Len Colby Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Here is a 1963 photo of an Oxberry Optical Printer that David has been trying to tell you about. IT WAS NOT NEWLY INVENTED IN 1963, BUT WAS AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD BY THAT TIME. This is the type of equipment used to manufacture the Z film. Please quit demonstrating your extreme ignorance. Engage your brain before operating your keyboard, please. This page is about a dozen pages back in the encyclopedia after the previous page. Go to your public library and read up on this stuff, which as David says is widely available. Jack Heaven forbid, Jack -- that they should read, what's in it for them? Yeah like that most of us can find that at our local library! Dave you have yet to quote a single sentance from The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, to support your contention that such alteration was possible. You know that book who's title you sometimes get wrong and who's author says you are wrong. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) If you do respond try to keep it civil and arrogant free,but i doubt you have the mental capacity to restrain yourself in your quest for the ultimate supreme ego. Duncan Let's compare mental capacities - shall we? Here is a partial reply you gave to me when I had not even responded to you, but rather to another poster ... "Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you. I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus..... " So speaking of Jesus ... wasn't it he who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You are a blow-hard Duncan who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own doing and that includes your poor research practices. I will continue to respond to your faulty claims concerning the JFK assassination, but I will refrain from taking it to the level you did with Conway on Lancer and me here on this forum. Bill Edited January 28, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Here is a 1963 photo of an Oxberry Optical Printer that David has been trying to tell you about. IT WAS NOT NEWLY INVENTED IN 1963, BUT WAS AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD BY THAT TIME. This is the type of equipment used to manufacture the Z film. Please quit demonstrating your extreme ignorance. Engage your brain before operating your keyboard, please. This page is about a dozen pages back in the encyclopedia after the previous page. Go to your public library and read up on this stuff, which as David says is widely available. Jack Heaven forbid, Jack -- that they should read, what's in it for them? Yeah like that most of us can find that at our local library! Dave you have yet to quote a single sentance from The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, to support your contention that such alteration was possible. You know that book who's title you sometimes get wrong and who's author says you are wrong. LOL Colby...your whining gets tiresome and repetitive. Go to Amazon and you CAN READ AN ENTIRE CHAPTER OF THE BOOK FREE! It is a popular book, even at $99...they only have two copies in stock, but have more on the way. If you really are interested in learning instead of whining, buy your own copy. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Now Miller I am still back at the steps on Daily Plaza......and on the why's Even saw the darn films side by side and still on those steps because they are the same seconds. Maybe it is two sets of steps? I don't know but you know I never can get past that part of it. Saw it over and over and over again and during the last documentary they bunched it all together and why in the world can 't someone else come up with this is the bets the hell out of me. ONE Guy walking up the steps. OK Guys and guy not on the steps. OK THree guys on the steps GEE,s and put them into the gropus of jammed all together it never made any sense to me. SAME SECONDS TOO and it shows that. But everyone has a good explaining I still love to hear it. Even thought Bill Miller you tried and gave it your good almightly best shot with me THE DARN THING NEVER MADE SENSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Jack, Unfortunately for you those two pages you scanned don’t really prove anything. Once again neither I nor anyone else is disputing that optical printing was possible long before 1963. What I and others doubt and neither of your sources addresses is: 1 - Were alterations as complex as you allege were done to the Z-film possible by 1963? 2 - Could such alterations have been done so realistically as not to look obviously faked to the naked eye – just as most (if not all) compositing from that period does? 3 – Could such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. 4 – Could the initial alterations have been done in a few hours, as would had to have been done to get the “altered” film into Zapruder’s office by 8 AM the morning after the assassination? These are just a few of many questions you and the other “alterationists” have yet to answer (see the 12 questions I put to Dave on the other thread). What I was disputing is the evidentiary value of any alterations you or anybody else does on a computer. I’m sure that most if not all the alterations Dave, Duncan and you did could have been done in 1963 but that doesn’t address the questions above. I have a challenge for you guys and sure you can go ahead and do it with 2006 computer technology. “Fake” a 5 – 10 second snippet of the Z – film put the limo in a different spot on Elm St., move spectators around, paste in some signs and lampposts and most importantly get the limo occupants bodies to move differently. Of course these alterations need to be totally realistic and not look fake, be able to stand up to close inspection and be done in the same resolution as the DVD. I would say a day or two is reasonable since you believe many of these alteration were done in a few hours using 1963 technology and know how and you tell us you can alter individual frames in a few minutes. Once you’re done you can post a link to your results here. Being able to do that would not back your contention that such a feat was possible back then but your inability to do so would be further evidence that it was not. I predict you will ignore this proposal or make up some excuse not to take it up, prove me wrong – LOL! It is really up to you guys to offer minimal evidence that such alterations could have been done because Fielding, Healy’s main source, agreed with Zavada, the inventor of the film used by Zapruder, that it wasn’t. ALL - Is it just me or has the forum been super slow lately? It takes 10 - 30minutes for me to load a page I click the appropriate link and leave the room and come back you check every once in a while. All the other sites I visited today are functioning normally. John/Andy - If you read this what’s the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Bill Miller wrote: In 1963/64, Disney Studios were leading the way in animation. They employed the best people in the field to utilize the latest tools available to create their animations. Below are some small examples taken from their 1964 movie release of "Mary Poppins". It appears that the best that Disney Studios had to offer could not do what David Healy has suggested as being possible at that time. Can you see the giveaways in their work ... ____________________ Who questioned OR touted Walt Disney as leading the way in animation? They had a great facility, made great cartoons and fantasy musicals -- so WHAT? You young fellas think thats all there is to Optical film printing. circa 1963-64? ROFLMFAO EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects, even what you've reduced to foolishness posted here -- probably not a single person here can tell me the film compositing process used in these excellent examples -- Let me give you a hint Bill --- seeing that your grasping at straws, want to see some real work and for you film buffs: Orson Wells and ROSEBUD, Citizen Kane - 1940 -- the trot on over to Google and search Linwood Dunn better yet: http://www.photosonics.com/Milestone%20HTL...wood%20dunn.htm follow the bouncing ball...... gee, they just named (this momnth) a new theater at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Hollyweird local after this Dunn guy -- he's after all, the father of optical film printing.... NOW, get Fieldings book there's names of countless pre 1963 movies where major, not minor MAJOR special effect cinematography was performed. Dunn's in it too! I bet you don't realize that one of the examples Jack posted, showed some injuns by the river may of been a "glass painting" Can you imagine something that big covering all that area in film frames - fooling all those movie goers -- who, I assume like the Warren Commission members didn't view the film one frame at a time. Again, thats a assumption on my part -- maybe FBI agent Shaneyfelt could tell us..... Oh Bill, would you care to point out where one might find the optical block in theOxberry photo Jack so graciously posted..... Now back to Disney -- Would you like a free tour pass to PIXAR? Evidently even Disney smartened up, they just jumped into bed with Steve Jobs. Actually Apple Computer just became (this week) the largest shareholder of Disney -- now we got my type of people involved in disney, too! I suspect Disney's work will only get better, the themeparks that is -- leave animated theater releases to those that don't know what a **flop** is... I'm not impressed Bill..... do check out the Dunn info, after all -- without him there'd be ..... well, there'd be no digital image compositing software for video and/or film (of course film, ALL forms of film for media is on the way OUT) KODAK may be on the way out, unless they re-invent themselves..... Edited January 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Mr. Colby wrote Could such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. [...] ______________ then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here: put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time! Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk... help this guy out Craig..... Throwing around these guy's names like you do can get nasty stateside.... where are you again? So let's start will Roland do you need his phone number, email address?..... ROFL -- the birds? those are jpeg/.gif artifacts If you do respond try to keep it civil and arrogant free,but i doubt you have the mental capacity to restrain yourself in your quest for the ultimate supreme ego.Duncan Let's compare mental capacities - shall we? Here is a partial reply you gave to me when I had not even responded to you, but rather to another poster ... "Still talking crap i see Bill since i was kicked off Lancer for simply not agreeing with you. I've never known anyone to crawl like a wriggling worm and suck ass the way you do at Lancer,it's sickening..jesus..... " So speaking of Jesus ... wasn't it he who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You are a blow-hard Duncan who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own doing and that includes your poor research practices. I will continue to respond to your faulty claims concerning the JFK assassination, but I will refrain from taking it to the level you did with Conway on Lancer and me here on this forum. Bill looks like your reached the absurd .... nice move Edited January 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Mr. Colby wroteCould such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. [...] ______________ then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here: put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time! Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk... help this guy out Craig..... Throwing around these guy's names like you know them can get nasty stateside.... where are you again? Start will Roland's do you need his phone number, email address?..... ROFL -- the birds? those are jpeg/.gif artifacts God I hope you weren't a cartoonist -- you sure a hell didn't sell anything to a studio... Good grief David...the one needing the help in this thread is you and your "a" team. LOL! You got killed in this thread starting with that piece of crap art you post at the top..LOL! Anyways, on the subject of credentials, exactly how many composite frames of film similar to what you say was done on the Z film have you PERSONALLY created on an optical printer? Your current computer experience is a no go, as is your news cameraman background...just your actual experience with creating comps on an optical printer. Finally a little emperical evidence from your "a" team would be interesting. Where is your attempt to produce a "fake z film" made today using that 1963 tech? Surely you guys have the talent and the resouces. With such a wonderful artist like White, your peresonal optical printer skills, and Costella to provide the "physics..lol!". And geez there is all that money from the profits of Fetzers books...you know them money he says funnels right back into jfk research....hell that alone should be a huge bankroll...profit from what...500 books? LOL! Get with the program David! You made the claim its possible...produce some emperical evidence that it is. The burden of proof is on you and so far you have provided nothing...oh wait I'm wrong...you read a book... ROTFLMAO! Edited January 28, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Lamson wrote: Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork. __________________ It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! "No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork." You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out Edited January 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Who questioned OR touted Walt Disney as leading the way in animation? They had a great facility, made great cartoons and fantasy musicals -- so WHAT? You young fellas think thats all there is to Optical film printing. circa 1963-64? ROFLMFAO EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects, even what you've reduced to foolishness posted here -- probably not a single person here can tell me the film compositing process used in these excellent examples -- Let me give you a hint Bill --- seeing that your grasping at straws, want to see some real work and for you film buffs: Orson Wells and ROSEBUD, Citizen Kane - 1940 -- the trot on over to Google and search Linwood Dunn better yet: David, I didn't mention Disney or their movies to show that optical printers were being used in 1963/64, but rather to show their limitations ... I used Disney Studios because they were the best of the best and when one takes a close look at their film edits - they can find the flaws - PERIOD! Sure, when a film is run at normal speed - the flaws are not detectable, but that is not what we have been talking about. You have shown a single image and made the claim that alteration could be achieved without detection by way of an optical printer. The Zapruder film is compilation of images that can be viewed in sequence. What I did was show that when one takes film frames, such as those in the Disney movies, and looks at them under magnification and/or by comparing the various border editings from frame to frame ... the differences and changes that take place are noticeable to even the untrained eye. Now if you actually have a piece of altered film that was created by an optical printer in 1963/64 that doesn't show any signs of flaws under close scrutiny when the frames are run in sequence, then by all means - PRESENT IT! Until then, IMO you are just making claims pertaining to the realm of possibilties that have no evidence to support them. Bill "as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out" Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum. Bill Miller JFK researcher/investigator Edited January 28, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Lamson wrote:Thanks Bill. Your examples support the point I have been making for some time. Its not the equipment...screw all of this crap about "Its an optical printer". Thats just a piece of kit. No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork. __________________ It's not the optical printer -- it's not the composites -- its the artist as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! "No what you have shown is the downfall of all film composites...the artwork." You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out David, David David...you look so f--king stupid when you try and cover up your defeat. Bad art is bad art is bad art. Its really quite simple. Lots of example of bad art in this thread alone. Your original piece of crap composite. Whites crap composite, Duncans crap composite, the crap from Mary Poppins...the jumping cow....crap art all over the place. Forget your optical printer because it has nothing to do with the theory that the z film was faked.....its the art Daviid...not the optial printer. Its time burn up your optical printer strawman...ROFLMAO! Go back to the drawing board David, you are out of your depth when it comes to high resolution compositing...film or digital. Back to the bench for you second stringer. Or better yet, why not go back to shooting video of cowboys and horsies, and doing more of your crappy digital composites. When you tire of that might I suggest you read another book! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote Who questioned OR touted Walt Disney as leading the way in animation? They had a great facility, made great cartoons and fantasy musicals -- so WHAT? You young fellas think thats all there is to Optical film printing. circa 1963-64? ROFLMFAO EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects, even what you've reduced to foolishness posted here -- probably not a single person here can tell me the film compositing process used in these excellent examples -- Let me give you a hint Bill --- seeing that your grasping at straws, want to see some real work and for you film buffs: Orson Wells and ROSEBUD, Citizen Kane - 1940 -- the trot on over to Google and search Linwood Dunn better yet: ___________________ David, I didn't mention Disney or their movies to show that optical printers were being used in 1963/64, but rather to show their limitations ... I used Disney Studios because they were the best of the best and when one takes a close look at their film edits - they can find the flaws - PERIOD! Sure, when a film is run at normal speed - the flaws are not detectable, but that is not what we have been talking about. You have shown a single image and made the claim that alteration could be achieved without detection by way of an optical printer. dgh01: Are you one of the few not understanding when I posted re Z347/357 .. I showed [for research purposes ONLY] the process: how frames can be deleted from the Z-film and covering up same, by using on the Z-film as source.... Hello! The Zapruder film is compilation of images that can be viewed in sequence. dgh01: I'm impressed What I did was show that when one takes film frames, such as those in the Disney movies, and looks at them under magnification and/or by comparing the various border editings from frame to frame dgh01: then surely you have a reference of someone, ANYONE that did the same inspection of the Zapruder frames, I'll give you a break here anytime after 1968 and before 2000? What's a border edit? In all my years of editing (35+ years) never heard of a border edit ... the differences and changes that take place are noticeable to even the untrained eye. dgh01: they are -- you've just rewritten, down through the ages moviegoers experience Now if you actually have a piece of altered film that was created by an optical printer in 1963/64 that doesn't show any signs of flaws under close scrutiny when the frames are run in sequence, then by all means - PRESENT IT! dgh01: Get the original Citizen Kane, run it -- you tell me if you can see any flaws when the film is running normal speed on VHS or DVD (pulldown added for 29;98fps) hell, try and run it at 18.3fps and see if you can see any flaws Until then, IMO you are just making claims pertaining to the realm of possibilties that have no evidence to support them. dgh01: of course they're claims, based on special effects compositing experience - what's you claim in disputing those claims? "It's impossible! ROFLMFAO. So tell us what and where those Disney frames came from AND were they in the film final release? -- For all I, or anyone hereabouts including lurkers; those may of been test strips -- do you understand why optical labs do that sort of thing? None of those problems would of made a answer print or release print, none of them -- unless you can prove otherwise, of course as to what he's posted? ROFL he might try documenting what he's posting, where it came from and above all credit the films studio -- Apple is lurking, trust me! You Craig can assure me and all the lurkers hereabout that what we're seeing in these images were part of the release film, YES or NO? If you can't get back in the peanut gallery -- right next to Colby -- watch as Miller falls apart.... he's gonna have post something declaring his authority to speak re the Zapruder film -- I haven't seen anything other than opinion, so far -- BAD sign..... This is almost too good! Stay tuned lurkers we'll get back to the Zapruder film when the DPlaza denziens wear out" Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum. dgh01: ah Bill -- I hate to break this to you -- this is what I've been posting to for a while now, this is where your at, at this moment: The Education Forum > Controversial Issues in History > JFK Assassination Debate > Zapruder alteration - possible? T'aint Lancer ole buddy! I suspect that Reagan crack won't endear you to Dallas Republicans .... Bill Miller JFK researcher/investigator Edited January 28, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Colby...your whining gets tiresome and repetitive. Go to Amazon and you CAN READAN ENTIRE CHAPTER OF THE BOOK FREE! It is a popular book, even at $99...they only have two copies in stock, but have more on the way. If you really are interested in learning instead of whining, buy your own copy. Jack Thanks for the tip Jack I'll read that chapter when I get some free time maybe today. Does anything in that chapter support your views? Can you or Healy quote any sentences from the book to support your claim that such alteration was possible? Saying a book supports you position without being able to cite any quotes is ridiculous. The book I was referring to was the 1964 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHOTOGRAPHY which to my surprise is available and at $ 0.99 plus shipping probably a good deal, I might even get a copy. If you could actually cite some pages from it that support your position you would help your case enormously. Of course chiding us for not reading an obscure set of books you had not mentioned yet makes no sense nor does expecting one of us to plunk down $ 99 plus shipping for Fielding's book when neither you nor Healy can quote a line from it to support your theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Mr. Colby wroteCould such alterations have been done so perfectly as to be undetectable to close inspection? I am referring to matte lines, feathering etc. Numerous researchers have studied the film for decades and found no such signs of alteration, Roland Zavada one of the World’s leading film experts studied the film and found no such signs of alteration and your co-authors obviously did not find any signs of such alteration or they would have said so. Zavada, Fielding, Oliver Stone, Mark Sobel (director of “the Commission” and dozens of other movies / TV programs) and others said such alterations definitely would have left such tell tale signs. George Lucas had problems with matte lines in the Star Wars films of the late 70s – early 80s and re did some sequences when he re-released them 1997 - 2004. [...] ______________ then you'll have no problem posting right in this thread their professional opinions regarding the Zapruder film, correct? Right here: put up or shut up time Mr. Colby -- we call them "cites" - verifiable cites! Hardball time! Gonna have to dig a little deeper than the 'Director' of the Commission, Len -- Christ the best effect in that is a lap dissolve, what the hell does he know.... now if Mark Sobel is a TD with much post experience (film and video) that's a different story, we can talk... help this guy out Craig..... Throwing around these guy's names like you do can get nasty stateside.... where are you again? So let's start will Roland do you need his phone number, email address?..... Dave if you had been paying attention you would know that I am in touch with Zavada. He OKed the text of the post in which I cited his and Feilding's position concerning alteration of the Z-film. Zavada's position that the Z-film sould not have been faked is online I posted the link several times already. As for Fielding's opinion, I reported what Rollie Zavada told me, do think I'm making it up or he is? If you think I'm making it up e-mail Rollie and ask him to confirm it. If he says I made it up you have scored quite the coup. On ther other hand if he confirms what I said you have to admit Fielding disagrees with you or assert that Rollie is being deceptive. So go ahead e-mail Rollie today and ask him if my post reflected his views, if he says otherwise post his reply here. What do you say, is a week enough for you to hear back from him? If you remain silent on the subject we can all assume he confirmed what I said. He doesn't really want to get involved in this absurb debate, can't say that I blame him. Speaking of being deceptive Rollie was not happy about your insinuation that be backed away from his position that the Z-film is a camera original. He told me he was going to e-mail you about that, did you get the message yet? Your double standard is amusing, you ask me for cites but keep insisting that Fielding's book backs you position without providing any quotes. I quoted Sobel as an after though along with Zavada, Fielding and Stone, his resume is quite impresive and imagine far more so than yours, his IMDb listing has 30+ movies/TV series on it I imagine many of those use optical printing, have you seen everything his made? As for bonafides we're still waiting for us to tell you about your experience. Can you explain to us how the "forgers" were able to composite the "altered" z-film without any errors when Disney was unable to? Jack and Costella cited Mary Poppins and other Disney classics as evidence that such fakery was possible - until your mention Citizen Kane IIRC all the films you side cited were Disney productions. How were they able to do so without any matte lines when George Lucas was unable to do so almnost 20 years later. Let's not forget that would have had only a few hours to do the initial alterations. PS - Any luck on explaining how they secretly developed a roll a Kodachrome at 3 AM? EVERY film created for the past 80 years has optical special effects I'll need a cite for that, Every film made since 1926? Are you sure? Earlier you said every film made from the 20 - 70 used them. So if we are to believe you every film made 1920 -present has optical special effects In that case Sobel should be quite the authority he directed about 13 and editted 3 of those. Edited January 28, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Someone should compile all of Healy's responses on this forum and put them all together to see if he ever actually addressed a single JFK asassination matter. I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan was making more sense in his last hours of life than what David has done in most of the responses he has made to this forum. He made more sense than Healy in "Bedtime for Bonzo" too! Healy avoids answering questions he doesn't have a glib answer to like bin-Ladden avoids pork chops Edited January 28, 2006 by Len Colby 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