David G. Healy

I have no idea what you are talking about David (doubt that you do either) AFAIK Feilding never “turned Roland Zavada down” to the contrary he told me via e-mail that he fully backed Zavada’s position and gave me permission to quote him*. "btw, when was the last time I cited Ray Fielding on this forum (or any other for that matter)?" I can’t say about other forums but just on this one you cited him at least 8 times July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 going so far as to call him “the published expert”, you of course stopped citing him after he went on record (Jan.19,2006) saying what you and your buddies propose was not possible*. Here’s what you wrote Might want to check out Raymond Fielding's Special Effects Cinematography circa. 1965, plenty of footnotes and references to SMPE/SMPTE articles reviewing, defining, discussining the art of optical film effects. The book was updated again in 1985 (?) - I understand Fielding may still teaches at the University level in Florida. Roland Zavada spoke to him sometime in 2003, I believe the summer of 2003. Guess we generated enough interest in the subject to get HIS interest. - Jul 8 2004 as of this time, your a little in the wanting in my eye's - ceretainly not up to discussing the matters with those that have an interest in Z-film alteration.... there's hope yet, though -- Raymond Fielding is still teaching the artform of optical film printing somewhere in Florida - hey, you can always read the Zavada Report, great place to start.... - Jul 30 2004 How'm I doing, champ? Need a quote from; The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography -by Raymond Fielding, 1965, Lib. of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116 reprinted in 1968. Re-issued and updated, late 80's, on how you merge this film sources, optically? Some have said the guy, Fielding, still teaches in Florida, give him a call... I noticed you avoided the SMPE comments like the plague? Why is that? Why would anyone fear, the FACTS, facts about film matting techniques? - Feb 16 2005 tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing that 'someones' background? How about, get and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, he's still out there. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... - Apr 20 2005 Regarding film alteration, there was more than enough technology around to do the job? How about, pickup and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, reachout. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... - Apr 20 2005 Fielding's book cites SMPE documented compositing examples, hundreds of them. See the index. Any university of stature has them. You might want to read Raymond Fielding's: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, Library of Congress Card Catalog #64-8116, 1965. Ray's book was reprinted in '68. A new edition came out within the past 10-15 years. Google the book title. Lot's of pictures covering the black art of film compositing, how things we're done in the40's, 50's and 60's. btw, no worries regarding 'forensic' photo analysis credentials regarding Fielding's book - even high school students understand it. Last I heard Fielding still teaches at the university level in Florida somewhere, did some consulting work for KODAK (I think it was KODAK, if I'm wrong sorry, Ray) along the way, too! -Dec 12 2005 irrelevant -and- irrelevant - Raymond Fielding is the published expert - evidently you CAN'T read magazines SMPE/SMPTE magazine in particular, nor the book called HOAX -OR- The art of Special Effects Cinematography -Dec 20 2005 Mr. Colby er, whomever you are.... I have no, I repeat NO intention of dangling on the end of your string If NONE of you "experts in film compositing" don't have the balls to read a few SMPE manual especially those indexed in Fielding's book. […] re your comment stating Stone was not aware of Fielding? rofl........ Fielding however did teach in SoCal, for many, many years (give 'em a call, send him a email - he's not that hard to find) -- Probable? Possible, your living in a dream, Len - Dec 21 2005 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...lding&st=75 You cited him twice in your TGZFH chapter and according to you Mantik cited him at least twice as well. “You may want to read Raymond Fielding’s: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography (1965). It's not at your typical bookstore, you will probably find it at University Library’s. note: David W Mantik made reference in both his chapters in Assassination Science (1998).” [pg7] “Here’s what I would do as director, as did the actual director (this scenario came from Ray Fielding’s excellent 1965/68 book).” [pg29] http://www.jfkresearch.com/Technical_Aspects.pdf "Of course you can give us the cite re Oliver Stone stating it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film.... so, get the xxxxx-drones busy, I'm waiting..... (even wild bill millah can't help ya on this one)" Off course I can David - “As for observation number three, are you not aware that reporters asked Oliver Stone directly about the possibility someone had altered the Zapruder film? It happened at the National Press Club in Washington in January 1992. His speech and follow up Q&A were shown on CSPAN. Stone seemed very surprised by the question, as if it had never occurred to him before, so he conferred briefly with his research coordinator, Jane Rusconi, who was sitting off camera. Stone came back to the podium and said he would look into it. Jane later told me he thought the idea was ridiculous. If there were some alteration, either he or his excellent special effects people would have noticed it.” Gary Mack March 5, 1998 http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack2.html "...for the uninformed the below link points to the article of Len's and other naysayers Z-film obession..." Oh yes your chapter where you demonstrated that even using technology 40 years more advanced than available in 1963-4 you couldn’t make video composites that didn’t look obviously faked. * Fielding said “it was not possible to alter the Zapruder film incorporating the scene changes attributed to that process and if attempted, the results would be easily detectable". "July 20, 2004 - Dec 21 2005 " hmmm, was that around the time you injected yourself as the self-ordained spokesperson for Roland Zavada here on this forum? I believe Zavada told you in uncertain words to f**k off, right? You have read Harry Livingstone interview(s) with Roland Zavada, haven't you? All you really need to do is find a film special effects guru that will go "on-the-record" stating the 8mm film bumped to 35mm film (during 1964) can NOT be recut in 35mm format the dumped to 8mm utilizing 1964 techniques, manpower and equipment. .... all your past and current lone nut posturing is foolishness of course. Thanks Len. p.s. what am I talking to you for when you've displayed not one iota of competence and experience concerning the current topic? Hell, even Craigster knows what end of a camera to look through...

All that Zavada confirmed was that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME". He did not very any of the content. Jack David and Jack have made this false claim and been corrected enough times that continuing to make it is assign of their willful ignorance or worse. Zavada issued TWO reports. While the first issued (I think) in 1998 basically only confirmed that the film was "original KODAK KODACHROME" the second one went much beyond that. From the 2003 report: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf Anyone interested should read the whole report, it's 6yearsandthere'sbeen no meaningful reply from the alterationist cult His conclusion that what the alterationists propose was technically impossible was backed by Oliver Stone, Robert Groden and Raymond Fielding. The latter literally ‘wrote the book’ on Special Effects Cinema-photography and previously had been repeatedly cited by David Healy. oh Len.. one would think you're trying to tear a page out of the Redd Foxx comedic amateur hour playbook.... perhaps you can explain when Roland Z. approached Professor Fielding for *a public comment* regarding film special effects why Ray Fielding turned Roland Zavada down in his newly (2006) reconstituted Zavada report (which never saw the light of day) btw, when was the last time I cited Ray Fielding on this forum (or any other for that matter)? Of course you can give us the cite re Oliver Stone stating it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film.... so, get the xxxxx-drones busy, I'm waiting..... (even wild bill millah can't help ya on this one) for the uninformed the below link points to the article of Len's and other naysayers Z-film obession... http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html (third article from the top -- requires Adobe PDF reader)

LOL! Greeter at 201 North Nellis Blvd? Or you shooting cowboys again? we certainly understand what its like to have your studio closed, son.... tough times mean tough measures.... keep yourself together... perhaps your new found friend and help mate Todd can drum up some biz for ya.... say McAdams doing another MC exhibition in the wilds of Wisconsin in that old trenchcoat of his, we certainly could use some better nutter-xxxxx event pics (the last series was HORRID -- do you need the link?).... LMFAO! What is at 201 N.Nellis Blvd.? You have something on you mind, son? Out of the shadows with ya....

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? LOL, yes it is. Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed. How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days? well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO! Ah, Turtle! Do you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion or are you the same ole' Dave I've come to know? my pearls are simply not recognized by those that haven't a clue regarding the art of film compositing and said techniques... You keep coming back, ya hear Toddster.... and don't let the Criagster intimidate ya, he's been trying to snow the entire crowd regarding his film-photo expertise here. One of these day's I'll be bowled over by a row of chairs photo (or heaven forbid a washing machine and dryer) Kinda reminds me of flatulence-on-parade, don't add to his show.... now you have a nice Christmas, I'm back to making a buck these days.....

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? LOL, yes it is. Let me ask you this - You've claimed here that the bush was nice and trimmed on 22 November 1963 (even claiming that Emmett Hudson himself had trimmed it just for JFK's visit, as if you somehow know that). However the the SS reconstruction photos taken a mere 5 days later on 27 November 1963 show it is anything but trimmed - in fact it's quite untrimmed. How much do you think that bush would have grown in 5 days? well lookey here.... the shadow emerges fron exile.... you still posting from Wendy's there son? ROTFLMFAO!

Why would you make a comparison with a picture taken on 11/27/63? The whole point of this thread is what the bush looked like on 11/22/63 Your study is useless to me Now if you took the time to do the same thing with a picture taken on 11/22/63 then I would be willing to look and compare to my own work You've got to be kidding me. No im not kidding you I only care about what the pyracantha bush looked like on 11/22/63 from 12:30 to 12:45 Is that to hard for you to believe? Oh for gods sake Dean You are the guy making a comparison to a bush months after the assassination to a bush on the day of the assassination and saying the months old bush is what it looked like on the day of the assassination! You might want to remember the first rule of holes Dean....when you are in one...stop digging! easy spanky.....

you can start with Livingston extended interviews with Roland Zavada, and more to the point Harry had ALL the right questions.... something lone nut trolls (aka non-alteration wing-nuts) appear to fear. Why is that Craigster?

when ya finally put those funny cigarettes down, things clear up there Craigster.... btw, you and Colby sharing the same bowl these day's? Where one is you'll find the other, how quaint. Anyway, ya gotta have 25,000 posts to forums you've been thrown off of and those you're still hanging on at defending the JFK assassination--LHO/DP related photographic/film record, Craig. Ya think with all the news media, documentaries, cable shows, Dallas hype, nutter-xxxxx adoration of all things 6th floor museum you guys would put the brakes on film-photo alteration incessant buzz.... can't find any pro photog's that buy into lone nut xxxxx non-alteration nonsense? Gotta be those stipends then, eh? Where's Wild Bill Millah when the lone nuts need him, eh?

Thanks for posting this Bill. Doug seemed to be on solid ground until he got into Z-film alteration: Assuming that the two CIA men (Homer & Ben) are honest, are they relying on their own unaided memory for the name of "Bill Smith"? If they are, they could be simply misremembering the name, which is a VERY easy thing to do. Also, Did the SS roster show anyone named Smith who had a status other than "special agent?" I think Doug is taking an enormous leap here. Homer and Ben NOW say that Smith SAID the film had been developed in Rochester. Apart from the memory issues, if the film had really been clandestinely processed in Rochester (when the official story has it processed in Dallas) Smith would have to be a foolish conspirator indeed to spill the beans to Ben & Homer. Of course Smith and the film could both be legit, with Smith simply having been misinformed about where the film was processed. I hope Doug has something a helluva better than this to support the theory of Z-film alteration, assuming that is part of his book. Hey Ray, You're aware Doug worked 'directly' with Roland Zavada whilst Roland did his investigation for the board (for those that want to call it that) re the Zapruder film, yes? No doubt Roland Zavada certainly is the go to guy concerning KODAK double 8mm film and its physical properties. And for the record, Zavada was NOT charged by that same board with determining the Z-film content. Harry Livingston literally took Roland apart re his book on the Zapruder film.... I doubt you'll be hearing much more from the lone nut camp regarding the Zapruder film, they've has seven years to prove their non-alteration case and have failed, miserably. Prove the "non alteration case" WTF? You have it all backwards as usualy davie...its the"altetration gang" that has a case to prove and they have failed miserably since the first study of the "altered" Zapruder film. How many years has that been...oh yea, way too many to count. Thanks for playing. Try again next time. that's the way it goes Studley.... get the book and read it, you can afford it, yes? Great interview with Roland Zavada, his words only.

Thanks for posting this Bill. Doug seemed to be on solid ground until he got into Z-film alteration: Assuming that the two CIA men (Homer & Ben) are honest, are they relying on their own unaided memory for the name of "Bill Smith"? If they are, they could be simply misremembering the name, which is a VERY easy thing to do. Also, Did the SS roster show anyone named Smith who had a status other than "special agent?" I think Doug is taking an enormous leap here. Homer and Ben NOW say that Smith SAID the film had been developed in Rochester. Apart from the memory issues, if the film had really been clandestinely processed in Rochester (when the official story has it processed in Dallas) Smith would have to be a foolish conspirator indeed to spill the beans to Ben & Homer. Of course Smith and the film could both be legit, with Smith simply having been misinformed about where the film was processed. I hope Doug has something a helluva better than this to support the theory of Z-film alteration, assuming that is part of his book. Hey Ray, You're aware Doug worked 'directly' with Roland Zavada whilst Roland did his investigation for the board (for those that want to call it that) re the Zapruder film, yes? No doubt Roland Zavada certainly is the go to guy concerning KODAK double 8mm film and its physical properties. And for the record, Zavada was NOT charged by that same board with determining the Z-film content. Harry Livingston literally took Roland apart (re Harry's book on the Zapruder film....) I doubt you'll be hearing much more from the lone nut camp regarding the Zapruder film, they've nearly had seven years to prove their non-alteration case and have failed, miserably.

From the admirable thread “Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV on November 26, 1963?”: Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film? The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action. Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston: In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm: And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm: The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit To which one can add the following from Mark Lane: great summation, Paul!

Dean I was done with you on post one. I knew everyting I needed to know about you from your bio where you proclaim "I am an alterationist". Clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity to uderstand the bankruptcy of that position. Continue your brainwashing...you are the perfect subject. LMFAO.... considering you have a difficult time grasping serious concepts, I find your post ludicrous, as usual... Carry on, Craigster!

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any. What books have you read that changed your mind? "Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply I have some books for you to read Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH Just wondering, if TGZFH is so good, then how did Dr. John get it soooo wrong? www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm And if Jack White does such a good job at 'photo analysis' how did he miss the above error and how did he make this whopper? www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm ENVY will get you nowhere, Craigster.... surely you know that.....

And since you seem to have no doubt about that, the purpose of your involvement in this forum of inquiry is hard to fathom. "Where there is no doubt there can be no inquiry" (Charles Sanders Peirce) LMFAO.... perhaps he could explain to our readers, why the Warren Commission Report doesn't stand up to even the merest bit of scrunity? Yet, the small lone nut community (of the educated variety, and a few lawyers I might add) and their supporters are willing to go to the wall for one of the biggest joke-investigations in near recent-history.... Next, we'll be hearing the upstarts espouse assassination is not a political move..... Lest we remind folks that up to 90% of the American public thinks the 1963 murder of JFK was part of a conspiracy. After all these years... hmm...

wow, now THOSE are surely Fortune 500 number, 100 employees.... LMAO!

Two important questions to consider: 1. Why did 'they' leave the apparent rearward headsnap in, which gave fuel to the conspiracy fire when the film was first shown on American TV in 1975? 2. How did 'they' ensure that the altered Zapruder film was consistent with the entire photographic record of events in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day? (Please spare us any reference to any of Jack White's 'studies', all of which have been debunked). I'd be interested to read sensible answers. Paul. what we need Paul are your replies in a public, face-to-face forum (with cameras rolling). A forum where you can't hide behind aliases, thus certifying your experience, capability and viability answering/commenting on technical questions, especially film composing techniques regarding case relate films-photos. And lest we forget, your blanket approval of *known* WCR failings. Till then, son you're just another lone nutter-xxxxx with an opinion demonstrating not a clue concerning the photographic record of the JFK assassination. Carry on (as I'm sure you will in that typical nuuter-xxxxx inane way)

I bet he wished he'd never bothered taking his rifle into work that day. The perpetrators were certainly smart people. They even had the power to alter the weather at the last moment to ensure that the bubble top on the presidential limousine was removed. Take a look at the evidence Peter. It all points to a rather obvious conclusion. Some might even say it's a no-brainer. my goodness, a young lone nutter - how quaint.... So, one and ALL, hear this now: the SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his lonesome nuttter-xxxxx legacy will live for another 90 days. Cheers.... LMFAO!

oop's I thought it was next week.... I dropped you a note! David

Hadn't realised I was being either of those things . I will however know where to come for lessons in grace and charm in future. You are correct about moderators they can see members IPs and use simple search tools - only root admin can do much more than that however. Sorry you have cause to 'deplore' things - that must be tiresome - however I think you may be overeacting a tad - it is common knowledge I live in Dartford, Peter lives in Prague and whatsherface lives in N Sydney - its in their bios for goodness sake. It is NOT in my bio! On my signature [short version and long] it says Europe. I consider where I am private as I was a target at one time of dirty tricks by entities you'd not even admit/believe exist! Len tried endlessly to put my location on this Forum and then finally got away with it via his finding [amazingly instantly after it was put up and before me or my friends found it] a youtube piece on me that mentioned where I lived. His post of that youtube I firmly believe was to hurt me by giving my location. Your repeating it here is also malevolent. How would you like it if someone found out personal details about you and put them up on the internet?! I think Andy you are getting fairly close to breaking your own rules and fairplay/decency here. If you want to keep your location secret then perhaps you might want to consider NOT posting on forums like the one you did in Prague. I had no problem finding it a few years ago by doing a simple google. On that forum the people there claimed that you were a person to stay away from, that you did not pay your rent (you posted looked for a place to live IIRC) that your dog smelled and crapped in the house. In the thread about you it was the basic claim that you were less than a sane person and should be avoided like the plague. I can't say the folks there were correct or not, but thats what I found with a SIMPLE google . Your complaints fall on very deaf ears. More: photography business must be in the tank, eh? All that free time... Thank GAWD you can xxxxx the net, eh? Btw, you're "deaf" enough to hear Craigster?

I personally know this to be a disingenuous statement based upon my experiences with you on this Forum. Michael... great to see a post from you... you've been missed. Hope all is well! David

I personally know this to be a disingenuous statement based upon my experiences with you on this Forum. Michael, could you cite an example of this? I don't think it is true but am always willing to admit error if I am wrong. uh-huh... yeah, sure

Unbearable? For who? I don't see much pain and suffering there... sounds like a bit of Len whining... What would Redd Foxx have to say about this, eh?

Quadruple bogey? Had one of those, once upon a time.... Makes you want to lash out, eh?

Good translation except I think this part was addressed to me. He keeps bringing up Redd Foxx because I caught him plagiarizing the comic here. He'd would have you believe they played poker together (or something like that) plagarizing? Redd Foxx? You silly man you, you certainly don't know him or his material as well as you think you do.... and of course that part was for you! What on earth makes you think Ms. Becket is going to waste much of my time (she isn't Wild Bill Millah, ya know - or is she?), you too for that matter? BTW, NO my Redd Foxx autographs are NOT for sale. See if I impart any more of Redd's poker table witticism to you in the future. You 'still' shaken from Roland Zavada putting you in your place (concerning an issue on this forum) a few years back? So, how are your thumbs, son? Granted, I felt 'slightly' embarrassed for you, I got over it in 10 seconds though, but thanks for asking..... and NO Mr. Dunn I'm not a Vegas dealer, spent many, many years there.... and a mighty partake of it's fruits, if you will!... No blushing Ms. Becket(t)!

Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints. at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why xxxxx cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple! Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl.... btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx idea? Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?