Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fielding-Zavada (attn: John Simkin)


David G. Healy
 Share

Recommended Posts

All

I've got some free time after this weekend ... Its been brought to my attention -- Mr. Colby has received a message from Raymond Fielding, author of 'The Technique Special Effects Cinematography.' I personally request to view the header and text of said email message, I'm sure forwarding same to a email address of my choice shouldn't prove difficult for Mr. Colby to perform. If the note from Fielding proves authentic, I'll personally invite Mr. Raymond Fielding AND Mr. Roland Zavada to appear on this forum and DEBATE the Zapruder Film and 1963-64 film compositing issues and techniques, I will post [in this thread, this weekend] the email request to both of them, complete with headers and any response from them via email or phone....

I'm sure between them they'll come up with 100 reasons to support the non-alteration position.

To show the breadth of my indulgence, I'll even utilize Mr. Colby and one other as my debate team partners (after I take Colby off the *tard pit* ignore list of course) the proviso: IF the Fielding email proves authentic... if true Fielding/Zavada can chose 1 forum member to do their legwork and post to the debate. The debate will last no longer than what 10days-2 weeks -- How's that sound?

Time to put up or shut up guy's!

Might break the attendence record for this board...

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

Yes.

Appreciate that, John... I will email Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding a invitation to participate when I have Fielding's email address in hand [later this weekend], will post to this thread same e-mail withOUT addressees specific email address - you'll be made aware of all concerned 'verifiable' email addresses--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All

I've got some free time after this weekend ... Its been brought to my attention -- Mr. Colby has received a message from Raymond Fielding, author of 'The Technique Special Effects Cinematography.' I personally request to view the header and text of said email message, I'm sure forwarding same to a email address of my choice shouldn't prove difficult for Mr. Colby to perform. If the note from Fielding proves authentic, I'll personally invite Mr. Raymond Fielding AND Mr. Roland Zavada to appear on this forum and DEBATE the Zapruder Film and 1963-64 film compositing issues and techniques, I will post [in this thread, this weekend] the email request to both of them, complete with headers and any response from them via email or phone....

I'm sure between them they'll come up with 100 reasons to support the non-alteration position.

To show the breadth of my indulgence, I'll even utilize Mr. Colby and one other as my debate team partners (after I take Colby off the *tard pit* ignore list of course) the proviso: IF the Fielding email proves authentic... if true Fielding/Zavada can chose 1 forum member to do their legwork and post to the debate. The debate will last no longer than what 10days-2 weeks -- How's that sound?

Time to put up or shut up guy's!

Might break the attendence record for this board...

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

David Healy

John Simkin won't need to add more bandwidth if he goes back and removes all the post you had made where you did nothing but cheerlead without offering one single shred of data to the discussion.

I would also like to say that if Fielding and Zavada come up with those 100 reasons in support of non-alteration as you stated ... I'd like to make it 101 for them by adding your posted response to this forum where you had stated that you have never seen any evidence of alteration yourself.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All

I've got some free time after this weekend ... Its been brought to my attention -- Mr. Colby has received a message from Raymond Fielding, author of 'The Technique Special Effects Cinematography.' I personally request to view the header and text of said email message, I'm sure forwarding same to a email address of my choice shouldn't prove difficult for Mr. Colby to perform. If the note from Fielding proves authentic, I'll personally invite Mr. Raymond Fielding AND Mr. Roland Zavada to appear on this forum and DEBATE the Zapruder Film and 1963-64 film compositing issues and techniques, I will post [in this thread, this weekend] the email request to both of them, complete with headers and any response from them via email or phone....

I'm sure between them they'll come up with 100 reasons to support the non-alteration position.

To show the breadth of my indulgence, I'll even utilize Mr. Colby and one other as my debate team partners (after I take Colby off the *tard pit* ignore list of course) the proviso: IF the Fielding email proves authentic... if true Fielding/Zavada can chose 1 forum member to do their legwork and post to the debate. The debate will last no longer than what 10days-2 weeks -- How's that sound?

Time to put up or shut up guy's!

Might break the attendence record for this board...

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

David Healy

John Simkin won't need to add more bandwidth if he goes back and removes all the post you had made where you did nothing but cheerlead without offering one single shred of data to the discussion.

I would also like to say that if Fielding and Zavada come up with those 100 reasons in support of non-alteration as you stated ... I'd like to make it 101 for them by adding your posted response to this forum where you had stated that you have never seen any evidence of alteration yourself.

Bill

that's kind of pithy, isnt it? And of course, I stated that -- allows those few to create possible "film compositing" scenarios, not only makes good science - makes sense, too. So I wouldn't sweat it, too much!

Watch them make mince meat of me...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear when ever I read one of Healy's posts I think about Romper Room. My six-year old daughter used to pull that (finger's in ears) nanana I can't here you stunt to but stopped about a year ago. I used to call people "tard" but that was back in junior high school. Hard to believe this guy is past 60, how pathetic.

I sent the text of his message above to Feilding but he has NO interest in debating Healy nor does he want the likes of Healy to have his e-mail address. If John Simkin or Andy are willing I could forward all the e-mails I've exchanged with Mr. Fielding to one of them. They could then examine the headers and give their opinion as to whether the messages are authentic.

Healy should have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the message since he is in contact with Zavada who is a friend of Fielding. He could easily verify this matter.

My e-mail exchange with Fielding went as follows.

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:45:39 -0800 (PST)

From: "len colby" <lenbrasil@xxxxx

Subject: The technique of special effects cinematography

To: rfielding@xxxxxxxxx

Dear Dr. Fielding,

As I know you are aware David Healy cited your book The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography to support his contention that the Zapruder film could have been extensively altered in1963. From what I've read he correctly cites your book as the standard reference on the subject. I do not believe such alterations could have done undetectably back then and was hoping you would be willing to comment.

Rollie Zavada told me the two of your discussed these claims and that you agreed with him that the proposed alterations would not have been possible and if they had been done would be easily detectable. He also told me you didn't want to get involved in this mess so I'm sorry for the intrusion. I got your e-mail from xxxxxxxxxx. If you do get back to me please let me know if I can quote you.

Once again sorry for bothering you.

Len Colby

From: RAYRfielding@xxxxxxxxx

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST

Subject: Zavada

To: lenbrasil@xxxxxxx

Mr. Colby:

I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence.

I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me.

Raymond Fielding

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:42:19 -0800 (PST)

From: "len colby" <lenbrasil@xxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: Zavada

To: RAYRfielding@xxxxxxxx

Mr. Fielding, (Can I call you Raymond or Ray? )

Thank you for getting back to me. Do you have any interest in getting involved in this lunatic debate? You can ask Rollie for his estimation of David Healy but in my opinion he is an obnoxious.... (I won't finish that sentence because I don't know you sensibilities). he now wants to debate Zavada and you. I kid you not.

See below text of a message he left on a forum which is also indicative of his winning personality. As you can see wants me to forward your e-mail message to him. Is that OK with you? This would mean he would have your e-mail address.

Len

All

I've got some free time after this weekend ... Its been brought to my attention -- Mr. Colby has received a message from Raymond Fielding, author of 'The Technique Special Effects Cinematography.'

[…] (see David's message above for full text Len)

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

David Healy

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:59:21 -0500

From: rayrfielding@xxxxx x

Subject: Re: Zavada

To: lenbrasil@xxxxxxxx

Mr. Colby:

No, my e-mail message and its address is only for you. I have no

further interest in this debate. What a waste of time.

Ray Fielding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

Yes.

Appreciate that, John... I will email Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding a invitation to participate when I have Fielding's email address in hand [later this weekend], will post to this thread same e-mail withOUT addressees specific email address - you'll be made aware of all concerned 'verifiable' email addresses--

As stated see below:

From : David Healy <aeffects@hotmail.com>

Sent : Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:02 PM

To : Xfielding@XXXXXXXX.edu, zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.net

CC : aeffects@XXXXXXXXX.com

Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film

Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox

Gentlemen,

I’d like to take this moment to ask for your participation in a discussion surrounding the films of Dealey Plaza, November 1963. In particular, the technical aspects of the Abraham Zapruder’s in camera-original film and the original 3 optical film prints. The discussion will take place on John Simkin’s Forum: below URL

(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/)

Primary topic under consideration is: Did/was the technical knowledge, know-how, expertise, talent, optical film printing equipment available in 1963-64 for possible alteration. The discussion may branch to other Dealey Plaza film scenarios.

We’d like to put to rest, the possibility of Zapruder film alteration. As Roland knows, from earlier discussions, I hold, more or less, a neutral position concerning alteration. I tasked myself with determining for Dr. Jim Fetzer’s HOAX, if, the equipment, know-how, technical expertise and the time was available circa. 1963-64 to alter said film. My continued interest in same is quite simple; over-the-top responses whenever the question arises in public and private from the non Zapruder alteration side of the question. Leads one to wonder, why such a rigorous defense?

In short, there’ll be NO debate, only discussion. If conclusions are drawn, they belong to the concluder. I am not searching for consensus only clarification. A 10 day to 2 week time limit will be placed on the discussion. Each of you may chose one person to act in your behalf during your part of the discussion…

John Simkin has graciously granted Education Forum space for the discussion.

It’s been brought to my attention Dean Fielding, you were queried by a current Education Forum member, Mr. Colby regarding the Zapruder film, I’d like confirmation of same, please. I’ve also been made aware Roland has met with Dean Fielding. The result of that meeting (I suspect the Zapruder Film was under discussion) would help the understanding of the Zapruder film alteration scenario. Also, if Gary Mack seeks involvement in said discussions I’d like that confirmed too. That being said, I feel confident we can generate better understanding regarding what happened in Dealey Plaza November 22nd 1963, regarding the in-camera original Zapruder film.

This email [in its entirety - headers included] will be posted to the Education Forum prior to Monday Feb 20th. Feel free to respond directly with John Simkin, me, or to the concerned Education Forum thread.

I’m sure both of you will be granted immediate ‘forum’ posting privileges… please put forth conditions you impose to insure participation. You’ll be dealing with me and two others of my choosing, whom may or may not be current optical film printing "experts".

David Healy

**************

add: John Simkin -- I suspect normal registration process will be in order for these folks, correct? I'll also notify the board of ANY communication.

DH

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

Might John Simkin grant this debate bandwidth?

Yes.

Appreciate that, John... I will email Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding a invitation to participate when I have Fielding's email address in hand [later this weekend], will post to this thread same e-mail withOUT addressees specific email address - you'll be made aware of all concerned 'verifiable' email addresses--

As stated see below:

From : David Healy <aeffects@hotmail.com>

Sent : Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:02 PM

To : Xfielding@XXXXXXXX.edu, zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.net

CC : aeffects@XXXXXXXXX.com

Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film

Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox

Gentlemen,

I’d like to take this moment to ask for your participation in a discussion surrounding the films of Dealey Plaza, November 1963. In particular, the technical aspects of the Abraham Zapruder’s in camera-original film and the original 3 optical film prints. The discussion will take place on John Simkin’s Forum: below URL

(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/)

Primary topic under consideration is: Did/was the technical knowledge, know-how, expertise, talent, optical film printing equipment available in 1963-64 for possible alteration. The discussion may branch to other Dealey Plaza film scenarios.

We’d like to put to rest, the possibility of Zapruder film alteration. As Roland knows, from earlier discussions, I hold, more or less, a neutral position concerning alteration. I tasked myself with determining for Dr. Jim Fetzer’s HOAX, if, the equipment, know-how, technical expertise and the time was available circa. 1963-64 to alter said film. My continued interest in same is quite simple; over-the-top responses whenever the question arises in public and private from the non Zapruder alteration side of the question. Leads one to wonder, why such a rigorous defense?

In short, there’ll be NO debate, only discussion. If conclusions are drawn, they belong to the concluder. I am not searching for consensus only clarification. A 10 day to 2 week time limit will be placed on the discussion. Each of you may chose one person to act in your behalf during your part of the discussion…

John Simkin has graciously granted Education Forum space for the discussion.

It’s been brought to my attention Dean Fielding, you were queried by a current Education Forum member, Mr. Colby regarding the Zapruder film, I’d like confirmation of same, please. I’ve also been made aware Roland has met with Dean Fielding. The result of that meeting (I suspect the Zapruder Film was under discussion) would help the understanding of the Zapruder film alteration scenario. Also, if Gary Mack seeks involvement in said discussions I’d like that confirmed too. That being said, I feel confident we can generate better understanding regarding what happened in Dealey Plaza November 22nd 1963, regarding the in-camera original Zapruder film.

This email [in its entirety - headers included] will be posted to the Education Forum prior to Monday Feb 20th. Feel free to respond directly with John Simkin, me, or to the concerned Education Forum thread.

I’m sure both of you will be granted immediate ‘forum’ posting privileges… please put forth conditions you impose to insure participation. You’ll be dealing with me and two others of my choosing, whom may or may not be current optical film printing "experts".

David Healy

**************

add: John Simkin -- I suspect normal registration process will be in order for these folks, correct? I'll also notify the board of ANY communication.

DH

Dean Fielding notified me he has "no interest in this matter" hence will not participate. He confirmed what Mr. Colby has posted, "had alteration occured it would not have survived scrutiny".

I've yet to speak with anyone who was queried regarding possible alteration of the Z-film circa. 1963-64?

As to surviving scrutiny -- what scrutiny? the Warren Commission?

To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!

So to Dean Fielding, I ask him to turn to ppg. 17, 3rd edition of The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography (which he authored) and ask the parameters of the following paragraph:

quote on:

Nearly always, in the course of professional film production. the need arises for certain kinds of scenes which are too costly, too difficult, too time-consuming, too dangerous, or simply impossible to achieve with conventional photographic techniques.

These scenes may call for relatively simple effects, as to when optical transitions such as fades, wipes and dissolves are used to link... Or, they [effects] may be much more demanding, as when a city must be seen destroyed in a earthquake, when a non-existent, multi-million dollar building must be shown as part of a live action scene..., when pictorally uninteresting shots must be artistically "embellished" through the addition of clouds, trees, architecural detail, or when fantastic event which contradict the physical laws of nature must be shown upon a screen in order to satisfy the demands of an imaginative script-writer.

quote off

and were talking, a possible altered film, utilizing a few simple mattes? I'm not surprised :hotorwot

Thanks anyway Dean Fielding appreciate your time.....

David Healy

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

Dean Fielding notified me he has "no interest in this matter" hence will not participate. He confirmed what Mr. Colby has posted, "had alteration occured it would not have survived scrutiny".

I've yet to speak with anyone who was queried regarding possible alteration of the Z-film circa. 1963-64?

I don't know if Dave is playing with words here or flat out lying both Zavavda and Feilding (see FULL quote) and apperently Oliver Stone and others have said it would not have been possible. Cute how dave used only half of Feilding's quote.

As to surviving scrutiny -- what scrutiny? the Warren Commission?

To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!

Again is Dave playing with words or BSing, Groden and Zavada handled the original. Zavada closely examined looking for signs of alteration and declared the was an "in-camera" original shot with the type camera Zapruder had and showed none of the tell tale signs of compositing. Also IIRC the film was available to researchers for years and none of them found any signs of alteration. If there was something to hide why make the film available?

So to Dean Fielding, I ask him to turn to ppg. 17, 3rd edition of The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography (which he authored) and ask the parameters of the following paragraph:

quote on:

Nearly always, in the course of professional film production. the need arises for certain kinds of scenes which are too costly, too difficult, too time-consuming, too dangerous, or simply impossible to achieve with conventional photographic techniques.

These scenes may call for relatively simple effects, as to when optical transitions such as fades, wipes and dissolves are used to link... Or, they [effects] may be much more demanding, as when a city must be seen destroyed in a earthquake, when a non-existent, multi-million dollar building must be shown as part of a live action scene..., when pictorally uninteresting shots must be artistically "embellished" through the addition of clouds, trees, architecural detail, or when fantastic event which contradict the physical laws of nature must be shown upon a screen in order to satisfy the demands of an imaginative script-writer.

quote off

Nothing there about a motocade with moving people in it being superimposed on a backgroound with moving people in it and people's arms and legs being made to move differently than they had in real life. Nor is there anything about the alteration being able to escape detection.

Can someone please quote this message so that the childish 60 year old Mr. Healy will see it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, it is funny that them guys have said the same thing that Groden told me ... David seems to ignore them all even though he has no expertise to do so. I remind veveryone once agin that Groden did examine the camera original and I posted his response concerning its authenticity which David also ignores.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, it is funny that them guys have said the same thing that Groden told me ... David seems to ignore them all even though he has no expertise to do so. I remind veveryone once agin that Groden did examine the camera original and I posted his response concerning its authenticity which David also ignores.

Bill

Bill, Dave IS an expert - in VIDEO and COMPUTER post-production, and heck they're just like film LOL.

His ignoring of them is dishonest because he knows that Zavada and Groden and others closely examined the original and says that no one did. The forum's rules don't allow me to say what it is when a person says something that they know is untrue.

If he can come up with a rational explaination I will offer a retraction.

He accused me of lying in the "blood mistake" thread and I showed that to be incorrect. I'm still waiting for his retraction.

Len

PS - Can someone "quote" this message so that the childish Mr. Healy will see it. Amazing he acts likes a 5 year old.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, it is funny that them guys have said the same thing that Groden told me ... David seems to ignore them all even though he has no expertise to do so. I remind veveryone once agin that Groden did examine the camera original and I posted his response concerning its authenticity which David also ignores.

Bill

Send my best to Colby above --

Now, what camera original film was it that Robert Groden handled?

Was that the same film David Lifton reviewed when LIFE [can't remeber whether it was it came from Chicago or New York office] shipped the film to Los Angeles, complete with LIFE rep, anyway? That one?

Will Robert Groden go on the record stating he handled the in-camera Zapruder original, we'd like to know the film header # he "handled"?

Hell, we haven't even got to film expertise yet? No need, YET!

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

Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
Healy plays games to obfuscate the truth. Did Groden handle the original, he says he did, does Dave have any evidence to the contrary? .

Did Zavada examine the original Z-film from the National Archives? That isn't in dispute, Healy knows he did. Yet he said “To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever, EVER scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original. If they had, I suspect the defenders of same would be all over the subject matter -- still, S I L E N C E!“. When the truth isn't on his side he blows smoke and tries to fool people.

Dave - Lying doesn’t become you nor the forum!!!!

3.5 years ago and this is still heating up.... the trolls have dropped the ball, again. So where is Gary M's latest dance concerning Doug Horne's take on Z-film alteration? Rumor has it he (Gary) has broken his silence...

Edited by David G. Healy
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...