Len Colby Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) I was surprised to read the following declaration from Mr. Healy last Monday, 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! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=55799 ://http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/i...quot;] [/color]://http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/i...quot;] [/color]://http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/i...quot;] [/color] Why would he make a statement that he knew to be false? Didn't he expect to get called on it? Did he simply forget that Rollie Zavada had "scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original" on several occasions? That's kind of hard to believe too because he knows Mr. Zavada and is in phone and e-mail contact with him and has referred to the "Zavada Report" on this forum and mentioned it three times in his chapter in Hoax (pgs. 113 – 144, http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/081269547X...keywords=zavada ) and there are 2 chapters about it in the book. I asked David for clarification a few times but he never replied (see messages 10,12 & 14), his failure to explain his false statement is what lead me to start this thread. He also insinuated that Robert Groden was lying when he said he had examined the original even though he doesn't seem to have any basis to make such a charge. 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"? (Same thread as above, message 13). I was a bit confused as to what David was "trying to pull" so I asked Mr. Zavada for clarification. He told me the following "Len,I don't understand David's ignorance of my direct review of the in-camera original and first-day copies. After all those films were the basis of all Zapruder film frame photographs in my report. I saw the camera original in: 1996 – very casual view- inspected edge print and commented on film physical condition. 1997 & 1998 – Full day viewings and photographing of camera original for report. Direct comparison of SS copy vs original. (I can look up exact dates.) One or two persons of NARA staff were always present. 1999 – Spring – One-hour review of original with members of the Archives Preservation Sub-committee." Further because Groden was the "film expert" to the 1978 House Committee on Assassinations, there is a high probability that he did have access to the original at NARA. Why should someone challenge his statement? Rollie [/i] David do you care to explain? Did you a) lie or some how forget that Zavada examined the original film? Or c) can you some how rationalize this discrepancy, do think that both Groden and Zavada lied? Ironically David accused me of being a "xxxx" even though the use of that word "is banned from use on the forum. " (see rule iv http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=2243&st=0 ) and I (IMHO) accurately reported what he said 'Len Colby' - Lied (course if he posts a cite to the effect; * none of them are "photo experts" * I'll retract.... LOLThe problem with TGZFH is that most of the supposed experts do not know what they are talking about. Even Healy admitted thay none of them are "photo experts" supporting a xxxx isn't what I expect from of you, you should be ashamed of yourself http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=55713 David's memory seems to be very poor because he had made a statement to that effect only 6 day earlier: I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=54805 Fetzer, Mantik, Costella, White and David are all members of this forum. So who are the photo experts in TGZFH? LOL Len Edited February 24, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 We've been through all this before, haven't we? Not another one of these dogfights about the Z-Film. Len, just because you are in disagreement over the issue doesn't mean David Healy is a disinformation agent. If he were, he would be posting all the time to get the message across, don't you think? David has made 100 odd posts fewer than me but has been a member for nearly a year longer. Tim Gratz has made eight times more posts than David. I think you must just like these pointless slanging matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I agree with the general sentiment of Mark's comment. I am living in abject ignorance re: the essence of the Z-film dispute. This is not because I havn't tried to learn more, or because I dismiss it as misspelled minutiae: for all I know it is the Key to All Mythologies. The problem is the threads I click seem inaccessible for a Z-novice like myself. If the posters could make every fifth post or so... connected to some OVERVIEW-LIKE COMMENT it could allow more people greater understanding. I realize that some might consider such a democratic approach contrary to the image of "serious research," but why is this? Shouldn't we--at least once in a while-- consider how information is (or isn't) disseminated? Martin Luther may have taken some notes on his living room walls, but he posted elsewhere. Less invective, more summation and overview: then there can be a jury of at least peasants for these esoteric --and quite possibley essential-- disputes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 We've been through all this before, haven't we?Not another one of these dogfights about the Z-Film. Len, just because you are in disagreement over the issue doesn't mean David Healy is a disinformation agent. If he were, he would be posting all the time to get the message across, don't you think? David has made 100 odd posts fewer than me but has been a member for nearly a year longer. Tim Gratz has made eight times more posts than David. I think you must just like these pointless slanging matches. Mark/Nathaniel The point wasn't to have a dog fight with David or anybody else over the Z-film. The point was that he said something that he knew or should have known was false. He said that no one examined the original film, Zavada examined it, no one disputes that, he is aware of Zavada’s findings, how can he rationalize his statement? I already tried to get him to reply but he hasn't. Shouldn't you be putting HIM to task for apparently trying to mislead the members of this forum. If he has some rational explanation I'll apologize, if he doesn't he should apologized to the entire forum. I don't see what the connection is between how many posts a member makes and their honesty. The Z film threads might not be easy for a 'novice' to follow but then again the same could be said about most threads here some, Sometimes I have to google names that appear on them Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) If he has some rational explanation I'll apologize, if he doesn't he should apologized to the entire forum. I don't see what the connection is between how many posts a member makes and their honesty. Len is correct. In the manner in which he applied the term 'disinformation agent' does indeed apply to Healy in much the same way it applied to 'Baghdad Bob' in the Gulf War. It seems that some of these guys spend a lot of time making accusations and no time actually trying to get the facts first. Groden is not inaccessable and if David wanted to know more about Robert's inspection of the camera original he could have obtained it quite easily. They often times show a pattern of leaving vital details out of their repsonses which always points away from photo and film alteration. When such behavior borders the realm of deception, then it can certainly be classified as disinformation and this is why Len seems justified in what he has said. Bill Edited February 24, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Hi. Okay firstly, I'm not related to David, nor do I know him personally, so ignore my surname for this. I have also hardly ever expressed an opinion publicly on the authenticity of the film. Personally, I remain open-minded. I think what David means when he uses the word "scrutinized" is that the in-camera original has never been looked at on a forensic/chemical level. I remember reading a least one author in "TGZFH" calling for this type of test. FWIW, Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hi.Okay firstly, I'm not related to David, nor do I know him personally, so ignore my surname for this. I have also hardly ever expressed an opinion publicly on the authenticity of the film. Personally, I remain open-minded. I think what David means when he uses the word "scrutinized" is that the in-camera original has never been looked at on a forensic/chemical level. I remember reading a least one author in "TGZFH" calling for this type of test. FWIW, Alan Alan - Such an explaination doesn’t wash for a few reasons. 1) David Healy has been active on the forum since this thread started and has even posted 3 times. If he has a rational explanation why hasn’t he made it? 2) Zavada examination was forensic in nature he looked at things like grain structure, color balance and contrast levels, as one of Kodak’s top technical experts and the inventor of the film used he was eminently qualified to under take such a study. I don’t understand what you mean by a chemical study no one disputes that the film is properly processed 1st batch Kodachrome II. I don’t think 40 years after the fact it could be determined chemically if the film had been processed in Dallas or somewhere else. In any case the National Archives would never allow such a test for obvious reasons. 3) David’s comments about Groden show no indication that by “scrutinize” he meant make a forensic exam. 4) Zavada interpreted David’s comments the same way I did. 5) Even IF that’s what he meant he worded his declaration very poorly. The American Heritage Dictionary defines scrutinize as: “To examine or observe with great care; inspect critically.” http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/scrutinize Webster’s definition is basically the same: “to examine closely and minutely…to examine closely and minutely…SCRUTINIZE stresses close attention to minute detail <scrutinized the hospital bill>.” http://m-w.com/dictionary/scrutinize Zavada’s repeated examinations of the film certainly qualify. David - The ball’s in your court please justify your false statement. You called me a xxxx but I backed my statement with a quotation and you have yet to make a retraction. I have now leveled a similar charge against you and don’t seem to be able to explain your deception. I'm not related to David, nor do I know him personally, so ignore my surname [tin-foil hat mode] I find that hard to believe. You guys are the only 2 members of this forum I can think of with the same last name and it’s a name so uncommon it’s not even recognized by the spell checker in Word!! Quite a COINCIDENCE I don’t know of any members of the forum with any of the 5 most common names in the English speaking world but you want us to believe that you share a RARE last name with someone whose book you read and you defend and it’s just another coincidence!!! [/tin-foil hat mode] Just kidding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Well, Len, one has noted that you share an uncommon surname with a gentleman who was once the director of an intelligence agency, and Tim Carroll shares the same surname as the head of the DIA. And I share the surname with a woman who was an assistant to my favorite spook J. J. Angleton. This of course is all just coincidence. Proving that there are coincidences as well as conspiracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) 'Len Colby' drones on: I was surprised to read the following declaration from Mr. Healy last Monday dgh01: surprised? Cobly struggles with: "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!" Why would he make a statement that he knew to be false? dgh: False? Jump'in the gun pal? Or, has this bit of fame gone to your head? Surely you'll find a url we can go to and clear up film density findings, author of findings, yes! Didn't he expect to get called on it? Did he simply forget that Rollie Zavada had "scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original" on several occasions? dgh: Several? we know of ONE published Roland Zavada visit to NARA, if there are more please feel obliged -- to wit: "...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS, no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA and displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report back same... WHAT the hell does that have to do with the films content?.... in sum: Rollie proved to my satisfaction, and many others, without question the film stored at NARA is of KII variety, the content, Z- film content matter is the question at the moment -- note: at NARA, how'd they view the intersprocket area of the Z-film , 8mm film through a loop, pictures of frames, 3x5-4x5 trannies of the camera original frames? always wondered about that... see: http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm [...] "In September 1997, Toner and Zavada visited Washington and, in addition to studying selected autopsy film and x-ray images at NARA, they also studied perceived anomalies in the inter-sprocket areas of the original Zapruder film, and the emulsion characteristics and edge print characteristics of what NARA presumed to be the camera-original Zapruder film and the two Secret Service first generation copies. (See the 3 illustrations on page 121 [omitted here].) Following this visit, Zavada began writing his extensive report on Zapruder film issues, which expanded in scope as his research into camera optics and printer characteristics continued. This report was scheduled for completion by Kodak no later than September 30, 1998; six copies were scheduled for deposit at NARA in the JFK Collection" A report scheduled for completion by KODAK... That's kind of hard to believe too because he knows Mr. Zavada and is in phone and e-mail contact with him and has referred to the "Zavada Report" on this forum and mentioned it three times in his chapter in Hoax (pgs. 113 – 144) dgh01: what's hard to believe? Rollie did his job, and a great job he did, least in my estimation -- He could of used a bit more cooperation from certain circles, well, a LOT more... [...] Edited February 25, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Actually Len, David Lifton wants it to be confirmed it is indeed KodachromeII, not KII-A & it was his thoughts on this that I rememered. His summary is in "Pig on a Leash" p415-416 in "TGZFH" For those that don't have the book, what Lifton is saying, is that a spectro test is needed on one of the frames from the original film, to determine whether it really is KII(outdoor film) & not KII-A(indoor film). If I have understood correctly, Lifton is saying that this cannot be determined by visual inspection on its own because the colour balance may be decieving the viewer. He theorises that if an optical forgery did occur in a editing facility then indoor film is more likely to have been chosen since that film would react better to this indoor light source. Please feel free to correct this if it is in error. I apologise for not being able to scan the pages for that would of been the best idea. Also, I'm not saying this is what our David was referring to, it's just what I thought of as soon as I read that word "scrutinized". Take that however you like but thanks for the tip with the tin-foil, those rays bounced right off my bonce. Also David, can you please start using the "wrap in a quote" function at the top of the reply window, please!!?! I am struggling to seperate your thoughts from those of others. Respectfully Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) 'Alan Healy' wrote: [...] Also David, can you please start using the "wrap in a quote" function at the top of the reply window, please!!?! I am struggling to seperate your thoughts from those of others. dgh01: Alan, In my responses I'm in BOLD, most of the time. Also, for the record: Alan Healy and I have NEVER met, to the best of my knowledge we are not related)... David Edited February 25, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 dgh: False? Jump'in the gun pal? Or, has this bit of fame gone to your head? Surely you'll find a url we can go to and clear up film density findings, author of findings, yes! [...] ???? So now according to Healy someone has only “scrutinized” a film if they have studied it’s density? Didn't he expect to get called on it? Did he simply forget that Rollie Zavada had "scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original" on several occasions? dgh: Several? we know of ONE published Roland Zavada visit to NARA, if there are more please feel obliged – See above he examined the film three times or do you believe Rollie lied? to wit: "...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS, no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA and displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report back same... ????????????? Tossing out strawmen again David? WHAT the hell does that have to do with the films content?.... in sum: Rollie proved to my satisfaction, and many others, without question the film stored at NARA is of KII variety, the content, Z- film content matter is the question at the moment – You did NOT specify that you were referring to content. What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH? And as I mentioned above Zavada’s findings went beyond determining that the film was KII. That's kind of hard to believe too because he knows Mr. Zavada and is in phone and e-mail contact with him and has referred to the "Zavada Report" on this forum and mentioned it three times in his chapter in Hoax (pgs. 113 – 144) dgh01: what's hard to believe? Rollie did his job, and a great job he did, least in my estimation -- He could of used a bit more cooperation from certain circles, well, a LOT more... Did you really miss my point or were you being disingenuous? Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 (edited) wake up Len -- I'm debating no one, nor is Roland Zavada! Disengenuous? Here it is again so you and the rest of the clan can understand it: a.)...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, or will EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS b.) no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA AND displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report same... KODAK double 8mm film specifications, characteristics and properties should NOT be confused with processed film content -- Who lied? Have you been away from the USofA for that long? English becoming a second language, Len? dgh: False? Jump'in the gun pal? Or, has this bit of fame gone to your head? Surely you'll find a url we can go to and clear up film density findings, author of findings, yes! [...] ???? So now according to Healy someone has only “scrutinized” a film if they have studied it’s density? Didn't he expect to get called on it? Did he simply forget that Rollie Zavada had "scrutinized the in-camera Zapruder camera original" on several occasions? dgh: Several? we know of ONE published Roland Zavada visit to NARA, if there are more please feel obliged – See above he examined the film three times or do you believe Rollie lied? to wit: "...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS, no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA and displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report back same... ????????????? Tossing out strawmen again David? WHAT the hell does that have to do with the films content?.... in sum: Rollie proved to my satisfaction, and many others, without question the film stored at NARA is of KII variety, the content, Z- film content matter is the question at the moment – You did NOT specify that you were referring to content. What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH? And as I mentioned above Zavada’s findings went beyond determining that the film was KII. That's kind of hard to believe too because he knows Mr. Zavada and is in phone and e-mail contact with him and has referred to the "Zavada Report" on this forum and mentioned it three times in his chapter in Hoax (pgs. 113 – 144) dgh01: what's hard to believe? Rollie did his job, and a great job he did, least in my estimation -- He could of used a bit more cooperation from certain circles, well, a LOT more... Did you really miss my point or were you being disingenuous? Len Edited March 1, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 (edited) wake up Len -- I'm debating no one, nor is Roland Zavada! Disengenuous? Here it is again so you and the rest of the clan can understand it: a.)...emulsion characteristics...", no one on this side of the question (pro-alteration or undecided) has ever, or will EVER question the fact that Rollie is the go-to guy when it comes to 8mm film and its CHARACTERISTICS b.) no one on this side of the authenticity issue has ever questioned the 8mm Zarpruder film currently stored at NARA as KodachromeII or IIA AND displaying same CHARACTERISTICS -- One assumes that if Kodak's go-to guy visits NARA, to VIEW and EVALUATE EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS re the Z-film [with Toner] and the film was NOT KII film he would report same... KODAK double 8mm film specifications, characteristics and properties should NOT be confused with processed film content -- Who lied? Have you been away from the USofA for that long? English becoming a second language, Len? If Zavada had only looked at elmusion characteristics and merely determined that the film was properly processed KII you'd have a point. As I stated above: Zavada's examination was forensic in nature he looked at things like grain structure, color balance and contrast levels, as one of Kodak’s top technical experts and the inventor of the film used he was eminently qualified to under take such a study Having trouble reading David? Loosing your marbles already you're only 60! You didn't answer the question "What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH? " "He (Zavada) could of used a bit more cooperation from certain circles, well, a LOT more..." care to elaborate? [/font][/font]</FONT> Edited March 1, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 (edited) 'Len Colby' wrote: [...] You didn't answer the question "What difference would access to the original make regarding the content alteration alleged in TGZFH?" [...] ______________ dgh01: guess your going to have to wait... Edited March 1, 2006 by David G. Healy 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