Jack White Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Is he afraid that Mr. Healy will ask questions he cannot answer? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Is he afraid that Mr. Healy will ask questions he cannot answer?Jack LOL He promised that a few weeks ago and didn't say when he would complete it. Healy on the other hand promised a "formal claim" "soon" over two months ago. I doubt your videographer friend could ask any questions the inventor of Kodachrome II couldn't answer. 1) the only evidence Healy has ever cited to support the notion that such fakery was possible was Feilding's book and unspecified copies of the SMPTE journal; now Feilding has said, like Zavada and Oliver Stone, that such sophisticated compositing was not possible at the time and if attempted would be easily detectable. 2) None of you guys have yet to reply to Zavada's critique of TGZFH (see link in "the Rifle" thread) 3) You guys aren't even able to answer questions I ask, I can't imagine Healy could stump Zavada. You are hardly one to criticiize someone else for chickening out there are at least 20 threads in which people have questioned your theories and asked you questions that you refuse to reply to. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) 'Len Colby' penned: LOL He promised that a few weeks ago and didn't say when he would complete it. Healy on the other hand promised a "formal claim" "soon" over two months ago. I doubt your videographer friend could ask any questions the inventor of Kodachrome II couldn't answer. dgh: come on you silly guy, what do you know of photography, much let alone videoography or film optical effects? 1) the only evidence Healy has ever cited to support the notion that such fakery was possible was Feilding's book and unspecified copies of the SMPTE journal; now Feilding has said, like Zavada and Oliver Stone, that such sophisticated compositing was not possible at the time and if attempted would be easily detectable. dgh:yep, you finally got something right -- and I sitting right here waiting... hey Ray, this guy speaking for you, ALREADY ... maybe you have a advance copy of Zavada dissertation? 2) None of you guys have yet to reply to Zavada's critique of TGZFH (see link in "the Rifle" thread) dgh: roflmfao! 3) You guys aren't even able to answer questions I ask, I can't imagine Healy could stump Zavada. dgh: whose trying to stump Roland? Anybody stumps Rollie, it'll be Rollie -- I have it on good authority whatever he does will be given "wide purchase...", you do remember who said that don't you? You are hardly one to criticiize someone else for chickening out there are at least 20 threads in which people have questioned your theories and asked you questions that you refuse to reply to. dgh:And your donation to JFK assassination research is what, precisely? Don't hurt yourself, now -- think REAL hard...hmm ----that's what I thought -- Len Edited March 24, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) "dgh: come on you silly guy, what do you know of photography," I think the better question would be - What do you know about photogrqaphy, David? You spent all that time questioning the Zapruder film by saying that it was possible to alter a film by way of using an optical printer, but never gave any consideration to the process needed to be completed to attempt such an alteration on Kodachrome II film and why it would be detectable under close scrutiny. Forget trying to push your lack of forethought off on Len for it was YOU who had an obligation to know what processes one would need to follow for such an undertaqking so to know if your suspicions had legs or not. Groden made some really valid points pertaining to this matter, so unless you (or a photographical expert) can rebut the things Robert pointed out that would leave the tell-tale signs of alteration when using Kodachrome II film .... you are doing nothing more than . Bill Edited September 3, 2010 by Kathy Beckett removed offensive statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) "dgh: come on you silly guy, what do you know of photography,"I think the better question would be - What do you know about photogrqaphy, David? You spent all that time questioning the Zapruder film by saying that it was possible to alter a film by way of using an optical printer, but never gave any consideration to the process needed to be completed to attempt such an alteration on Kodachrome II film and why it would be detectable under close scrutiny. Forget trying to push your lack of forethought off on Len for it was YOU who had an obligation to know what processes one would need to follow for such an undertaqking so to know if your suspicions had legs or not. Groden made some really valid points pertaining to this matter, so unless you (or a photographical expert) can rebut the things Robert pointed out that would leave the tell-tale signs of alteration when using Kodachrome II film .... you are doing nothing more than . Bill regarding the above, in a word Bill, bullxxxx! Len hasn't a clue, no more than you. While your pondering that, what the hell are Groden's film qualifications? Moe teach him everything he knows? The ARMY? Did he go to college? As for you, I doubt you've ever been inside a film lab -- so tell me, what would be detectable? I'm sure lurkers are curious! Or, you gonna let Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding do the heavy lifting? OBLIGATION? Obligation to WHO? You? ROFLMAO! Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration Edited September 3, 2010 by Kathy Beckett oofensive statementin quote removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Another pointless post from Mr. Healy, par for the course at this point. 'Len Colby' penned:LOL He promised that a few weeks ago and didn't say when he would complete it. Healy on the other hand promised a "formal claim" "soon" over two months ago. We’re STILL waiting for your “formal claim”. Is that coming anytime in the near future? See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I doubt your videographer friend could ask any questions the inventor of Kodachrome II couldn't answer.dgh: come on you silly guy, what do you know of photography, much let alone videoography or film optical effects? Your are the one purporting to be an expert on film post production yet you refuse to answer any questions about your experience. My experience unlike yours IS irrelevant because I don’t claim any expertise. I consider myself an “advanced amateur” photographer but I have done a few paid job over the years. Long ago I did darkroom work at a “semi-pro” lab in Boston and at a fashion catalogue in NYC. I do have some videography experience but that like yours is irrelevant. 1) the only evidence Healy has ever cited to support the notion that such fakery was possible was Feilding's book and unspecified copies of the SMPTE journal; now Feilding has said, like Zavada and Oliver Stone, that such sophisticated compositing was not possible at the time and if attempted would be easily detectable.dgh:yep, you finally got something right -- and I sitting right here waiting... hey Ray, this guy speaking for you, ALREADY ... maybe you have a advance copy of Zavada dissertation? So are you every going to offer any evidence that compositing as sophisticated as your buddies think was done to the Z-film possible? Saying “Read Feilding’s book” doesn’t really cut it now that Fielding himself says you’re wrong. I’m not “speaking for” Ray Fielding he already said that what you claim was possible wasn’t and would be detectable. 2) None of you guys have yet to reply to Zavada's critique of TGZFH (see link in "the Rifle" thread)dgh: roflmfao! OK embarrass me provide a link to where any of you have rebutted Zavada. 3) You guys aren't even able to answer questions I ask, I can't imagine Healy could stump Zavada.dgh: whose trying to stump Roland? Jack suggested that you’d be able to ask questions he couldn’t answer. Anybody stumps Rollie, it'll be Rollie -- I have it on good authority whatever he does will be given "wide purchase...", you do remember who said that don't you? No you stumped me, who said it? Why should I care? You are hardly one to criticize someone else for chickening out there are at least 20 threads in which people have questioned your theories and asked you questions that you refuse to reply to. dgh:And your donation to JFK assassination research is what, precisely? Don't hurt yourself, now -- think REAL hard...hmm ----that's what I thought -- That’s a good tactic, I make a point your friend doesn’t have a good comeback for and you change the subject! What donations (sic) have Fetzer, Costella, White and the lot of you made other than mudding the water with spurious claims? I never claimed to have made any such contributions, if I made one it was helping debunk the nonsense you guys call research. Jack – Let us know when you’ll be replying to that backlog of unanswered messages, what happened did you “chicken out”? Len OBLIGATION? Obligation to WHO? You? ROFLMAO! Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration Obligation as in "burden of proof" your are the closest thing the "alterationists" have to a film post production expert. You claim 2nd (or 3rd) generation copies coupies have been made and pass as originals. It's up to you to show that (among other things) is was feaseable with the filmstock used. Not only can't you prove alteration, you have failed to offer any evidence that it was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 "regarding the above, in a word Bill, bullxxxx! Len hasn't a clue, no more than you. While your pondering that, what the hell are Groden's film qualifications? Moe teach him everything he knows? The ARMY? Did he go to college? As for you, I doubt you've ever been inside a film lab -- so tell me, what would be detectable? I'm sure lurkers are curious! Or, you gonna let Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding do the heavy lifting? OBLIGATION? Obligation to WHO? You? ROFLMAO! " I have been inside several labs ... the last one in Seatle not a year ago on another film matter. I have posted the issues that Groden raised and to date you have not offered any rebuttal that would dispute the things Robert said. To date you have not offered any rebuttal stating that you have found another photo expert who disagreed with the points Robert raised. To date you have done nothing but offer the same childish say nothing responses that you are well known for making. "Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration"" You are not only the one who cannot prove alteration, but you have stated that you have not seen any signs of alteration as well! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I e-mailed Zavada and he told me he is still working on it. He promised to complete it but wouldn't commit himself to a date. He has other fish to fry. Since Healy promised us some sort of 'Earth shattering' "formal claim", that would stump the non-alterationists, "soon", over 2 months ago he and White don't have much right to complain about Zavada. So David, when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim"? Maybe you chickened out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 (edited) "regarding the above, in a word Bill, bullxxxx! Len hasn't a clue, no more than you. While your pondering that, what the hell are Groden's film qualifications? Moe teach him everything he knows? The ARMY? Did he go to college? As for you, I doubt you've ever been inside a film lab -- so tell me, what would be detectable? I'm sure lurkers are curious! Or, you gonna let Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding do the heavy lifting? OBLIGATION? Obligation to WHO? You? ROFLMAO! " I have been inside several labs ... the last one in Seatle not a year ago on another film matter. I have posted the issues that Groden raised and to date you have not offered any rebuttal that would dispute the things Robert said. To date you have not offered any rebuttal stating that you have found another photo expert who disagreed with the points Robert raised. To date you have done nothing but offer the same childish say nothing responses that you are well known for making. "Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration"" You are not only the one who cannot prove alteration, but you have stated that you have not seen any signs of alteration as well! Bill Let me give you a clue regarding RZavada's, therfore RGroden's 8mm film "issues". In short, they're irrelevant. All Groden has to do is ask Moe. White noise, those arguments. You'll figure it out, your a smart guy -- David Edited March 26, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Let me give you a clue regarding RZavada's, therfore RGroden's 8mm film "issues". In short, they're irrelevant. All Groden has to do is ask Moe. White noise, those arguments. You'll figure it out, your a smart guy -- David Why is that when Groden talks about something - he can offer an explaination based on data and when you (David) respond to what has been said - you only use words like "noise" ... now who is it that doesn't know jack-xxxx about the photographical Kodachrome II issues when attempting to alter images! Why not just save the say-nothing responses with cult 'words and phrases' and try and get some information from a photographical expert of your choice that can possibly offer something of value to the conversation ... it will at least make it appear that you are serious even if you are not. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 _______________________ Len colby wrote: I e-mailed Zavada and he told me he is still working on it. He promised to complete it but wouldn't commit himself to a date. He has other fish to fry. Since Healy promised us some sort of 'Earth shattering' "formal claim", that would stump the non-alterationists, "soon", over 2 months ago he and White don't have much right to complain about Zavada. dgh: "earth shattering" now Len, are you running around putting words in my mouth, AGAIN? Your side of a debate getting that nervous? So David, when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim"? Maybe you chickened out!!! dgh: ROFLMAO! I'm not complaining, I'd do the same thing - I can wait weeks! However, I promise to complete it, I've other fish to fry, too AND what's the rush? I've been provided new reading material, another book about the Z-film [hint], not that I need it. Oh, I'm also writing it, you know, a David against Goliath thingy -- my sense of drama. You guy's gott'a give someone thats been in the production biz many years, a bit of creative license. Yes? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 (edited) Why is that when Groden talks about something - he can offer an explaination based on data and when you (David) respond to what has been said - you only use words like "noise" ... now who is it that doesn't know jack-xxxx about the photographical Kodachrome II issues when attempting to alter images! Why not just save the say-nothing responses with cult 'words and phrases' and try and get some information from a photographical expert of your choice that can possibly offer something of value to the conversation ... it will at least make it appear that you are serious even if you are not. Bill _____________ Hear it from me, Bill Groden talks about nothing, if he had anything to say, he'd be here. A smart one, there are many questions he's left unanswered. therefore, he's a ghost. Why are you covering for him? "jack xxxx"? You getting sensative, Bill? Those 'say nothing phrases' are loaded with info. Load yourself up with Groden's film data, fine by me. As for me, no interest? I suspect Dean Fielding knows. A clue perhaps? Let me quote from his book: Chapter 1 page 17-18 quote on Special-effects procedures are as infinitely varied in their application as the kinds of production problem which can arise, for each effects assignment is a NEWone (emphasis mine), and is different in its pecilarities from every other one done before. It is the variety of problems and solutions which renders the field so interesting; it is the same variety which also makes the work of the special-effects conematographer so complicated. There are few rules, if any, and mistakes are common. The tools of the art range from simple, inexpensive devices which can be held in the hand, to extrememly costly machines weighing a ton or more. The length of time spent on a effects shot can range from a few minutes to several weeks. In the end, only familiarity with the tools and techniques of the field will provide the right solution for a particular problem (emphasis mine) and only a certain amount of experience will provide consistently professional results. quote off Ray's words, not MINE, Bill. Raymond Fielding, The TECHNIQUE OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY 1965-1968 and later. Library of Congress Catalog Card #64-8116 Think Groden will call Moe? When it comes to value in conversation Bill, why depend on a ghost, eh? David Edited March 26, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Len Colby wrote while hiding these days, evidently the other side is nervous about being seen scanning a thread, LOL ... I doubt your videographer friend could ask any questions the inventor of Kodachrome II couldn't answer. dgh: you're really grasping a straws, eh? Your are the one purporting to be an expert on film post production yet you refuse to answer any questions about your experience. My experience unlike yours IS irrelevant because I don’t claim any expertise. I consider myself an “advanced amateur” photographer but I have done a few paid job over the years. Long ago I did darkroom work at a “semi-pro” lab in Boston and at a fashion catalogue in NYC. I do have some videography experience but that like yours is irrelevant. dgh01: semi-pro lab? hmm... just share with us the printers you used "years ago" Len, make us all happy, provide a little comic relief. What is a semi-pro lab, that include the one in closets (1) the only evidence Healy has ever cited to support the notion that such fakery was possible was Feilding's book and unspecified copies of the SMPTE journal; now Feilding has said, like Zavada and Oliver Stone, that such sophisticated compositing was not possible at the time and if attempted would be easily detectable. dgh01: all I need is Fielding, could careless what Stone has to say regarding the issue, but you might provide a cite for same right here, I'll call 'em and we'll talk about it.... as for the SMPTE journals -- look in the back of the Ray's book Len, there's over two hundred of them, all topic related ... So are you every going to offer any evidence that compositing as sophisticated as your buddies think was done to the Z-film possible? Saying “Read Feilding’s book” doesn’t really cut it now that Fielding himself says you’re wrong. dgh01: Ray post already? You giving me a heads up? LOL ... Jack suggested that you’d be able to ask questions he couldn’t answer. dgh01: ah, Jack is not writing this Len ole boy. No you stumped me, who said it? Why should I care? dgh01: damn Len, you were on the same email, oop's maybe I got that email by accident, came from a pillar of the non-alteration camp, if not THE pillar! ... That’s a good tactic, I make a point your friend doesn’t have a good comeback for and you change the subject! What donations (sic) have Fetzer, Costella, White and the lot of you made other than mudding the water with spurious claims? I never claimed to have made any such contributions, if I made one it was helping debunk the nonsense you guys call research. dgh01: You did? How? Working in a semi-pro lab -- come on man, you can do better than THAT Jack – Let us know when you’ll be replying to that backlog of unanswered messages, what happened did you “chicken out”? dgh01: maybe Jack has put you omn the shelf, labelled your nonsense irrelevant, perhaps? dgh: Remember, I'm the one that CAN't prove alteration Obligation as in "burden of proof" your are the closest thing the "alterationists" have to a film post production expert. You claim 2nd (or 3rd) generation copies coupies have been made and pass as originals. It's up to you to show that (among other things) is was feaseable with the filmstock used. dgh01: me, mmwahh? hell, I have Ray Fielding -- wake up ! Not only can't you prove alteration, you have failed to offer any evidence that it was possible. dgh01: roflmao, you're here, Miller's here, Thompson here, Mack is here, Zavada is here Fielding is here, I'd say there more than a HINT of possibility -- back to that semi-pro lab you're so proud of -- you an Bob Groden may have something in common... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 (edited) Hear it from me, Bill Groden talks about nothing, if he had anything to say, he'd be here. A smart one, there are many questions he's left unanswered. therefore, he's a ghost. Why are you covering for him? David, Robert mentioned the processes concerning transfering Kodachrome II film from 8MM to 35MM and back again. To date you have not offered anything in rebuttal, nor have you produced anyone who has disagreed with Robert. Let me quote from his book: Chapter 1 page 17-18 quote on Special-effects procedures are as infinitely varied in their application as the kinds of production problem which can arise, for each effects assignment is a NEWone (emphasis mine), and is different in its pecilarities from every other one done before. It is the variety of problems and solutions which renders the field so interesting; it is the same variety which also makes the work of the special-effects conematographer so complicated. There are few rules, if any, and mistakes are common. The tools of the art range from simple, inexpensive devices which can be held in the hand, to extrememly costly machines weighing a ton or more. The length of time spent on a effects shot can range from a few minutes to several weeks. In the end, only familiarity with the tools and techniques of the field will provide the right solution for a particular problem (emphasis mine) and only a certain amount of experience will provide consistently professional results. quote off Ray's words, not MINE, Bill. Once again you are talking about the altering of film, but not addressing the problems with doing it to the type of film Zapruder used to a point of it not being detectable. What is funny is that you are always pushing to have the Zfilm looked at on one hand and trying to say that such a film can be altered beyond detection - so why bother either way if you really feel that way? The bottom line is that you are doing nothing more than jerking around over something you are incapable of addressing. Bill Edited March 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 David wrote: "dgh01: maybe Jack has put you on the shelf, labelled your nonsense irrelevant, perhaps?" Better than that, David. I do not even waste my time by reading irrelevant drivel, much less replying to it. Except for Miller, who occasionally posts relevant and meaningful messages, I completely ignore the Gang of Four. At least Miller often posts ACTUAL RESEARCH...which the other three of the gang avoid. Sometimes Miller is right, sometimes wrong...but his postings usually rely on actual information instead of opinion. That does not mean I agree with him...just that unlike the others, he has done actual research and sometimes I even agree with his assessment of the facts. I read NOTHING by Colby, Lamson, or Burton unless by accident when it is included in someone's reply. They are NOBODIES. Why should I waste time with them? Jack 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