Jump to content
The Education Forum

For David Healy RE: Zavada Response to Doug Horne


Recommended Posts

tomatoes.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Wait a minute? I at your beck and call? Get real Kathy... however, you're getting up to speed there girl.... Now, get the book and read the bibliography, find those articles attributed to the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (later to be called The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers of which Roland Zavada was a member, its been rumored I attended more than one meeting and yearly convention also) understand the techniques, capabilities & possibilities concerning the craft... then we can talk intelligently...

Now, why was Dean (Ray) Fielding's book important? Simple, it was one the first books (if not the first book) covering the subject matter printed in the English language... it also covers the state of film optical printing composing-post production art, up to and including 1965.... Perfect, I'd say... It's also no secret Dean Fielding is/was quite a friend of KODAK (the company), rumor also has it, KODAK donated much film to his state (CA. and FLA.) university school(s) of films. I'm sure he's also quite familiar with Rollie, funny thing though, way back when I communicated with him he wasn't interested in commenting on the Zapruder Film despite Rollie hoping on a plane heading for face-to-face with Dean Fielding in Florida (right after Rollie and I communicated....

So you guys duke it out concerning the Zapruder Film and its authenticity issue(S)

Did Rollie tell you he sent and I received a copy of his response to Doug Horne? Nice courtesy, eh? Still on his mailing list...

David

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!

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

c'mon Jer.... by his own word Rollie is a complete neophyte when it comes to film composing (any gauge film). So, who'd Rollie quote as a 8mm blowup source Jer? Gotta love your sense of humor...

David

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

Wait a minute? I at your beck and call? Get real Kathy... however, you're getting up to speed there girl.... Now, get the book and read the bibliography, find those articles attributed to the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (later to be called The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers of which Roland Zavada was a member, its been rumored I attended more than one meeting and yearly convention also) understand the techniques, capabilities & possibilities concerning the craft... then we can talk intelligently...

Now, why was Dean (Ray) Fielding's book important? Simple, it was one the first books (if not the first book) covering the subject matter printed in the English language... it also covers the state of film optical printing composing-post production art, up to and including 1965.... Perfect, I'd say... It's also no secret Dean Fielding is/was quite a friend of KODAK (the company), rumor also has it, KODAK donated much film to his state (CA. and FLA.) university school(s) of films. I'm sure he's also quite familiar with Rollie, funny thing though, way back when I communicated with him he wasn't interested in commenting on the Zapruder Film despite Rollie hoping on a plane heading for face-to-face with Dean Fielding in Florida (right after Rollie and I communicated....

So you guys duke it out concerning the Zapruder Film and its authenticity issue(S)

Did Rollie tell you he sent and I received a copy of his response to Doug Horne? Nice courtesy, eh? Still on his mailing list...

David

So you STILL can't deal directly with any of this can you davie? WHY NOT? Fielding called your claims naive...quite the slap in the face don't you think? LOL!. Are YOU saying he is wrong and YOU are right? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Now about that resume including the film compositing examples...when can we expect it, or are your words in your bio just so much trash?

BTW, Rollie was kind enough to send me his rebuttal prior to publication too. Small world eh?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

c'mon Jer.... by his own word Rollie is a complete neophyte when it comes to film composing (any gauge film). So, who'd Rollie quote as a 8mm blowup source Jer? Gotta love your sense of humor...

David

Surely you can offer up a cite for this...right? When can we expect it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c'mon Jer.... by his own word Rollie is a complete neophyte when it comes to film composing (any gauge film). So, who'd Rollie quote as a 8mm blowup source Jer? Gotta love your sense of humor...

David

Surely you can offer up a cite for this...right? When can we expect it?

hang in there, *poon* -- I expect in 3, maybe 4 years you'll be up to speed, maybe then you'll converse intelligently about the subject... oh, ask Rollie, need his email address? LMFAO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c'mon Jer.... by his own word Rollie is a complete neophyte when it comes to film composing (any gauge film). So, who'd Rollie quote as a 8mm blowup source Jer? Gotta love your sense of humor...

David

Surely you can offer up a cite for this...right? When can we expect it?

hang in there, *poon* -- I expect in 3, maybe 4 years you'll be up to speed, maybe then you'll converse intelligently about the subject... oh, ask Rollie, need his email address? LMFAO!

Wow, are the questions just too tough for you davie or is it you don't have the answers?

Now about that cite? Where is it?

Can YOU even converse intelligently about the subject? Heck your shooting the evening news and corporate training vids is not what one might call relevent experience. Nor is you "film school" time.

No wonder you can't bring something as simple as your professional resume and examples of your film compositing work to the table davie. Does the term POSER ring any bells?

BTW, no need to pass along that email address......have it.

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

c'mon Jer.... by his own word Rollie is a complete neophyte when it comes to film composing (any gauge film). So, who'd Rollie quote as a 8mm blowup source Jer? Gotta love your sense of humor...

David

But David, as I've written three(?) times now, Zavada may be right, he may be wrong, he and Fielding may be taking one for the team - but Jack is wrong about what they wrote.

See ...the preliminary question is did Jack fairly and accurately report Zavada's and Fielding's words? No, not even close.

Before we start refuting and demanding experts it's usually a good idea to comprehend what's being refuted - otherwise we're just batting at straw men - we become legends in our own minds as our imaginary foes wither under our startling insights and analysis. I'm sure Jack would want to confront what was really written and defeat his real critics - so you need to help him understand where he went wrong.

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can YOU even converse intelligently about the subject?

Looks like Craig needs to re-read Davids section in TGZFH

Can you handle that Craig?

If not call me and I will read aloud from Davids great section in the book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can YOU even converse intelligently about the subject?

Looks like Craig needs to re-read Davids section in TGZFH

Can you handle that Craig?

If not call me and I will read aloud from Davids great section in the book

Deano, Ray Fielding, davies hero read his work in TGZFH and called it technically naive.

Really calls into question davies ability to "converse intelligently" on the subject...don't you think. Have YOU seen any work he has produced using the methods he describes?

What a slap in the face for davie, not to mention all the dupes who read his stuff and BELIEVED him...(hint, hint)

What a real resource you have there on your bookshelf ... (TGZFH)... just chock full of crackpot theory and authors. Is that the real reason you decline to post any of the proofs contained within and decline to defend them. ....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a real resource you have there on your bookshelf ... (TGZFH)... just chock full of crackpot theory and authors. Is that the real reason you decline to post any of the proofs contained within and decline to defend them. ....

The only part of the book I will not defend is Costellas section "Appendix: Weird Experiences En Route To Duluth"

That was very hard to read and take seriously, I wish that Jim would have taken that section out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a real resource you have there on your bookshelf ... (TGZFH)... just chock full of crackpot theory and authors. Is that the real reason you decline to post any of the proofs contained within and decline to defend them. ....

The only part of the book I will not defend is Costellas section "Appendix: Weird Experiences En Route To Duluth"

That was very hard to read and take seriously, I wish that Jim would have taken that section out

How then do you defend Healy's work? Are you saying that Fielding is wrong and Healy is correct?

BTW, I notice the parts of my post you have declined to comment on? Interesting ommissions on your part...

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How then do you defend Healy's work? Are you saying that Fielding is wrong and Healy is correct?

I trust in David Healy, so yes I would take what Healy says over Fielding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How then do you defend Healy's work? Are you saying that Fielding is wrong and Healy is correct?

I trust in David Healy, so yes I would take what Healy says over Fielding

WOW! Telling statement Dean. Fanboy....

We can now pretty much eliminate anything you might ever have to say....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! Telling statement Dean. Fanboy....

Im a fan boy because I trust what Healy says?

Craig you are killing me, I could call you a fanboy all day long because you believe Tink Thompson over Jim Fetzer, but I wouldnt say a stupid thing like that

You really disappoint me

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...