Jack White Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 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 Zavada did not consider the content of the frames...only the tech aspects. He said that changes could not be made ON 8MM. He did not address other means of making changes. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 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 Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember NARA transferring the physical film to the SFM...only the copyright. Isn't the "original" still at NARA? Re the 4x5s, they are from the extant "original". The alteration (black patch on occipital) on the 4x5s is on the extant film (being examined by the Hollywood Seven), so must be on the "original". If the black patch is proved, the "original" has been altered. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Here is the black patch on the occipital being studied by Horne's Hollywood 7. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Here is the black patch on the occipital being studied by Horne's Hollywood 7. Jack So tell us Jack, what has become of this "study" by the hollywood 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 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 Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember NARA transferring the physical film to the SFM...only the copyright. Isn't the "original" still at NARA? Re the 4x5s, they are from the extant "original". The alteration (black patch on occipital) on the 4x5s is on the extant film (being examined by the Hollywood Seven), so must be on the "original". If the black patch is proved, the "original" has been altered. Jack Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Bump to the top... Paging David Healy, Paging David Healy. Please pick up the White courtesy phone. Ray Fielding wants to take you down a notch or two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) 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 thepresentation 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 timeconstraints 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? Kathy... Read Fielding's book then get back to me. For the last 5 years I've made it a point not to discuss possible film alteration techniques with image composing neophytes -or- if you will, rank amateurs whom think they have a handle on the craft (that includes Roland Zavada)...... I do have to admit it's nice to see all these lone nut, anti-Z-film alteration trolls gathered in one thread though....kinda gives these old bones a good feeling. A feeling that that old, alleged in-camera Zapruder Film reputation has suffered a possible blow to its credibility.... Amazing isn't it! So, get the film validated! Can Zavada and/or Fielding find a lab that'll do that? NOPE! -- I suspect a few in Hollyweird now have a better handle on possible alteration scenario(s)than I do.... oop's, guess we'll have to wait and see, eh? Still waiting (how many years now, 5-6?) for Rollie's new and improved Zavada Report, what ever happened to that? Fielding backed out, possibly? So, get your sleuthing hat on Kathy (I'm sure Dr. Thompson can give you a few pointers) get to the bottom of it willya? Time to stop posting, get on the phone, buy a plane ticket, hell, read the bibliography in Fielding's: The Art of Special Effects Cinematography book -- best place to start.... pandering to trolls is not only unbecoming but certainly unworthy of the Education Forum.... Edited August 19, 2010 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) 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 Jerry... Good to see you jumping in.... Now here's a news flash for ya, Jack White is correct! I remember when the 8mm-8mm alteration nonsense first appeared (It was I that first brought the issue up, complete with photo of a simple proj-camera system). It was a simple 8mm duping system (I spoke of this at the UofMinn 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium). Couldn't help thinking how desperate the other side of the film alteration argument was looking. Hoping for some sort, any sort of diversion, perhaps? So while you're peeking into this field or craft (sometimes called a black art) why not ask Ray Fielding what specifically his expertise is, or personal experience in a optical film lab. Get yourself some credibility Jer....After near 10 years now, the non-alteration side simply can't find a reliable source to state, "it is/was impossible to alter the 1963 in-camera Zapruder film." Should be a piece of cake with your resources! Edited August 19, 2010 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) ] Jerry... Good to see you jumping in.... Now here's a news flash for ya, Jack White is correct! I remember when the 8mm-8mm alteration nonsense first appeared (It was I that first brought the issue up, complete with photo of a simple proj-camera system). It was a simple 8mm duping system (I spoke of this at the UofMinn 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium). Couldn't help thinking how desperate the other side of the film alteration argument was looking. Hoping for some sort, any sort of diversion, perhaps? So while you're peeking into this field or craft (sometimes called a black art) why not ask Ray Fielding what specifically his expertise is, or personal experience in a optical film lab. Get yourself some credibility Jer....After near 10 years now, the non-alteration side simply can't find a reliable source to state, "it is/was impossible to alter the 1963 in-camera Zapruder film." Should be a piece of cake with your resources! Can you say chicken xxxxe? I knew that you could. Hey davie, mr. alteration expert...why not show us some of YOUR film based alteration work? You say right here in your bio: "Professional resume, available on request." Consider this a formal request. Show us some of that award winning "animation-compositing and post production technical excellence..." Surely you have some we can view so we can correctly gauge your actual competence verses your blovations. You have the podium davie. Edited August 19, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy Beckett Posted August 19, 2010 Author Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) Wait a minute... David, you said: So while you're peeking into this field or craft (sometimes called a black art) why not ask Ray Fielding what specifically his expertise is, or personal experience in a optical film lab. Why do you use Fielding's work as a standard, and then question his optical film lab experience? If he is weak in this area, I certainly wouldn't use his work to determine anything. Yet, you consider it a definitive work, and use it as an example as to what could be done in 63. Kathy Edited August 19, 2010 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 rank amateurs whom think they have a handle on the craft (that includes Roland Zavada)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 When enlarging the pelican and blending it with the photo, the pixellation was also enlarged. Easily detectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 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 Jerry... Good to see you jumping in.... Now here's a news flash for ya, Jack White is correct! I remember when the 8mm-8mm alteration nonsense first appeared (It was I that first brought the issue up, complete with photo of a simple proj-camera system). It was a simple 8mm duping system (I spoke of this at the UofMinn 2003 Zapruder Film Symposium). Couldn't help thinking how desperate the other side of the film alteration argument was looking. Hoping for some sort, any sort of diversion, perhaps? So while you're peeking into this field or craft (sometimes called a black art) why not ask Ray Fielding what specifically his expertise is, or personal experience in a optical film lab. Get yourself some credibility Jer....After near 10 years now, the non-alteration side simply can't find a reliable source to state, "it is/was impossible to alter the 1963 in-camera Zapruder film." Should be a piece of cake with your resources! David, You know it's always good to exchange views with you. Thanks for your memories, but this is an exercise in reading comprehension - not history. Zavada explicitly rejects the the 8mm enlargement thesis in his (2010) reply to Horne. Jack is wrong. And whatever you think happened at a 2003 conference doesn't change a word Zavada and Fielding wrote in 2010. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now