Jump to content
The Education Forum
Kathy Beckett

For David Healy RE: Zavada Response to Doug Horne

Recommended Posts

David,

Since the thread regarding the adequacy of 1963 technology in altering the Z film came up, I started looking back into what has been said recently by Doug Horne and Rollie Zavada. I found something I wanted to ask you about.

On pg 15 of this:

Roland Zavada Refutes Doug Horne Assertions

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Zavada writes:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

(italics mine)

Doug Horne responded to Zavada in his journal entry entitled "The Empire Strikes Back".

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/#post-insidethearrb-4900

In it he says:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

This really surprised me, as I noted that on pg. 18 of the Zavada Reponse, he had sent Fielding your paper, and Fielding, apparently,did not agree.

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

(italics and bolds mine)

David, have you responded to this? I can't seem to find it if you have.

Had you had contact with either Prof. Fielding or Zavada regarding this?

Edited by Kathy Beckett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most will miss in this exchange is that technology was not available TO ALTER 8MM FILM.

Of course that is an artful twist of what happened. No alterationist suggests that 8MM FILM was

altered. The filmstrip was very short. It was enlarged to a much larger size for the alterations

and then rephotographed on 8mm Kodachrome.

This clever use of wording allows them to be truthful about something THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most will miss in this exchange is that technology was not available TO ALTER 8MM FILM.

Of course that is an artful twist of what happened. No alterationist suggests that 8MM FILM was

altered. The filmstrip was very short. It was enlarged to a much larger size for the alterations

and then rephotographed on 8mm Kodachrome.

This clever use of wording allows them to be truthful about something THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Jack

What are you talking about the only erson talking about alteration of 8mm on this thread was Horne. Zavada who invented Kodachrome II said the Zfilm was an "in camera original". What you propose would have been at best a 3rd generation copy.

1] 8mm > 16 or 35 mm copy of original

2] 16/35mm copy of original > 16/35mm animation

3] 16/35mm animation > 8mm animation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most will miss in this exchange is that technology was not available TO ALTER 8MM FILM.

Of course that is an artful twist of what happened. No alterationist suggests that 8MM FILM was

altered. The filmstrip was very short. It was enlarged to a much larger size for the alterations

and then rephotographed on 8mm Kodachrome.

This clever use of wording allows them to be truthful about something THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Jack

Oh Jack, stop being silly. Fielding specifically says Healy's ideas which include the 8mm>35mm>8mm transfer are technologically naive.

He says manipulation of "these images" couldn't have been achieved in 1963.

Fielding doesn't think it was possible. He may be right, he may be wrong, he may be in the employ of the "ongoing coverup" but there's nothing unclear and there's no clever parsing.

He says you're wrong - deal with it!

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that is an artful twist of what happened. No alterationist suggests that 8MM FILM was

altered. The filmstrip was very short. It was enlarged to a much larger size for the alterations

and then rephotographed on 8mm Kodachrome.

Well said Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that is an artful twist of what happened. No alterationist suggests that 8MM FILM was

altered. The filmstrip was very short. It was enlarged to a much larger size for the alterations

and then rephotographed on 8mm Kodachrome.

Well said Jack

Dean,

Really, it's not. Jack is implying that Zavada has left himself some type of exit along the lines of "Hey, I never said it couldn't be done if it was on 35mm film."

Nothing is further from the truth. Zavada is very clear that the 8mm - 35mm - 8mm transfer is included, and rejected in his analysis.

It's highly misleading to suggest that Zavada and Fielding are weasel wording when they're not.

As I wrote before, they may be right, they may be wrong, they may just be lying. But they haven't left themselves some slick verbal out and it's wrong of Jack to suggest they have.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they haven't left themselves some slick verbal out and it's wrong of Jack to suggest they have.

How do you know that?

Are you friends with Zavada and Fielding?

Im not trying to sound like a jerk Jerry, you know I respect you, but how can you say that and be sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they haven't left themselves some slick verbal out and it's wrong of Jack to suggest they have.

How do you know that?

Are you friends with Zavada and Fielding?

Im not trying to sound like a jerk Jerry, you know I respect you, but how can you say that and be sure?

Dean,

I know and respect you as well - I'm not insulted when someone asks me how I know something - it's what we're about.

My hope is that you ask the same question of everyone, even those who share your views.

In this case I know because I've read Zavada's reply to Horne. So for instance, when Zavada writes,

"Per My Studies and Investigation, I Contend that the Zapruder

Original Film Could NOT be Altered as You have Claimed or in Any

Other Manner."

That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Nor does this seem to leave room for him to use a 35mm escape hatch...

"There is no known film production history that would provide a technology

reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing

master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected

scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm

KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original."

And of course this, which is followed by a long list of technical reasons why 8mm to 35mm equipment of the type needed didn't exist.

"You note in your chapter that alteration would demand the use

of an optical printer to blowup to 35mm, followed by an animation stand for

frame-by-frame cell art or matte work from a positive print. You fail to

add; a custom 0.150 in. pitch transport shuttle for the printer projector,

custom apertures (to project and capture the image between the

perforations to the edge of the film), full immersion wet gate for an initial

blowup to 35mm, a camera with a custom aperture and a shuttle displaced

from the aperture area for reconstituting the image as 8mm."

Honestly Dean, I don't know how anybody could be clearer about his beliefs.

He says the film couldn't be altered in any manner, he explicitly rejects Horne's 35mm enlargement idea and he bases some of his objects on the non-existence of 8mm-35mm-8mm equipment.

Do you really think it's fair or accurate to assert that his comments are only meant to apply to artwork on 8mm film and after writing those sentences he thinks he could save his reputation by saying "Hey, I never said a 35mm film couldn't be altered." Especially after one of his major points is that

"The methodology proposed to achieve purported optical manipulation

suggests a 35mm blowup to EASTMAN color Internegative Film 5270

or a camera negative film; EASTMAN Color Negative Film 5251 - both

current at that time. (Note in 1967 Moses Weitzman was forced to

use ECN, for his TIME/LIFE blowups because 5270 was too slow for

his printer light.) The use of internegative film, even in 35mm format

could incur some graininess. The use of either would incur image

structure degradation. The faster camera negative would incur a

significant and easily detectable level of graininess."

I just don't think it's fair of Jack to imply a subtle parsing of words that isn't even remotely suggested in Zavada's work.

Best to you,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they haven't left themselves some slick verbal out and it's wrong of Jack to suggest they have.

How do you know that?

Are you friends with Zavada and Fielding?

Im not trying to sound like a jerk Jerry, you know I respect you, but how can you say that and be sure?

Dean,

I know and respect you as well - I'm not insulted when someone asks me how I know something - it's what we're about.

My hope is that you ask the same question of everyone, even those who share your views.

In this case I know because I've read Zavada's reply to Horne. So for instance, when Zavada writes,

"Per My Studies and Investigation, I Contend that the Zapruder

Original Film Could NOT be Altered as You have Claimed or in Any

Other Manner."

That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Nor does this seem to leave room for him to use a 35mm escape hatch...

"There is no known film production history that would provide a technology

reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing

master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected

scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm

KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original."

And of course this, which is followed by a long list of technical reasons why 8mm to 35mm equipment of the type needed didn't exist.

"You note in your chapter that alteration would demand the use

of an optical printer to blowup to 35mm, followed by an animation stand for

frame-by-frame cell art or matte work from a positive print. You fail to

add; a custom 0.150 in. pitch transport shuttle for the printer projector,

custom apertures (to project and capture the image between the

perforations to the edge of the film), full immersion wet gate for an initial

blowup to 35mm, a camera with a custom aperture and a shuttle displaced

from the aperture area for reconstituting the image as 8mm."

Honestly Dean, I don't know how anybody could be clearer about his beliefs.

He says the film couldn't be altered in any manner, he explicitly rejects Horne's 35mm enlargement idea and he bases some of his objects on the non-existence of 8mm-35mm-8mm equipment.

Do you really think it's fair or accurate to assert that his comments are only meant to apply to artwork on 8mm film and after writing those sentences he thinks he could save his reputation by saying "Hey, I never said a 35mm film couldn't be altered." Especially after one of his major points is that

"The methodology proposed to achieve purported optical manipulation

suggests a 35mm blowup to EASTMAN color Internegative Film 5270

or a camera negative film; EASTMAN Color Negative Film 5251 - both

current at that time. (Note in 1967 Moses Weitzman was forced to

use ECN, for his TIME/LIFE blowups because 5270 was too slow for

his printer light.) The use of internegative film, even in 35mm format

could incur some graininess. The use of either would incur image

structure degradation. The faster camera negative would incur a

significant and easily detectable level of graininess."

I just don't think it's fair of Jack to imply a subtle parsing of words that isn't even remotely suggested in Zavada's work.

Best to you,

Jerry

Thanks for the reply Jerry, I have this feeling that because Zavada created Kodachrome he would never in his life admit to it either being

A. Able to be altered

or

B. Altered without Zavada being able to tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

Since the thread regarding the adequacy of 1963 technology in altering the Z film came up, I started looking back into what has been said recently by Doug Horne and Rollie Zavada. I found something I wanted to ask you about.

On pg 15 of this:

Roland Zavada Refutes Doug Horne Assertions

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

Zavada writes:

You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the

presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s

May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of

SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he

was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera

and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the

types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears

to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were

working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability

environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm

film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special

optical effects changes.(pg 15)

(italics mine)

Doug Horne responded to Zavada in his journal entry entitled "The Empire Strikes Back".

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/#post-insidethearrb-4900

In it he says:

Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.

This really surprised me, as I noted that on pg. 18 of the Zavada Reponse, he had sent Fielding your paper, and Fielding, apparently,did not agree.

I have always believed that there are many film technology and time

constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and

then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the

original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being

the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to

reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting

professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review

with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our

conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible

to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily

detectable artifacts.

Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web

interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS

EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received

comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve.

(italics and bolds mine)

David, have you responded to this? I can't seem to find it if you have.

Had you had contact with either Prof. Fielding or Zavada regarding this?

Pretty devastating, isn't it Kathy? Here is the guy who wrote the book on special effects in 1965 saying the Zapruder film could not have been altered beyond discovery in 1963. And Fielding is the very expert David Healy has been citing again and again over the years. What is even more impressive is that Zavada and Fielding then go on to explain why non-discoverable alteration of the Zapruder film was not possible in 1963.

It certainly would be interesting to hear what David Healy has to say about this.

JT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they haven't left themselves some slick verbal out and it's wrong of Jack to suggest they have.

How do you know that?

Are you friends with Zavada and Fielding?

Im not trying to sound like a jerk Jerry, you know I respect you, but how can you say that and be sure?

Dean,

I know and respect you as well - I'm not insulted when someone asks me how I know something - it's what we're about.

My hope is that you ask the same question of everyone, even those who share your views.

In this case I know because I've read Zavada's reply to Horne. So for instance, when Zavada writes,

"Per My Studies and Investigation, I Contend that the Zapruder

Original Film Could NOT be Altered as You have Claimed or in Any

Other Manner."

That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Nor does this seem to leave room for him to use a 35mm escape hatch...

"There is no known film production history that would provide a technology

reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing

master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected

scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm

KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original."

And of course this, which is followed by a long list of technical reasons why 8mm to 35mm equipment of the type needed didn't exist.

"You note in your chapter that alteration would demand the use

of an optical printer to blowup to 35mm, followed by an animation stand for

frame-by-frame cell art or matte work from a positive print. You fail to

add; a custom 0.150 in. pitch transport shuttle for the printer projector,

custom apertures (to project and capture the image between the

perforations to the edge of the film), full immersion wet gate for an initial

blowup to 35mm, a camera with a custom aperture and a shuttle displaced

from the aperture area for reconstituting the image as 8mm."

Honestly Dean, I don't know how anybody could be clearer about his beliefs.

He says the film couldn't be altered in any manner, he explicitly rejects Horne's 35mm enlargement idea and he bases some of his objects on the non-existence of 8mm-35mm-8mm equipment.

Do you really think it's fair or accurate to assert that his comments are only meant to apply to artwork on 8mm film and after writing those sentences he thinks he could save his reputation by saying "Hey, I never said a 35mm film couldn't be altered." Especially after one of his major points is that

"The methodology proposed to achieve purported optical manipulation

suggests a 35mm blowup to EASTMAN color Internegative Film 5270

or a camera negative film; EASTMAN Color Negative Film 5251 - both

current at that time. (Note in 1967 Moses Weitzman was forced to

use ECN, for his TIME/LIFE blowups because 5270 was too slow for

his printer light.) The use of internegative film, even in 35mm format

could incur some graininess. The use of either would incur image

structure degradation. The faster camera negative would incur a

significant and easily detectable level of graininess."

I just don't think it's fair of Jack to imply a subtle parsing of words that isn't even remotely suggested in Zavada's work.

Best to you,

Jerry

Thanks for the reply Jerry, I have this feeling that because Zavada created Kodachrome he would never in his life admit to it either being

A. Able to be altered

or

B. Altered without Zavada being able to tell

Dean,

How do you know that? :>))))))))

Best to you,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they haven't left themselves some slick verbal out and it's wrong of Jack to suggest they have.

How do you know that?

Are you friends with Zavada and Fielding?

Im not trying to sound like a jerk Jerry, you know I respect you, but how can you say that and be sure?

Dean,

I know and respect you as well - I'm not insulted when someone asks me how I know something - it's what we're about.

My hope is that you ask the same question of everyone, even those who share your views.

In this case I know because I've read Zavada's reply to Horne. So for instance, when Zavada writes,

"Per My Studies and Investigation, I Contend that the Zapruder

Original Film Could NOT be Altered as You have Claimed or in Any

Other Manner."

That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Nor does this seem to leave room for him to use a 35mm escape hatch...

"There is no known film production history that would provide a technology

reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing

master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected

scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm

KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original."

And of course this, which is followed by a long list of technical reasons why 8mm to 35mm equipment of the type needed didn't exist.

"You note in your chapter that alteration would demand the use

of an optical printer to blowup to 35mm, followed by an animation stand for

frame-by-frame cell art or matte work from a positive print. You fail to

add; a custom 0.150 in. pitch transport shuttle for the printer projector,

custom apertures (to project and capture the image between the

perforations to the edge of the film), full immersion wet gate for an initial

blowup to 35mm, a camera with a custom aperture and a shuttle displaced

from the aperture area for reconstituting the image as 8mm."

Honestly Dean, I don't know how anybody could be clearer about his beliefs.

He says the film couldn't be altered in any manner, he explicitly rejects Horne's 35mm enlargement idea and he bases some of his objects on the non-existence of 8mm-35mm-8mm equipment.

Do you really think it's fair or accurate to assert that his comments are only meant to apply to artwork on 8mm film and after writing those sentences he thinks he could save his reputation by saying "Hey, I never said a 35mm film couldn't be altered." Especially after one of his major points is that

"The methodology proposed to achieve purported optical manipulation

suggests a 35mm blowup to EASTMAN color Internegative Film 5270

or a camera negative film; EASTMAN Color Negative Film 5251 - both

current at that time. (Note in 1967 Moses Weitzman was forced to

use ECN, for his TIME/LIFE blowups because 5270 was too slow for

his printer light.) The use of internegative film, even in 35mm format

could incur some graininess. The use of either would incur image

structure degradation. The faster camera negative would incur a

significant and easily detectable level of graininess."

I just don't think it's fair of Jack to imply a subtle parsing of words that isn't even remotely suggested in Zavada's work.

Best to you,

Jerry

Thanks for the reply Jerry, I have this feeling that because Zavada created Kodachrome he would never in his life admit to it either being

A. Able to be altered

or

B. Altered without Zavada being able to tell

Dean,

How do you know that? :>))))))))

Best to you,

Jerry

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible content trumps any and all technology arguments.

If the images are impossible, technology existed to create them.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible content trumps any and all technology arguments.

If the images are impossible, technology existed to create them.

Jack

None of the content is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible content trumps any and all technology arguments.

If the images are impossible, technology existed to create them.

Jack

Jack

We are told By Doug Horne that the 4X5 copies of the original held at the 6th floor museum display additional artwork covering the rear head wound on JFK .If these were taken from the original film held at NARA where does this leave us non-technical doubters.IOW If they are on the copies they must be seen on the original indicating alteration?

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...