David G. Healy Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I've accepted Roland Zavada's offer. I've been in touch with Roland Zavada, over the next few day's we'll set a few parameters -- which may or may not include questions from forum members. There will be NO debate, discussion only. David Healy ______________________________________ From : Rollie Zavada <zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.XXXXXXX> Sent : Monday, February 20, 2006 6:34 PM Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox David, You wrote: “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: 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. In short, there'll be NO debate, only discussion.” Although your invitation sounds intriguing, I do not want to be a part of a “forum” and Professor Fielding holds the same view. Even though you propose a time limit with no debate, discussion questions are a form of debate and they can be endless and exhausting. It is best if we confine ourselves to the facts as we know them. I spoke with Professor Ray Fielding today and we can provide input to your question about the “capability of alteration” described in your paragraph two, above, as follows: I will readdress the question of the improbability of alteration of the Zapruder camera original and the three Jamieson same-day copies – based on film technology, equipment, laboratory requirements and logistics. Professor Fielding has agreed to review and edit my comments so that prior to submission to your forum, you will have the views of a film expert endorsed by a special effects expert. This will still require significant writing on my part which will take some time. Also I have no intent to “branch” to other Dealey Plaza film scenarios. Please advise if this offer is acceptable. Rollie Zavada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Eaglesham Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I've accepted Roland Zavada's offer. I've been in touch with Roland Zavada, over the next few day's we'll set a few parameters -- which may or may not include questions from forum members. There will be NO debate, discussion only. David Healy ______________________________________ From : Rollie Zavada <zavadaXX@XXXXXXXXX.XXXXXXX> Sent : Monday, February 20, 2006 6:34 PM To : David Healy <aeffects@hotmail.com> Subject : A invitation for discussion re: The Zapruder Film Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox David, You wrote: “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: 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. In short, there'll be NO debate, only discussion.” Although your invitation sounds intriguing, I do not want to be a part of a “forum” and Professor Fielding holds the same view. Even though you propose a time limit with no debate, discussion questions are a form of debate and they can be endless and exhausting. It is best if we confine ourselves to the facts as we know them. I spoke with Professor Ray Fielding today and we can provide input to your question about the “capability of alteration” described in your paragraph two, above, as follows: I will readdress the question of the improbability of alteration of the Zapruder camera original and the three Jamieson same-day copies – based on film technology, equipment, laboratory requirements and logistics. Professor Fielding has agreed to review and edit my comments so that prior to submission to your forum, you will have the views of a film expert endorsed by a special effects expert. This will still require significant writing on my part which will take some time. Also I have no intent to “branch” to other Dealey Plaza film scenarios. Please advise if this offer is acceptable. Rollie Zavada "There will be NO debate, discussion only." From Thesaurus.com: ---------------- DEBATE 51 entries found for debate. Main Entry: debate Part of Speech: noun Definition: discussion Synonyms: agitation, altercation, argument, argumentation, blah-blah, bone, bull yard, cogitation, consideration, contention, contest, controversy, controverting, deliberation, dialectic, disputation, dispute, flak session, forensic, hassle, match, meditation, mooting, polemic, powwow, rap, rap session, rebutting, reflection, refuting, tiff, words, wrangle ---- DISCUSSION 36 entries found for discussion. Main Entry: discussion Part of Speech: noun Definition: talk Synonyms: altercation, analysis, argument, argumentation, bull session, bull yard, canvass, colloquy, confab, confabulation, conference, consideration, consultation, contention, controversy, conversation, debate, deliberation, dialogue, discourse, dispute, dissertation, examination, exchange, excursus, flap, gabfest, groupthink, huddle, interview, meet, meeting, powwow, quarrel, rap, rap session, review, scrutiny, symposium, ventilation, wrangling --------------------- David: Do you need to define the subtle difference(s) you see between "debate" and "discussion"? Above, "debate" is defined as "discussion," and "debate" is provided as a synonym for "discussion." Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 'Allan Eaglesham' wrote: [...] DISCUSSION 36 entries found for discussion. Main Entry: discussion Part of Speech: noun Definition: talk Synonyms: altercation, analysis, argument, argumentation, bull session, bull yard, canvass, colloquy, confab, confabulation, conference, consideration, consultation, contention, controversy, conversation, debate, deliberation, dialogue, discourse, dispute, dissertation, examination, exchange, excursus, flap, gabfest, groupthink, huddle, interview, meet, meeting, powwow, quarrel, rap, rap session, review, scrutiny, symposium, ventilation, wrangling --------------------- David: Do you need to define the subtle difference(s) you see between "debate" and "discussion"? Above, "debate" is defined as "discussion," and "debate" is provided as a synonym for "discussion." Allan ******* Allan, The definition [as stated above] re discussion is; talk, no one I know of is looking to win debate points... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) DEBATE and DISCUSSION are not interchangeable words. In a DEBATE, debaters routinely CHOOSE EITHER the pro or con side of an argument, and proceed to ARGUE the best points of the side they have chosen, whether or not they agree with what they are saying. This is what lawyers do. Debaters are not commited to the side they are arguing, nor for that matter TO THE TRUTH of what they argue. In a DISCUSSION, participants articulate their own personal beliefs and views on a given subject. This is not a requirement of debaters. Debaters are trying to SCORE POINTS by out-thinking and out- talking their opponents, without regard to personal beliefs. Debaters are motivated by competition, not by beliefs. Saying DEBATE and DISCUSSION are synonymous is like saying WRITING and TALKING are synonymous, when the difference is obvious, though the message may be the same. Jack Edited February 21, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Eaglesham Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Allan, The definition [as stated above] re discussion is; talk, no one I know of is looking to win debate points... David: I am less certain of the distinction between "discussion" and "debate" -- and their applicability here -- than is Jack. As long as both sides understand the terms of reference, fine. I seek to clarify not to complicate. Thank you. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bartetzko Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this. trying Nick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Allan, The definition [as stated above] re discussion is; talk, no one I know of is looking to win debate points... David: I am less certain of the distinction between "discussion" and "debate" -- and their applicability here -- than is Jack. As long as both sides understand the terms of reference, fine. I seek to clarify not to complicate. Thank you. Allan Alan...I do not DEBATE anyone on any subject. I will DISCUSS any subject with anybody. I do not respond to attacks and challenges by anyone; it is a waste of time. In DEBATES one has an OPPONENT. In DISCUSSIONS, there are NO OPPONENTS; perhaps differences but not attacks. Others may do as they please. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Alan...I do not DEBATE anyone on any subject. I will DISCUSS any subject with anybody. I do not respond to attacks and challenges by anyone; it is a waste of time. In DEBATES one has an OPPONENT. In DISCUSSIONS, there are NO OPPONENTS; perhaps differences but not attacks. Others may do as they please. Jack Right, Jack ... no attacks ... give me a break! You have been presented with evidence that not only showed the gross errors in your observations, but it was done civily and you didn't address the points made at all because you are not one to admit your mistakes. Instead you call people who show you up - "disinformation agents". Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Eaglesham Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Alan...I do not DEBATE anyone on any subject. I will DISCUSS any subject with anybody. I do not respond to attacks and challenges by anyone; it is a waste of time. In DEBATES one has an OPPONENT. In DISCUSSIONS, there are NO OPPONENTS; perhaps differences but not attacks. Others may do as they please. Jack Right, Jack ... no attacks ... give me a break! You have been presented with evidence that not only showed the gross errors in your observations, but it was done civily and you didn't address the points made at all because you are not one to admit your mistakes. Instead you call people who show you up - "disinformation agents". Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator ======================== Jack: Let's leave this. Bill: The "discussion debate" was between Jack and me. David: I look forward to your discussion. Thank you. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) Read the header, Bill! Allan had a legitimate comment it was addressed -- If you've anything to add, concerning THAT topic, please do. Thread jacking won't work here.... David Edited February 22, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Read the header, Bill! Allan had a legitimate comment it was addressed -- If you've anything to add, concerning THAT topic, please do. Thread jacking won't work here.... David Case and point ... Jack mentions that he will discuss anything with anyone which I guess is not thread jacking in your view, but my pointing out that I disagree with him on that point is thread jacking. Your sense of fair play is overwhelming! Bil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 (edited) Read the header, Bill! Allan had a legitimate comment it was addressed -- If you've anything to add, concerning THAT topic, please do. Thread jacking won't work here.... David Case and point ... Jack mentions that he will discuss anything with anyone which I guess is not thread jacking in your view, but my pointing out that I disagree with him on that point is thread jacking. Your sense of fair play is overwhelming! Bil simple, No case in point, Bill -- just start your own thread..... on disagreement. There's NO room for disagreement regarding a proposed discussion. Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas? Edited February 23, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 (edited) Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas? Zavada & Feilding 1 + 1 = 2 David Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this. trying Nick... David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963 Edited February 23, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Unless of course you disagree that two or three known experts in their field may present thoughts, ideas and evidence review regarding a certain crime committed in Dallas Texas? Zavada & Feilding 1 + 1 = 2 David Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this. trying Nick... David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963 I'm sure David has an "expert" waiting in the wings for this little event. You know its NOT going to be David. After all he has no first hand knowlege because he HIRES it instead. 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