David G. Healy Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] I think you showing the films in sync was an important task to complete and I commend you for it, but it was that needed task to answer that alteration question once and for all concerning the possibility of the assassination films being tampered with .... least ways that is the way I read it. dgh: a] films in sync? Unless you can confirm the imagery used here was 1st generation film material converted to digital files, your whistling in the dark champ! You can't provide us with the detailed lineage of the films utilized for this test. I'd ALSO say, you're a wishin and a hopin! That the best committment you can make when it comes to DP film/photo tampering.... "least ways that is the way I read it" ? Also, thanks to Robin - for his film grabs are really good ... some of the best I have seen pertaining to the Muchmore film. dgh: Everybody should be commended for their efforts! Now, can anyone explain to us HOW frames are dropped OR added during optical film printing? Perhaps Bill can have Robert Groden drop by and fill us in... Hell, maybe he can provide us with 1st generation imagery (after its confirmed as such) so a real live test can be performed (looks like John Dolva and Frank have a headstart on a template for testing, I salute you). Perhaps he, Groden can do a show and tell, compare **ACTUAL** 1st generation 35mm Z-film positive with 2nd generation 8mm Z-film, eh? What do you say Bill? You're Grodens contact here, ask him? oh, and "frame grabs", we don't need frame grabs, we NEED actual, verifiable frames with generation info AND lineage... anything put on videotape and or DVD is tainted - PERIOD! End-of STORY! Bill Miller Edited December 30, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 (edited) dgh: a]films in sync? Unless you can confirm the imagery used here was 1st generation film material converted to digital files, your whistling in the dark champ! David, you are your own worst enemy and your past post will never let you off the hook. For years you have been asking for someone to post in-sync assassination films to show that they matched one another so to put the alteration stuff to rest. Now that someone has been doing it - you come up with ridiculous statement above. You asked for it and once you recieve it you want to take a detour and claim it cannot be confirmed. What a sorry-assed waste of forum space your replies have become. The same applied to your claims of how forensic testing needed to be done and to test your sincerity, I asked you to tell us what forensic testion would you do if you had the said in-camera original film in front of you. To date you have not answered that question though it has been presented each time you xxxxx this forum, which means you were only trying to salvage a position that you really were not prepared to defend. Perhaps he, Groden can do a show and tell, compare **ACTUAL** 1st generation 35mm Z-film positive with 2nd generation 8mm Z-film, eh? Why would Groden need to to that, David. All one has to do is go back and read your remarks on how to tell a 1st generation copy, 2nd generation copy, or a third generation copy from the camera original. Your post telling us this stuff made it seem like anyone can do it. Walking some xxxxx through the degree of fuzziness created by each generation is nothing to concern one's self about when none of them do not show the sharpness that you claimed the camera original would show. Do I need to go back and post YOUR remarks once again? Groden and Zavada have taken the time to make an appointment and go look at the said camera original Zapruder film ... when are you going to do it is my question? Bill Miller Edited December 30, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 (edited) Okay... We have 2.3 x 1023 threads where you guys can call each other names and argue about alteration, one's lineage, etc. Trains don't stop when chihuahuas start barking at the wheels. Drive on. Ashton Edited December 30, 2006 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 dgh: a]films in sync? Unless you can confirm the imagery used here was 1st generation film material converted to digital files, your whistling in the dark champ! David, you are your own worst enemy and your past post will never let you off the hook. For years you have been asking for someone to post in-sync assassination films to show that they matched one another so to put the alteration stuff to rest. Now that someone has been doing it - you come up with ridiculous statement above. You asked for it and once you recieve it you want to take a detour and claim it cannot be confirmed. What a sorry-assed waste of forum space your replies have become. The same applied to your claims of how forensic testing needed to be done and to test your sincerity, I asked you to tell us what forensic testion would you do if you had the said in-camera original film in front of you. To date you have not answered that question though it has been presented each time you xxxxx this forum, which means you were only trying to salvage a position that you really were not prepared to defend. Perhaps he, Groden can do a show and tell, compare **ACTUAL** 1st generation 35mm Z-film positive with 2nd generation 8mm Z-film, eh? Why would Groden need to to that, David. All one has to do is go back and read your remarks on how to tell a 1st generation copy, 2nd generation copy, or a third generation copy from the camera original. Your post telling us this stuff made it seem like anyone can do it. Walking some xxxxx through the degree of fuzziness created by each generation is nothing to concern one's self about when none of them do not show the sharpness that you claimed the camera original would show. Do I need to go back and post YOUR remarks once again? Groden and Zavada have taken the time to make an appointment and go look at the said camera original Zapruder film ... when are you going to do it is my question? Bill Miller dgh: Stop your dancing guy.... either deliver or get out of the discussion, what you add [currently] isn't germain to anything other than *pure speculation*. Where's the beef, er, the 1st generation frames.... Next you'll be telling us the 'alleged' in-camera Zapruder film was available to reasearchers.... who the hell is going to believe a copy of a coipy of a copy of a already questionable in-camera original? What-a-crock of crappe! Roland Zavada? LMAO, He certainly verified the the film was Kodachrome II/II-A, that's all he did champ, that was all he was required to do....He wasn't even ALLOWED access to TEST the alleged Zapruder B&H414 camera..... some investigation..... a JOKE! fuzziness? Geez Bill, give us an example. Say show us a 1st generation frame (from some verifiable source) compared with a 2nd or 3rd generation 8mm Z-frame (from some verifiable source) and let us make the comparison and distinction.... Your pal Groden will supply you the needed 1st generation frames .... Post all my remarks, all your remarks and by all means have Groden come in here and POST all HIS remarks -- Hell, I don't even believe you speak to Groden.... post away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 For Bill Miller and David Healey to usurp this thread for juvenile bickering is about as revolting as it gets. Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 (edited) dgh: Stop your dancing guy.... either deliver or get out of the discussion, what you add [currently]isn't germain to anything other than *pure speculation*. Where's the beef, er, the 1st generation frames.... Next you'll be telling us the 'alleged' in-camera Zapruder film was available to reasearchers.... who the hell is going to believe a copy of a coipy of a copy of a already questionable in-camera original? What-a-crock of crappe! Roland Zavada? LMAO, He certainly verified the the film was Kodachrome II/II-A, that's all he did champ, that was all he was required to do....He wasn't even ALLOWED access to TEST the alleged Zapruder B&H414 camera..... some investigation..... a JOKE! Asked and answered numerous times. What date have you made your appointment at the archives for, Davie boy? fuzziness? Geez Bill, give us an example. Say show us a 1st generation frame (from some verifiable source) compared with a 2nd or 3rd generation 8mm Z-frame (from some verifiable source) and let us make the comparison and distinction.... Your pal Groden will supply you the needed 1st generation frames .... Post all my remarks, all your remarks and by all means have Groden come in here and POST all HIS remarks -- Hell, I don't even believe you speak to Groden.... post away![/color] Sure, I'll use the source from Costella's site that you always brag about. Seeing how you endorse that site and must know what it says - you can go back to it for the image sources. Bill Miller PS: try and not xxxxx too much, Davie ... Ashton is getting jealous when he see's that he isn't the only one posting back and forth. Edited January 14, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 (edited) For Bill Miller and David Healey to usurp this thread for juvenile bickering is about as revolting as it gets. They've been doing the exact same thing for at least five years. If I had a dollar for every time Bill Miller used the Jim Garrison quote about justice and the heavens falling or for every time David Healy called someone champ I could purchase a full set of the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Bill's rationalization has often been that he has a continuing responsibility to keep people that are "new" to the case from becoming misinformed. And most people with an interest in this case have learned to simply ignore Healy. Edited December 31, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 For Bill Miller and David Healey to usurp this thread for juvenile bickering is about as revolting as it gets. They've been doing the exact same thing for at least five years. If I had a dollar for every time Bill Miller used the Jim Garrison quote about justice and the heavens falling or for every time David Healy called someone champ I could purchase a full set of the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Bill's rationalization has often been that he has a continuing responsibility to keep people that are "new" to the case from becoming misinformed. And most people with an interest in this case have learned to simply ignore Healy. stuffit Hogan..... Miller is about as up on film alteration possibilities as you are.... Z_E_R_O! Champ! When you or anyone else develops some credentials concerning the subject matter, feel free to chime in-- till then I'll be correcting Miller, and/or you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) dgh: Stop your dancing guy.... either deliver or get out of the discussion, what you add [currently]isn't germain to anything other than *pure speculation*. Where's the beef, er, the 1st generation frames.... Next you'll be telling us the 'alleged' in-camera Zapruder film was available to reasearchers.... who the hell is going to believe a copy of a coipy of a copy of a already questionable in-camera original? What-a-crock of crappe! Roland Zavada? LMAO, He certainly verified the the film was Kodachrome II/II-A, that's all he did champ, that was all he was required to do....He wasn't even ALLOWED access to TEST the alleged Zapruder B&H414 camera..... some investigation..... a JOKE! Asked and answered numerous times. What date have you made your appointment at the archives for, Davie boy? fuzziness? Geez Bill, give us an example. Say show us a 1st generation frame (from some verifiable source) compared with a 2nd or 3rd generation 8mm Z-frame (from some verifiable source) and let us make the comparison and distinction.... Your pal Groden will supply you the needed 1st generation frames .... Post all my remarks, all your remarks and by all means have Groden come in here and POST all HIS remarks -- Hell, I don't even believe you speak to Groden.... post away![/color] Sure, I'll use the source from Costella's site that you always brag about. Seeing how you endorse that site and must know what it says - you can go back to it for he image sources. Bill Miller PS: try and not xxxxx too much, Davie ... Ashton is getting jealous when he see's that he isn't the only one posting back and forth. ____________________ dgh: I wouldn't elevate yourself too awfully high there champ -- On the proper forum, one where you have to validate your sources, you're toast, and you know it..... till then post on -- A few of us out here continually get a kick out of your feeble attempts.... Edited December 31, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) double post -deleted- Edited December 31, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 stuffit Hogan..... Miller is about as up on film alteration possibilities as you are.... Z_E_R_O! Champ! When you or anyone else develops some credentials concerning the subject matter, feel free to chime in-- till then I'll be correcting Miller, and/or you.... Well, Mike just lost out on another dollar, but I will even it back up by not responding to your stupid remarks in response #354. After all, what Mike said about us both was true. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) Speaking of missing frames... MPI's version of the Z-film is missing the following frames: 155, 156, 208, 209, 210, 211, 341, 350. (edit - also frame 486 is missing -- thanks for point this out, David) If I understand the provenance correctly, it is claimed that the MPI version was taken from the "camera original" in the archives, and that the damage was caused while the film was in the custody of Time/Life. (Inexcusably, MPI does NOT correct for the missing 341 and 350 frames, so all the frames after 340 are mis-numbered). Apart from the utter incompetence of Time/Life to allow such an important film to be damaged at all, I got to thinking about the particular frames in question. Specifically, why would certain frames end up getting damaged? What causes such damage? What is special about those frames? The timing problems with the preposterous WC fantasy forced the search for evidence of a first shot prior to the "Stemmons Road Sign-vicinity" shot. This could conceivably explain some of the 155/156 damage (probably from wear and tear, bulb-heat damage, etc). 208-211 seems fairly obvious as well -- the search for the magic bullet shot (or shots)... 341 and 350, though, are curious. Unlike the aforementioned frames, there is no evidence of a pending problem in the preceding frame nor in the following frames. They're simply missing from MPI's collection of frames in any of the formats provided. So what is special, if anything, about those frames, or did some knucklehead at Time-Life simply break the film in two places and spliced around it? Edited December 31, 2006 by Frank Agbat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Speaking of missing frames...MPI's version of the Z-film is missing the following frames: 155, 156, 208, 209, 210, 211, 341, 350. If I understand the provenance correctly, it is claimed that the MPI version was taken from the "camera original" in the archives, and that the damage was caused while the film was in the custody of Time/Life. (Inexcusably, MPI does NOT correct for the missing 341 and 350 frames, so all the frames after 340 are mis-numbered). Apart from the utter incompetence of Time/Life to allow such an important film to be damaged at all, I got to thinking about the particular frames in question. Specifically, why would certain frames end up getting damaged? What causes such damage? What is special about those frames? The timing problems with the preposterous WC fantasy forced the search for evidence of a first shot prior to the "Stemmons Road Sign-vicinity" shot. This could conceivably explain some of the 155/156 damage (probably from wear and tear, bulb-heat damage, etc). 208-211 seems fairly obvious as well -- the search for the magic bullet shot (or shots)... 341 and 350, though, are curious. Unlike the aforementioned frames, there is no evidence of a pending problem in the preceding frame nor in the following frames. They're simply missing from MPI's collection of frames in any of the formats provided. So what is special, if anything, about those frames, or did some knucklehead at Time-Life simply break the film in two places and spliced around it? I believe the MPI Z-film version is missing the last frame.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I believe the MPI Z-film version is missing the last frame.... You are correct! (I'll edit my post accordingly). In the missing final frame, one could easily argue some combination of "lazy" and/or "thinking for us" i.e., MPI determined that there was nothing of value in this frame and merely ignored it. The more I closely examine their work, the more I wish they'd make the individual frames in all their various zooms, etc, available for purchase in full-resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 31, 2006 Author Share Posted December 31, 2006 Frank, I wonder if you have found out the exact aspect ratio change Z to published MPI in pixels or percent. did they stretch lengthwise or compress vertically. Either way changes the data somewhat but compressing definiotely 'deletes' the frames are not all level, I suppose you've noticed that. In particular when resizing this 'relocates' items in a way that makes some fine measurements dodgy. Could this be the source of the skewing or distortion seen in the Msplice. Ie the splice needs to be treated as two separate images and aligned properly first before any resizing, restoration. 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