The Hollywood 7

[Anthony Thorne]

I can't speak for the veracity or claims of Zapruder alteration noted by Doug Horne (I've ordered the final volume of his books, and will get the others in due course - the Zapruder material, I think, is in volume 4), but just from reading interviews with Doug, the identity of one of the 'Hollywood 7' has been already noted. At the following link...

http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010...n-black-op.html

there's a transcript of Doug's lengthy interview with Black Op Radio. Doug notes:

"One of these men is the head of restoration at a major motion picture studio..."

And then:

"In fact, I’ll give you the quote, the actual quote, from Ned Price was “Oh my god, that’s horrible, that’s terrible. I can’t believe it’s such a bad fake.”

Google Ned Price restoration and you can quickly dig up the following:

"Ned Price is currently Vice President, Mastering, Warner Bros. Technical Operations, responsible for overseeing the audio and visual restoration and preservation of the more than 6,500 films and tens of thousands of television programming in the Warner Bros. library using the latest in restoration technology, including many techniques that have been developed by Warner Bros. Technical Operations.

Among the 1,600 films that Price has worked on for the Studio are "King Kong," "Citizen Kane," " Casablanca," "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Gone with the Wind," "The Wizard of Oz," "The Searchers," "A Clockwork Orange," "2001" and "Bonnie and Clyde." Price was awarded the Cinema Audio Society's President's Award in 2004 in recognition of his work on the preservation and restoration of the soundtracks of Stanley Kubrick's films."

Appropriately enough, if Ned is in charge of restoration and Blu-Ray mastering over at Warner, one of the films he would have recently overseen the remastering of is Oliver Stone's JFK.

[Guest John Gillespie]

Once again, thanks to Bill Kelly for continuing to post these excerpts for us. We truly appreciate it.

There are many on this forum who are self-proclaimed experts in analyzing film. I am decidedly not an expert in this area, but it just seems logical that if people who do this for a living in Hollywood state the Zapruder film is an amateurish forgery, then we probably ought to listen to them.

I know- the debate will rage on, about fifth generation copies and the like, but it seems to me that the case is pretty convincing that the Zapruder film we know is not completely legitimate.

-------------

Here! Here! Thanks so much to Bill and others. I quite agree and, for those reading this thread without ready access to the film, http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ has a grid for individual frame by frame selection 001 through 486 and a link to download all frames in a single ZIP file. This is useful for the casual and layperson viewer, especially when reading material such as Bill's final paragraph in his most recent entry - ADDENDUM: THE ZAPRUDER FILM GOES TO HOLLYWOOD.

I've seen many versions of the Z film and certain frames that various people decided to showcase but, like many others, haven't become aware of matters such as frames 219 - 221 where one begins to wonder whether a Gem or Gillette blade was the instrument of choice in Rochester.

Nice work is an understatement for all you protestant alterationists/secessionists.

JG

Edited January 30, 2010 by John Gillespie

[Jerry Logan]

Once again, thanks to Bill Kelly for continuing to post these excerpts for us. We truly appreciate it.

There are many on this forum who are self-proclaimed experts in analyzing film. I am decidedly not an expert in this area, but it just seems logical that if people who do this for a living in Hollywood state the Zapruder film is an amateurish forgery, then we probably ought to listen to them.

I know- the debate will rage on, about fifth generation copies and the like, but it seems to me that the case is pretty convincing that the Zapruder film we know is not completely legitimate.

Yes, by all means. Since the FBI is expert in criminal investigation and since we really don't know anything about ballistics and fingerprints and such I think it's a really good idea to just defer to the experts. After all, the FBI guys and gals do this sort of thing for a living and we're all just self-proclaimed experts. In fact, I don't even think the Bureau should have to publish their evidence. It's good enough for me to have J Edgar Hoover tell me what the experts have concluded. I like that idea. You should have suggested it 47 years ago. It would have saved everyone the awful bother of actually looking at the evidence for themselves.

[David G. Healy]

And, when you take into account Roderick Ryan, a special effects expert who told

Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the "blob" and the blood spray had

been painted in more than a decade ago, it is actually at least "the Hollywood 8".

And, lest Tink & Jerry attempt one of their patented dismissals of real cinematic

expertise, I would observe that Roderick Ryan received the Academy Award for

his contributions to cinematography during the Oscar presentations of 2000! It

looks as though their only opinion now is to create a new set of 4x5 Zapruder

film transparencies, which should be easy to detect. If these gross anomalies

have shown up with less perfect copies, imagine what we have in store for us?

Jerry's argument, in fact, is quite absurd, because the closer and closer we get

to first generation, the more and more conspicuous all of the artifacts become!

Except of course as already pointed out on this forum Ryan later recanted what he told Twyman saying the alterations would have been easily detectable and would have taken months to perform. In any case, like Zavada, he was a film scientist not a special effect expert.

On one hand the former had a PhD and worked in Hollywood and the latter worked in Rochester and "only" has a BS plus a degree in photo science. On the other hand Zavada never recanted his position, was a specialist in 8mm and led the team that invented Kodachrome II while Ryan's expertise was professional 35mm film used by b the film industry.

Zavada's view is backed by Oliver Stone, Raymond Fielding, Mark Sobel (director of "The Commission"), Robert Groden and eventually Dr. Ryan. Groden and Zavada examined the original film. On the other hand the Hollywood 7's credentials and identities are unknown and they have yet to make any public statements. They examined 5th generation copies that have yet to been made public.

So sorry alterationists until:

1) we see copies of the files they looked at

2) we know who they are

3) they made statements

The supposed views of these supposed experts aren't worth squat.

Hey Len you barged into a Z-film thread here a few years ago acting like you were Rollie's agent on this board, Rollie then told you he didn't need your help then and here ya are again now propping up the Roland Zavada's Report? Pul-eeeeeeze.... ROTFLMFAO

As far as the Hollywood 7's, trust me, these guys will run circles around the best you'll EVER find! Hell, you guys STILL can't find a PH.D in Physics to counter Dr. John Costella Z-film position. ???? Is the best your team can do Len, simply wishin'-n/a-hopin', where's the beef, guy?

btw, you also know who Jack White, Jim Fetzer, John Costella, David Mantik, David Healy and David Lifton are. And while your debating film compositing (and by your own admission you don't have a clue) most of us will move onto other endeavors... You'll be busy for the next 10 years..... Redd Foxx won't be happy

[Len Colby]

...but just from reading interviews with Doug, the identity of one of the 'Hollywood 7' has been already noted. At the following link...

http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010...n-black-op.html

there's a transcript of Doug's lengthy interview with Black Op Radio. Doug notes:

"One of these men is the head of restoration at a major motion picture studio..."

And then:

"In fact, I’ll give you the quote, the actual quote, from Ned Price was “Oh my god, that’s horrible, that’s terrible. I can’t believe it’s such a bad fake.”

Google Ned Price restoration and you can quickly dig up the following:

"Ned Price is currently Vice President, Mastering, Warner Bros. Technical Operations, responsible for overseeing the audio and visual restoration and preservation of the more than 6,500 films and tens of thousands of television programming in the Warner Bros. library using the latest in restoration technology, including many techniques that have been developed by Warner Bros. Technical Operations.

Among the 1,600 films that Price has worked on for the Studio are "King Kong," "Citizen Kane," " Casablanca," "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Gone with the Wind," "The Wizard of Oz," "The Searchers," "A Clockwork Orange," "2001" and "Bonnie and Clyde." Price was awarded the Cinema Audio Society's President's Award in 2004 in recognition of his work on the preservation and restoration of the soundtracks of Stanley Kubrick's films."

Appropriately enough, if Ned is in charge of restoration and Blu-Ray mastering over at Warner, one of the films he would have recently overseen the remastering of is Oliver Stone's JFK.

Price is obviously highly qualified but the applicability of his expertise to his stated opinion is less than clear. Mastering of films, as I understand it,is converting them to electronic formats like videotape and various disk formats. Though part of the process involves restoration he joined Warner in 1990 and thus is unlikely to have used such low tech methods as painting on films, at best he might have been exposed to this method at film school (Syracuse). He also seem to be focused (in part at least) on audio restoration.

Thus though his understanding obvious surpasses that of laymen he can hardly be considered an expert regarding the question at hand and Horne's comments indicate he is the most qualified of the "7". If the other 6 are techs who convert film to DVD/Blu-Ray etc their views are less relevant than those of Fielding, Zavada, Stone, Groden and Ryan.

David wrote:

Hey Len you barged into a Z-film thread here a few years ago acting like you were Rollie's agent on this board, Rollie then told you he didn't need your help then and here ya are again now propping up the Roland Zavada's Report? Pul-eeeeeeze.... ROTFLMFAO

You have corrected on this numerous times David, Zavada said anything of the sort. Rather he has made quite clear he thinks your theories are nonsense.

As far as the Hollywood 7's, trust me, these guys will run circles around the best you'll EVER find! Hell,

Funny how you guys keep crowing about this before they have spoken and before we know who 6 of them are. The only one we know is speaking outside his area of expertise.

you guys STILL can't find a PH.D in Physics to counter Dr. John Costella Z-film position. ???? Is the best your team can do Len, simply wishin'-n/a-hopin', where's the beef, guy?

Don't need one, Costella's eduction and work experience is not relevant to his views on the Z-film thus citing his degree is an "appeal to (false) authority" a basic logical flaw reminiscent of "I'm not a doctor but I played one on TV", Fetzer should be able to explain it to you.

btw, you also know who Jack White, Jim Fetzer, John Costella, David Mantik, David Healy and David Lifton are.

Yes but I'm not impressed, none of you except for Mantik discussing the x-rays has expertise in the areas you expound upon.

And while your debating film compositing (and by your own admission you don't have a clue)

LOL and you still refuse to tell anyone what experience (IF ANY) YOU have with FILM (as opposed to VIDEO) compositing.

most of us will move onto other endeavors... You'll be busy for the next 10 years.....

Unlikely Fetzer and White keep starting new threads on the subject which I hardly post on any more.

[Anthony Thorne]

Just in response to Len's comment re Ned Price - and I'm not getting into the validity or other of the Zapruder alteration argument as I haven't read Horne's book yet and am still right on the fence about it -

Mastering of films, as I understand it, is converting them to electronic formats like videotape and various disk formats. Though part of the process involves restoration he joined Warner in 1990 and thus is unlikely to have used such low tech methods as painting on films, at best he might have been exposed to this method at film school (Syracuse). He also seem to be focused (in part at least) on audio restoration.

I follow the film restoration scene fairly closely and if Price is supervising the work they do at Warner, he'd be among the very top people to have a knowledge about film restoration/film formats/grain/chemical restoration and retouching, period. The Warner restoration team does deep, comprehensive work that involves the broadest spectrum of film and chemical restoration and analysis before they even get to the mastering stage, simply as there isn't a 'one size fits all' method for the varied restorations they tackle - films shot in different gauges, with different film stocks, from the 1920's onwards, and each existing at different levels of deterioration and generation-from-the-neg printing - and each project has its own issues and restoration requirements, all of which usually involve going through the movie frame by frame and seeing which low tech to high tech methods they need to apply. A number of the HD transfers involve scrutiny of the photochemical opticals - transitions, mattes, special effects and titles, etc - and they frequently need to break these down to reassess if any need to be redone or retouched pre the digital transfer or left alone. Dig into any of the George Feltenstein interviews over at The Digital Bits and you'll see the work they do is pretty much industry defining in its comprehensiveness and not restricted to the final scanning and transferring to disc, which is the last 2% of the puzzle with some of the restorations they've overseen. They use plenty of low tech methods before they reach the scanning stage and frequently have to spend long, extended periods working with all the various low tech methods before the final product is ready for remastering. Again, this isn't attributing anything to Price's comment on the Zapruder film as I can think of a couple of scenarios where he might be off target, but based on the reading I've done on the subject over the past 13 years, I'd be wary of attributing a lack of relevant technical knowhow to Price at Warner. I've seen long interviews with DVD company heads who get their hands dirty in the same sort of work - Don May Jr. at Synapse, the various Criterion Collection restoration gurus - and all of them admit they're eclipsed by the Warner team, with Price noted as being involved in some of the most arduous restoration projects noted in those aforementioned interviews over at Digital Bits. I view the Cinema Audio Society award given to Price's involvement with the audio on the Kubrick films as being indicative of their specific focus and interest in audio work, not his, and haven't seen anything to indicate that his work is restricted to the non-visual. If pressed I could offer a number of reasons suggesting how Price might have been mislead / misguided / goaded along with a crowd / falling for an optical illusion / whatever in respect to the validity or otherwise of his pronouncement on the Zapruder film, but I've endured enough long, microscopically detailed Warner specific threads over at Home Theater Forum (frequently moderated by Hitchcock/Lean restoration guru Robert Harris) to know that the Warner restoration professionals are about as knowledgeable as you can get. I woudn't be arguing that various pre or post-production film processes are beyond their ken due to a before or after filmschool timeframe simply as the varied and often ad hoc work they do to achieve the final products results in them needing to keep all the historical methods of film treatment and manipulation in play, not abandoning older ones for newer digital work, as they'll frequently encounter issues on new projects that require revisiting older methods that the current restoration software wasn't designed for. I can't speak for Price's knowledge of what he was screened, where it came from, how far it was from the source, or any other criticisms that I've yet to read Horne's comments about (or even the rebuttals of Horne's work in other threads here) but suggesting that Price might be technically illiterate concerning photochemical film manipulation, restoration and or adjustment - after seeing him spearhead the most comprehensive restoration program of any of the major studios, for the company with the broadest archival holdings by far of the bunch, and watching them delay numerous titles for years because they need continuous, intensive work to bring them up to standard pre the final mastering - would get a big laugh on the film forums I visit that discuss these issues 24/7.

[Craig Lamson]

Anthony,

I don't know if Price was involved with the sign edge blur sillyness, but someone from this Hollywood working group was and they blew it big time. They failed photo 101. In this instance it simply was beyond thier ken.

[David G. Healy]

Anthony,

I don't know if Price was involved with the sign edge blur sillyness, but someone from this Hollywood working group was and they blew it big time. They failed photo 101. In this instance it simply was beyond thier ken.

ROTFLMFAO..... your inept "humor" is actually hilarious.... now, the Hollywood Seven appear to be on-the-record (with what appears plenty more to come) there Craig. Now if only YOU could find similarly qualified post-production folks to counter their findings we might give you protestation(s) a bit of credibility....

So, no banana at this point Craig! Not only no banana, ya need a new drawing board son! Jump in, the film compositing-optical film printing water is fine!

Edited January 30, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

ROTFLMFAO..... your inept "humor" is actually hilarious.... now, the Hollywood Seven appear to be on-the-record (with what appears plenty more to come) there Craig. Now if only YOU could find similarly qualified post-production folks to counter their findings we might give you protestation(s) a bit of credibility....

So, no banana at this point Craig! Not only no banana, ya need a new drawing board son! Jump in, the film compositing-optical film printing water is fine!

On the record? Where?

Who is to say they have it rigtht Davie? Unless you have data that no one else does. And why post production people? Are they the only ones with access to the knowlegebase?

Credibility lies with facts, not the credentials of the presenter David, at least thats the way it works in the real world. In LALA CT fantasy land who knows what the rules are...

Edited January 30, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

I think it is appropriate at this time to start a new thread on Horne's reporting of the

work of the Hollywood 7 (H7). It has been mentioned in a number of other threads,

but enough is known about it for it to be discussed separately.

I would first like to point out that the H7 work has been disparaged because of what

they discovered on an alleged "fifth generation" copy of the film. (see my previous

discussions regarding copy generations).

IF they discovered gross fakery on a "FIFTH" generation copy (I doubt "fifth"), just

think how much STRONGER THE FAKERY WOULD SHOW UP ON AN EARLIER GENERATION!

This demonstrates how little non-photo-experts understand about film generations and

duplication.

I am hoping that Doug will elaborate on the H7 work in this new thread.

Jack

frankly Jack, I see no reason for Doug Horne or any of the Hollywood 7 (or me for that matter) to reply to ANY non-film alteration theorist posting in this thread or any other thread here or elsewhere. The non film-alterationists on this and other forums are simply not capable addressing 8mm-2-35mm film blowup/optical film printing techniques/issues, circa 1963-64. SIMPLE AS THAT...

beyond their ken

Edited January 30, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

frankly Jack, I see no reason for Doug Horne or any of the Hollywood 7 (or me for that matter) to reply to ANY non-film alteration theorist posting in this thread or any other thread here or elsewhere. The non film-alterationists on this and other forums are simply not capable addressing 8mm-2-35mm film blowup/optical film printing techniques/issues, circa 1963-64. SIMPLE AS THAT...

ROFLMAO! You ARE very afraid.....

[David G. Healy]

ROTFLMFAO..... your inept "humor" is actually hilarious.... now, the Hollywood Seven appear to be on-the-record (with what appears plenty more to come) there Craig. Now if only YOU could find similarly qualified post-production folks to counter their findings we might give you protestation(s) a bit of credibility....

So, no banana at this point Craig! Not only no banana, ya need a new drawing board son! Jump in, the film compositing-optical film printing water is fine!

On the record? Where?

Who is to say they have it rigtht Davie? Unless you have data that no one else does. And why post production people? Are they the only ones with access to the knowlegebase?

Credibility lies with facts, not the credentials of the presenter David, at least thats the way it works in the real world. In LALA CT fantasy land who knows what the rules are...

oh you silly guy, your getting angry, no? Credibility lies with facts? ROTFLMFAO try telling Film Producer-Director-Writer James Cameron (AVATAR) that his 180 minute, talking, mythological blue people won't sell, in 3D yet! ROTFLMFAO.... Welcome to my world son! Where anything, if hyped correctly is believable, therefore credible in the mind of the beholder....

As I said before, Craig: "So, no banana at this point Craig! Not only no banana, ya need a new drawing board son! Jump in, the film composing-optical film printing water is fine!"

Not hiding that you're on-forum these days are ya?

Edited January 30, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

Angry? Are you kidding I'm having a ball! You make the mistake of thinking I pay any real attention to your words. You are just the comic relief.

I know all about illusion David, I create it too....I guess you forget that.

BTW, where are the H7 "on the record" as you claim?

Edited January 30, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Welcome to my world son! Where anything, if hyped correctly is believable, therefore credible in the mind of the beholder....

Interesting comment from someone who spends all his time hyping alteration ... and the other half

trying to divert from discussion of factual/technical information that conflicts with the claims.

... anything, if hyped correctly is believable, therefore credible in the mind of the beholder....

Facts and technical info can be very scary when one's hype is on the wrong end of them ... especially

when there is nothing factual or documented to counter with .... just more hype.

No wonder the dodge, dive & divert, as well as disparage, frenzy.

This quote is a keeper. I thank ya for that. :-)

[William Kelly]

If you eleminate all of the posts in which Craig Lamson says that someone else doesn't know anything about photography, or calls them names, then you would eleminate half of his posts.

Now that some real Hollywood special effects experts are studying the Zapruder film in detail, we should have some people who Lamson can talk to on professional terms.

Before we hear from the Hollywood specialists however, there are some other folks who know something about photography at the NPIC, where we know the Zapruder film made at least two visits over the weekend of the assassination, and appeared, to those specialists, to be the original film, yet it is described differently.

There's also some people who know something about photography who worked at the Hawkeye Works at Kodak HQ at Rochester, New York, where the Zapurder film may have also spent some time, and over at ITEK, where they also took a peek at the Z-film.

The film specialists who worked on the original Z-film in Chicago - splicing it twice in the process, who we have yet to identify and interview, to see what they have to say.

And besides the Z-film, there's the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Window, taken within a minute of each other, which photo analysists say is absolute proof of conspiracy, and offers another suspect other than the Lone Patsy, yet nobody wants to talk about that evidence.

I guess everybody would just rather argue over what the anomalies in the content of the Z-film as must be more fun.

BK