Looking for Zapruder

[Bill Miller]

I'll bet that's a paper lunch sack. Especially since it was lunch time.

Whoa, Mark ... so you don't think it was a ball glove? I thought it was common for older guys to spend their afternoons in the plaza playing baseball, especially on a day the President would be coming through.

A baseball glove!!!

Edited January 31, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Let's say "Brendan" robs a 7-11 and kills the clerk, a clear case

of capital murder. He runs to the getaway car, driven by "Craig".

In the law, both "Brendan" and "Craig" are equally guilty of

capital murder. They drive to the house of "Len" and plead,

"we've just killed a guy, and you gotta hide us!" In complying,

"Len" becomes an accessory after the fact and a part of the

criminal act. "Len" phones his friend "Bill" and says, "You gotta

help clear these guys, put out phony stories that help clear

them." I am not an attorney, but that is the law, simplified.

All of these guys would be convicted of CRIMINAL ACTS

when brought to trial. Some are murderers, and some are

accessories after the fact...but all are guilty.

Notice that I said...

"(In the above "scenario", all names are fictitious, and any resemblance

to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)"

Jack

Jack, your subtleness is about as obvious as the mistakes you consistently make concerning the photographical record.

Bill

[Michael Crane]

Can somebody please tell me what the gentlemen in the picture is holding in his hands?Also,in the GIF I see what appear to be abnormal changes in hair style & glasses with the lady on the far left.Shoot...at one point she even looks to be "growing a chin."

Edited January 31, 2007 by Michael Crane

[Jack White]

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

Jack

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown.

Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession."

Bill Miller

My slide copies are extremely close to the original.

The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some

early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN.

Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see

the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time

that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE

SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames.

Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie.

Jack

I think you may be right this time, Jack. As I recall from the email Robert sent me which I have posted on this forum at least twice, I believe he said that you are "ALWAYS WRONG".

Bill

[Craig Lamson]

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

Jack

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown.

Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession."

Bill Miller

My slide copies are extremely close to the original.

The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some

early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN.

Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see

the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time

that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE

SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames.

Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie.

Jack

If your copies are "extremely close to the original" then why do they show blown highlights and blocked shadows, which indicate a poor duplication job?

Edited January 31, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Frank Agbat]

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

Jack

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown.

Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession."

Bill Miller

My slide copies are extremely close to the original.

The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some

early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN.

Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see

the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time

that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE

SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames.

Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie.

Jack

If your copies are "extremely close to the original" then why do they show blown highlights and blocked shadows, which indicate a poor duplication job?

Craig,

It is possible that the problem with the posted image is in the digital domain and not in the analog (photographic) process. It is impossible for me to know, though, as I do not have the slide from which to compare.

[Craig Lamson]

Why ask Bill? As far as I know, ALL COPIES OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ORIGINAL WERE MADE BY ME.

Bill has never seen the original. I have. I copied it both in color and b/w. I gave Groden and Gary

Mack good copies of the slide, and I think Gary Shaw also. Reproductions you see in books were

from my copies.

The original Bronson slide was WELL EXPOSED, but had the characteristic blocked up green areas

characteristic of Kodachorme, though I do not remember the slide mount, nor do I remember examining

the original emulsion for the characteristic "etch" of Kodachrome. The color saturation looked more like

Kodachrome than Ektachrome (shadows in green areas are dark, like Kodachrome.)

The exposure was made with a camera with a focal plane shutter (I later confirmed it was a Leica)

at a slow shutter speed, likely one-thirtieth, because the camera was "jiggled" halfway through the

exposure while the shutter curtain was traveling across the focal plane. This resulted in the LEFT HALF

of the slide having NO BLUR (pedestal area), but the right having VERTICAL MOTION BLUR (limo area).

Jack

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown.

Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession."

Bill Miller

My slide copies are extremely close to the original.

The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some

early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN.

Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see

the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time

that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE

SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames.

Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie.

Jack

If your copies are "extremely close to the original" then why do they show blown highlights and blocked shadows, which indicate a poor duplication job?

Craig,

It is possible that the problem with the posted image is in the digital domain and not in the analog (photographic) process. It is impossible for me to know, though, as I do not have the slide from which to compare.

Perhaps, but without a doubt duplication also causes the problems of blown highlights and blocked shadows. I've seen no indication that the digital representation presented here differs from the dupicate slides produced by Jack. We also have Gary Macks description of Jacks duplicates as being "dark" which is also indicated in the digital file posted here. The 'darkness" is the blocked shadows. If the film duplicate is blocked and the digital version is blocked it leads to the conclusion that the duplicate was of poor quality perhaps created using camera original film stock or the inferior Kodak SE duplication stock. Its simply a case of contrast build during duplication.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Todays mystery: The assassination occurred on 11/22/63 ... what year was it that Jack started seeing a waltzing Sitzman and how many strokes did he have to get to that point?

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website.

I admit that was in bad taste but was it really worse than when Jack accused Bill, me and others of being accesories to the assassination or when he labels his opponents goons? Jack is hardly a saint.

Please produce a statement where I name any persons as such. I recall saying

that those who promote the official WC account of the assassination are what

Sylvia Meagher called them...ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT. And that is a

fact. But I named no names. Defenders of the Warren Report ARE accessories

to the crime.

As for GOONS, I have said that those who make personal attacks on researchers

instead of presenting evidence ARE goons. If you see yourself as a goon, so be it.

I do not name names when pointing to the goon squad here, but if you admit it,

do not ascribe it to me.

I have never claimed to be a saint. I do research. I do not initiate personal attacks.

There is a goon squad here who does nothing but that.

Jack

Jack you’ve got your facts wrong (as I’ve come to expect) by your own standards you lied. You labeled Craig, Evan, Steve Ulman and me by name as goons simply for disagreeing with you. I can site similar examples if you wish.

John...we truthseekers have a GIANT ADVANTAGE over obfuscators like

Colby, Burton, Lamson et al.

They must be right ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME…

<snip>

…Ulman finally admitted the truck moved around…

<snip>

I wonder just who employs these goons. They surely don't do it just for amusement. Some work at it 24/7. My motive is truth. They have NO APPARENT MOTIVE.

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=76596

Also an accessory after the fact is an accessory.

At least he honest and "man" enough to own up to your personal attacks on others!

[Bill Miller]

As for GOONS, I have said that those who make personal attacks on researchers

instead of presenting evidence ARE goons. If you see yourself as a goon, so be it.

I do not name names when pointing to the goon squad here, but if you admit it,

do not ascribe it to me.

I have never claimed to be a saint. I do research. I do not initiate personal attacks.

There is a goon squad here who does nothing but that.

Jack

Jack you’ve got your facts wrong (as I’ve come to expect) by your own standards you lied. You labeled Craig, Evan, Steve Ulman and me by name as goons simply for disagreeing with you. I can site similar examples if you wish.

John...we truthseekers have a GIANT ADVANTAGE over obfuscators like

Colby, Burton, Lamson et al.

They must be right ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME…

<snip>

…Ulman finally admitted the truck moved around…

<snip>

I wonder just who employs these goons. They surely don't do it just for amusement. Some work at it 24/7. My motive is truth. They have NO APPARENT MOTIVE.

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=76596

Also an accessory after the fact is an accessory.

At least he honest and "man" enough to own up to your personal attacks on others!

Jack is use to just being able to say things without being challeged for he comes from a forum where people who disagreed with him were booted off of it. Jack doesn't get away with it here, so he finds himself out of his comfort zone.

Who can forget Jack saying, "You know nothing about movies and movie production if you

are not aware of MARY POPPINS, made at the time of the

assassination, which was full of award-winning special effects."

Jack made that remark in support of undetectable Zfilm alteration capabilities in 1963/64. I invite anyone to go back and look at those Mary Poppins clips and see if what Jack claimed is true. One thing I have learned is that just because Jack states something as fact - it doesn't mean that it is and should always be double checked.

Now who besides Jack doesn't see the sole thickness of those shoes on the actors changing between frames? To this day Jack has never admitted that he was wrong pertaining to his remark.

More of Jack uh - er - not initiating personal attacks:

"Mr. Colby does not know the difference between COMPOSTING and COMPOSITING.

Compositing is assembling various photo elements into one, as in faking the Zfilm.

Composting is a procedure used to turn organic matter into fertilizer.

Ignorance is a weak position from which to argue.

Jack "

In another post where Jack shows people how easy it is to alter an image - Len Colby pointed out that Jack used a computer that was not possible to use in 1063/64. This is how Jack opened his response ...

"Colby demonstrates his ignorance by saying: Jack, did you fake that frame on a computer or with an circa 1963 optical printer?"

Edited June 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Gary Loughran]

and the beat goes on....