Jump to content
The Education Forum

For David Healy RE: Zavada Response to Doug Horne


Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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?

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 by David G. Healy
Link to comment
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

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 by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

]

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 by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When enlarging the pelican and blending it with the photo, the pixellation was also enlarged. Easily detectable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eek.gif
Link to comment
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

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...