht - I'll just speak directly to each quote of interest.

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.

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".

This is just one example of someone finding two pieces of a puzzle that can be made to fit together while ignoring the fact that the other sides do not match anywhere else with the remaining pieces. It is not enough to say that computers existed in the 1960's or that NASA had them because it is the SOFTWARE that would be needed to make computer animations. Jack has admitted in the past that such technology didn't exist back then and went on to point out how the alterations would have been done by hand the old fashion way by creating 8 x 10 images of the Zframes.

Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination.

Of course David cannot say what scenses were as extensive as the ones discussed in "Hoax". Furthermore, David has stated for quite a while that he has seen NO PROOF of alteration to the Zfilm, at least until recently, but has not explained what is altered and why it didn't register with him when he made his prior statements of never seeing proof of alteration.

"When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street.

Is it not interesting that the alleged forgers couldn't alter the so-called Backyard photos without detection, but somehow were said to be good enough to do it to the Zfilm and not have it noiced for 30 plus years. Once again, the problem is that the grains on a film are all unique, thus inserting film grain on a image such as an arn or leg from one roll of film would show a different pattern of grain than the rest of the image which was present on the original film.

Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown"

Sometimes it appears that Jack just isn 't playing dumb, but actually is dumb. Jack knows Groden has examined the alleged oriiginal Zfilm and has offered his opinion as to the films authenticty and why Robert believes what he does. Jack's way of dealing with the facts is to ignore them.

I

t's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination.

It's called "double-talk". Its tthe same as saying you have not seen proof of the Zfilm beling altered only to tell people you believe the Zfilm is altered.

Bill Miller

Edited December 2, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

dgh: ahh, "a bit confusng"? I SEE, your ego just won't let you say, "I don't know where I found the M. Poppins frames I posted, and even if I did, I can't tell you what's the matter with them, nor do I know anyone that can..."

David, a blind man can see the shoe sole thicknes of Dick Van Dyke change between frames ...

I stated that there was an ongoing shoe sole thickness problem in my original post, so why is it that you are the only screwball who still ask 'what is wrong with the clip' ... ? You never cease to amaze me at how stupid you pretend to be and I can only assume this is why even the smuttiest of tabloids has not carried your alleged earth shattering nonsense. I think this quote fits your response, David .... "One way to attempt to create a lone assassin illusion is to pretend to be a conspiracy supporter and then continually post some of the most ludicrous claims one can think of".

Further, regarding the below, you're sounding very, Very, VERY confused -- Warner Brothers, NARA, NASA, Elm Street, the LIMO, software, backyard photos, Zapruder Film, me, Jack White, Zavada, HOAX... all in one POST. What can we expect NEXT? What about Mary Poppins?

What is there not to understand, David? If someone said that early prehistoric man had invented the wheel .... would you then be telling us that the same prehistoric man must have also been driving cars as well? A computer is worthless when it comes to doing film alterations if the software to make such alterations has not been invented yet. Now how hard is that for someone to follow!

Bill Miller

Edited December 2, 2006 by Bill Miller