Subject: Re: Zavada Presentation to the Movie Machine Society Date: 21 Nov 1998 02:32:28 -0600 From: joejd@mcs.net (Joe Durnavich) Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk John McAdams writes: >Translation: the Z-film is genuine. Not only is it the case that all >the "anomalies" that Zavada discusses are a common and understandable >occurance with cameras like Zapruder's. Any fakery of the Z-film >would require the people doing the forgery to *duplicate* these >artifacts. > >Zavada, for many years a top scientist with Kodak, admits that *he* >didn't understand a lot of this before he started his research, and >had considerable time to work with the camera. > >But I suspect that we now are going to hear that The Conspiracy >understood all this in 1963 and flawlessly created these artifacts. The alterationists will say that the forgers simply re-filmed their modified Zapruder film with Zapruder's camera, thus regenerating all its unique optical characteristics. However, Zavada made multi-generational copies and measured them with a densitometer. He was testing to determine if any of the SS copies were later than first-generation. He noted that the contrast quickly goes to hell on successive generations. He concluded that the SS copies were most likely first generation, but he noticed that the contrast in the SS copies was not as high as in his first generation dupes done on modern Kodachrome. Zavada was part of the Kodachrome II team at Kodak at its introduction in 1961. He remembered that the first 60 or so batches of Kodachrome II film released had a lower-contrast emulsion that was later adjusted. The Zapruder film was from 1961, from one of those batches. The SS copies don't look so bad only because of a manufacturing quirk in the Zapruder film emulsion that would partially compensate for the contrast buildup. At the very least, the forgers would of have to have known about this different emulsion and tracked down a reel from one of the 60 batches to prevent a non-reversible contrast buildup (or loss of tones) when they made the SS copies. >Zavada seems to have done for the Z-film what the HSCA did for the >Backyard Photos and the Autopsy Photos. Will he likewise be ignored? I suspect his connections to the CIA are being mapped out as we speak. :-) -- Joe Durnavich