Jump to content
The Education Forum

NEW --- Zavada-Fielding Z-film discussion


David G. Healy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

'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

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 by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...