David G. Healy Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) Hear it from me, BillGroden 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 Oh Bill... why all the snipping? Nothing funny here, guy. Robert mentioned? roflmfao! My rebuttal: Moe DID IT his testimony is part of the official record. Did Robert mention his experience doing it? Nothing to discuss, especially if your're talking about what somebody mentioned.... rofl! Stick around, better yet; get Groden in here he can speak for himself... Jerking you around? Incapable? -- For someone that has no experience in this field, your getting rather bold there, champ -- hope your not being setup... Bottom line for what Bill? I doubt you'd know a good blowup if it hit you between the eyes... Envy is not a friend, Bill..... Edited March 27, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 "Oh Bill... why all the snipping? Nothing funny here, guy. Robert mentioned? roflmfao! My rebuttal: Moe DID IT his testimony is part of the official record. Did Robert mention his experience doing it? Nothing to discuss, especially if your're talking about what somebody mentioned.... rofl! Stick around, better yet; get Groden in here he can speak for himself... Jerking you around? Incapable? -- For someone that has no experience in this field, your getting rather bold there, champ -- hope your not being setup... Bottom line for what Bill? I doubt you'd know a good blowup if it hit you between the eyes... Envy is not a friend, Bill....." David, allow me to share something I do know about ... people who dance around and never present any data like you do, do so because they have nothing to offer of any substance. They take up a position, but cannot explain why they have taken it. So supposed you tell us where Moe said that you could alter 8MM Kodachrome film II film and have it go undetected under close scrutiny ... ? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 "Oh Bill... why all the snipping?Nothing funny here, guy. Robert mentioned? roflmfao! My rebuttal: Moe DID IT his testimony is part of the official record. Did Robert mention his experience doing it? Nothing to discuss, especially if your're talking about what somebody mentioned.... rofl! Stick around, better yet; get Groden in here he can speak for himself... Jerking you around? Incapable? -- For someone that has no experience in this field, your getting rather bold there, champ -- hope your not being setup... Bottom line for what Bill? I doubt you'd know a good blowup if it hit you between the eyes... Envy is not a friend, Bill....." David, allow me to share something I do know about ... people who dance around and never present any data like you do, do so because they have nothing to offer of any substance. They take up a position, but cannot explain why they have taken it. So supposed you tell us where Moe said that you could alter 8MM Kodachrome film II film and have it go undetected under close scrutiny ... ? Bill Bill, I do believe your getting a little dense. The ONLYreason I'm still here is Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding, you're not even on the radar screen, Bill ... so wait, dance around or something -- just like I'm doing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) Bill, I do believe your getting a little dense. The ONLYreason I'm still here is Roland Zavada and Ray Fielding, you're not even on the radar screen, Bill ... so wait, dance around or something -- just like I'm doing... Still have nothing of value to say, David? Explain how 8MM Kodachrome II film can be transfered to 35MM film - altered - and then put back onto 8MM film without being detectable under close scrutiny ... because without addressing this - you have no justification for even discussing the possibility of optical printing involvement in the altering of the Zapruder film. You doing nothing more than trying to propose a possibility that would be built on an impossibility. It would be like implying that Oswald shot Lincoln while knowing that Oswald had not even been born yet. So unless you are ready to address the Kodachrome II matter that Groden mentioned, then your optical printing scenario could not have existed. So rather than you waste any more time and space on this subject - address what Groden said about the processes needed to be done to have attempted such an alteration and why you believe that such alteration by way of those processes would have been undetectable? Bill Miller JFK assassination reseracher/investigator Edited March 27, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) 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? No you having expertise in FILM post production is essential to you being able to say with any kind of authority that alteration was possible. Your continued discuss your experience reinforces the impression you don't have any to speak of. Edited March 27, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 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 Like I already said MY experience IS irrelevant, ironic that you continue to ask me about mine, and question Bill about his, yet continue to refuse to answer questions about yours. David what do you mean by "printers"? Back when I worked at the B &W photo lab we didn't use 'printers', did you mean enlargers or processors? Sorry but after 17 years I don't remember the makes or models of the equipment, I think the enlarger might have been a Beseler but I'm not sure. The name of the joint was Ferranti-Dege. How is any of this relevant? It isn't of course, just more smoke which you try to use to cloud the weakness of your case and your own lack of any relevant experience. (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 LOL - You have Oliver Stone's phone number, yeah right another bullxxxx claim. You don't have Feilding he disagrees with you, he said so in the e-mail I posted here previously. If you doubt it ask him. If you think his book proves you case provide some quotes. As for Stone ( http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack2.html ). Ironic that you don't think his opinion is worth anything because he is obviously more qualified than you to answer such questions. .... 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.. .I sure then that Fielding is aware of them, if they prove your case why does he disagree with you? Why don't you specify which articles/issues support your argument or better yet quote some passages from them. You continued refusal to do so indicates that you're just blowing smoke again. 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 As stated above he made his views quite clear in his e-mail to me I posted on another thread. 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! I seached my e-mails and found NO reference to that phrase, is this leading anywhere or is it more of your pointless BS 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 I quit the lab 17 years ago. What contributions did you make to JFK research when you were in Nam? 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? I'm not the only one ignores Jack makes up all manner of excuses not to reply when people debunk his lunatic theories. Tell us, do you believe his theories about Apollo and 'chemtrails' or that Bush watched flight 11 crash into 1 WTC on a secret satellite feed in his limo, or that the Bushes personally sabotaged John-John's plane etc etc. If our points were so weak he should have no problem refuting them. 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 ! Can you provide any quotes to that effect? 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... How does the fact that we all disagree with you support the notion that it was possible? I never indicated I was "proud" of my work at the lab, you asked me question and I answered it. You seemed quite obsessed with my work at the lab, I mentioned it once in response to your question and you brought it up repeatedly in a single message. 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? I used the single quote marks to indicate those weren't your words. That was the obvious implication of your announcement. When have I ever "put words in your mouth"? No nervousness on my part, the continued dodging of the issues by you and White further convinces me your arguments are bunk. 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. A few more weeks? You promised to make it "soon" 10 weeks ago. How many months is "soon" in your lexicon? You guy's gott'a give someone thats been in the production biz many years, a bit of creative license. Many years of video production, are you EVER going to tell us about your FILM post production experience. A straight answer would be nice rather than your usual snide remarks. But I guess that won't be forthcoming, it you had any experience to speak of you would have told us by now Still have nothing of value to say, David? Explain how 8MM Kodachrome II film can be transfered to 35MM film - altered - and then put back onto 8MM film without being detectable under close scrutiny ... So unless you are ready to address the Kodachrome II matter that Groden mentioned, then your optical printing scenario could not have existed. So rather than you waste any more time and space on this subject - address what Groden said about the processes needed to be done to have attempted such an alteration and why you believe that such alteration by way of those processes would have been undetectable? David rarely if ever has anything of value to say. Zavada made the same point as Groden and since he invented Kodacrome II we should assume he knows what he is talking about. None of the alterationist have addressed this yet, I think they are afraid to, it really destroys their case and they donn't have a good counter argumnt 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