Len Colby Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 (edited) duplicate post Edited December 2, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 (edited) Hello LenFrankly as I have so often pointed out, I know nothing about the production and processing of film. But I do understand a little about the potential difference in the results of mechanical processes and alterations of such, when attempted by different individuals in different settings. Do you really feel that Roland Zavada, or anyone who has "invented" a product, can state that minds other than his, or equipment other than his, are incapable of accomplishing results, only because he himself was unable to accomplish those same results. Inventing a process does not mean that someone, other than the inventor, cannot go beyond the inventors capability. I believe that Mr. Zavada probably believes what he says. But how can anyone authoritively claim that they know that something is impossible, merely because they themselves cannot accomplish something. Can you dismiss the idea that there was someone, or a consortium of someones, that had the ability to go beyond Mr. Zavada's limits ? Can you further believe that if these persons had such an ability, that they would broadcast it and thereby qualify as contributing to a murder conspiracy ? A conspiracy which was their duty to cover up ? <snip> Charlie I disagree with you often it can be stated that something would be impossible to achieve with existing technology. Leonardo da Vinci drew the designs for 'helicopters' similar to modern ones but it was not possible to build such contraptions in his day. If not even the best people in the business could produce effects like those alleged in Hoax undetectably they were can reasonably conclude it did not exist. Can this be stated with 100% certainty, no but can anything? Zavada's opinion is not proof that the film was not altered but it is strong evidence to that effect, Zavada based his opinion not principally on his belief that the 'know how' didn't exist but rather that based on his examination of the "original" Z-film and his undisputed expertise in the characteristics of Kodakcrome II that it was an "in camera original" and that there were no signs of alteration. Zavada was not the only expert to reach such a conclusion. Robert Groden who also examined the original reached the same conclusion. Ray Fielding who literally "wrote the book" on the "Techniques of Special Effects Cinemaphotography" said such alterations were not possible. According Gary Mack Oliver Stone reached the same conclusion and according to Pat Speer so did the director of "The Commission" (a movie about the WC). Who are the alterations experts? Let's see a VIDEOgrapher who refuses to disclose what if any experience he has with FILM post production and is unable to back his claim that such alterations were possible by citing a specific passage from a book or magazine or a specific scene from a movie, a retired ad. exec./studio photographer/self proclaimed (still) photoanalyst and paranoid particle physicist who until about a year ago was a grammar school math/science teacher and couldn't figure out that a bullet would accelerate blood splatter. After all these years they have yet to find anyone with demonstrable expertise in film post production to back their claims. find out what Zavada was charged with doing and what his qualifications were/are for special effects film composing... Still waiting for your side to produce anyone with such qualifications. As stated his main argument against alteration was that the film he examined was an "in camera original". I see you've adopted the Fetzer/White lowball tactic of saying or insinuating that some one who disagrees with you is a government agent.Funny Ray Fielding never said anything about that to me -- only thing he told me was, Fielding: "... I want nothing to do with the Zapruder film..." After you falsely claimed that Zavada told you he'd submit his reply to you soon why should we believe anything you tell us concerning what people said to you about this case?. Did you ever ask him? As I already posted on this forum he sent me the following e-mail (the only alterations I made was omitting our e-mail addresses from the header) From: (Ray Fielding) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST Suject: Zavada To: (Len Colby) Mr. Colby: I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence. I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me. Raymond Fielding If you think I made it up you can ask him. He told Zavada the same thing. Zavada told me "I spent a day and a half with Ray confirming my understanding and position that it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film and if attempted to have the results easily detectable." Then miracle of miracles Zavada drops me a note telling me, Ray is going to join him with his report rewrite...imagine that... You're not insinuating that Zavada is lying are you? That's what it sounds like to me. Any Len, when you get a chance I posted about 80 movies you can review concerning compositing sequence examples, do your self a favor, get educated, make your comments then, till then you're wasting lurkers time and mine... You've already been asked to cite specific scenes from those movies which were the product of alterations similar to those alleged in Hoax where the fakery is undetectable till you do so you're just wasting our time. Hopefully you'll be able to post links to clips of or stills from the cited scenes to back your claims. I have challenge for you 1) film or video tape a group of people in a convertible* 2) cut them and the car out of the original background 3) make their arms and legs move differently than they originally did 4) paste the car into a different background clip shot on the same street 5) cut out intermediary frames so as to speed the clip up 6) paste in things like street signs and lampposts. 7) Show us the result of your work. If can't do so undetectably in 2006 it is doubtful it was possible in 1963. * If you can't get someone to lend you one perhaps you could get Fetzer or the publisher of Hoax to pop for the rent. Heck it's only $ 64/day Evidently you too have a Mary Poppins fixation, why don't you rescue Miller and tell me where the Poppins frames came from (the exact source), till you or he does Len, your blowing smoke... as usual... and if by chance you find the source, tell me what's wrong with the frames -- surely you wannabes can find a film lab techie that can tell you, thus all the rest of us whats wrong with the Poppins mattes , eh? No I'm not fixated on that movie though I enjoyed it as a kid and more recently as a parent. Three of your coauthors (including the editor) cited it as an example of a film from that period that used such compositing. How is my correcting your inaccurate statement that they hadn't or Bill showing frames with obvious flaws a sign of fixation? . If you want the technical name for the errors I can't help you but the fact that the World's leading special effects studio couldn't make undetectable composite frames doesn't bode well for your theory. My reply doesn't depend on the authenticity of Bill's frames which I assume he got from the DVD. Len[/font] Edited December 2, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 My reply doesn't depend on the authenticity of Bill's frames which I assume he got from the DVD.[/font]Len[/font] BINGO!!! Healy knows damned well where those frames came from. The problem with guys like him is that he hasn't the class to admit when he is wrong - instead he chooses to play stupid about the whole thing. Bill Miller Miller cannot recognize that I was talking about computer scanningand halftoning...not optical photocopies. I have made hundreds of slide copies that I defy anyone to examine visually or by projection and distinguish the difference between originals and copies. In fact, my copies were quite often SUPERIOR to the originals. "Blurriness of edges" is TOTAL NONSENSE if focus is accurate. Hollywood would be out of business if copying degraded images...because ALL HOLLYWOOD FILMS ARE COPIES THAT ARE MULTIGENERATIONAL without loss of quality! Miller ought to leave such matters to people who know what they are talking about. Jack More snake oil, Jack? Let us see what you did in 1963 that supports your position. Zavada doesn't buy your nonsense, Groden has said you have been wrong in every instance pertaining to film alteration, the people Mack has worked with don't buy into what you say and to think of it - what experienced expert does support your ramblings??? About color shifting, Gary Mack used this example once - "To follow up on color shift when duplicating motion picture film, here's another example, and it's something everyone can understand and appreciate. Take a good look at the colors of your clothing with indoor lighting and then outdoors in full sunlight. The two will absolutely not appear the same, due to the characteristics of sunlight vs. artificial light. The difference is even more noticeable with fluorescent lighting. That color shift absolutely cannot be fully corrected in regular Kodachrome II movie film by any combination of filters. Copying 8mm movie film involves the use of artificial light and that is what causes the color changes. A sharp-eyed expert will notice and can measure the difference. Feel free to pass this along to those who would like to understand the significance of the physics involved with daylight Kodachrome II movie film." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 2, 2006 Author Share Posted December 2, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: My reply doesn't depend on the authenticity of Bill's frames which I assume he got from the DVD.[/font]Len[/font] BINGO!!! Healy knows damned well where those frames came from. The problem with guys like him is that he hasn't the class to admit when he is wrong - instead he chooses to play stupid about the whole thing. Bill Miller dgh:My goodness - I do? Why can't you tell us where these frames came from? Perhaps those reading this thread would like to see for themselves -- This isn't Lancer Bill, you got t'a make the case and your failing miserably... When you tell us where the frames came from and who extracted them, then you can move on and tell me/us what is the matter with the mattes.... After all your a *amateur* film/photo sleuth.... Get Len to give you a hand. Miller cannot recognize that I was talking about computer scanningand halftoning...not optical photocopies. I have made hundreds of slide copies that I defy anyone to examine visually or by projection and distinguish the difference between originals and copies. In fact, my copies were quite often SUPERIOR to the originals. "Blurriness of edges" is TOTAL NONSENSE if focus is accurate. Hollywood would be out of business if copying degraded images...because ALL HOLLYWOOD FILMS ARE COPIES THAT ARE MULTIGENERATIONAL without loss of quality! Miller ought to leave such matters to people who know what they are talking about. Jack More snake oil, Jack? Let us see what you did in 1963 that supports your position. Zavada doesn't buy your nonsense, Groden has said you have been wrong in every instance pertaining to film alteration, the people Mack has worked with don't buy into what you say and to think of it - what experienced expert does support your ramblings??? dgh: there's that magic name, AGAIN....roflmao -- and now he's an experienced expert? Does OJSimpson and Bruno Maglia shoes sound familiar? About color shifting, Gary Mack used this example once - "To follow up on color shift when duplicating motion picture film, here's another example, and it's something everyone can understand and appreciate. dgh: color shift? roflmao, then you'll have no problem tell us what kind of filter/light pack was used at Jamieson when the 1st generation prints were made -- tell us all about it! Zavada, Fielding, Jamieson, KODAK -- **GRODEN** isn't he the guy that worked for Moses Weitzmen, a self claimed optical film printing technician... Take a good look at the colors of your clothing with indoor lighting and then outdoors in full sunlight. The two will absolutely not appear the same, due to the characteristics of sunlight vs. artificial light. The difference is even more noticeable with fluorescent lighting. That color shift absolutely cannot be fully corrected in regular Kodachrome II movie film by any combination of filters. Copying 8mm movie film involves the use of artificial light and that is what causes the color changes. A sharp-eyed expert will notice and can measure the difference. dgh: mesure WHAT difference, Bill, if you [an amateur], nor anyone else [including professionals] can get access to the Zapruder in-camera original [for testing], HOW can one compare the colors? IMPOSSIBLE, not even an argument! The problem we have here is; YOU expect us to believe YOU, we DON'T. Forensic testing is in order -OR-, Monaco Labs, San Francisco, original digital frame files of the in-camera Zapruder film should be made available to researchers -- including those digital original frames they created of what is left of the original 3 Jamieson prints (#0185,86,87) Feel free to pass this along to those who would like to understand the significance of the physics involved with daylight Kodachrome II movie film." dgh: yeah right, rotflmfao give us a break, do you even know what a 'light pak', is? to wit: "...offers nothing but doubt, suspicion, inneundo, speculation and suggestive fantasy of sinister agent lurking in the shadows, fabricating...", "twisted logic and assassinated science, which have a negative effect of representing the traumatic, historic event of November 22nd, 1963, as farce." *pg. 282 TRASK, National Nightmare on 6 feet of film; quoting Joe Durnavitch (whoever-the-hell he is)-former/Josiah Thompson-latter -- to which I'll remind ALL three (author TRASK included): The 1963 assassination of the President of the United States IS the FARCE, the record of that FARCE was created utilizing "TWISTED LOGIC", for whatever reason. There in lies the Lone Nutter problem, trying to defend the undefendable, the SBT theory & WCR.... Edited December 2, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) dgh:My goodness - I do? Why can't you tell us where these frames came from? Perhaps those reading this thread would like to see for themselves -- This isn't Lancer Bill, you got t'a make the case and your failing miserably... When you tell us where the frames came from and who extracted them, then you can move on and tell me/us what is the matter with the mattes.... David, I am sure Len would ageree that you are once again spanking your monkey. I suggest that you get someone to read my last response to Len - to you - so they can explain to you what was said. Better yet, instead of trying to be the forum jerk-off once again, go rent the movie and do your own captures to see if they match mine for it almost appears that you are suggesting that the noticeable errors were planted onto that clip by me. I'll say this once again .... sometimes it appears that some people on these forums only pretend to be CT's and that by pretending to be terribly stupid (as you have been doing) can they discredit all CT's. If you do not like this analogy - just read back over your responses so to know that you earned that remark. dgh: there's that magic name, AGAIN....roflmao -- and now he's an experienced expert? Does OJSimpson and Bruno Maglia shoes sound familiar? I will say this once again to you because your memory seems to be as bad as your knowledge of the JFK assassination. Groden testified that the single photo presented to him had been retouched to make it appear Simpson wore the said shoes. Robert's point was that even though the other pictures shot by another phoographer had surfaced - it did not mean that the single photo in question taken by a different photographer had not been tampered with for what ever motive one may have for doing it. I would think that a person with your level of paranoia and suspicion could appreciate Robert's position. About color shifting, Gary Mack used this example once - "To follow up on color shift when duplicating motion picture film, here's another example, and it's something everyone can understand and appreciate. dgh: color shift? roflmao, then you'll have no problem tell us what kind of filter/light pack was used at Jamieson when the 1st generation prints were made -- tell us all about it! Zavada, Fielding, Jamieson, KODAK -- **GRODEN** isn't he the guy that worked for Moses Weitzmen, a self claimed optical film printing technician... Read "National Nightmare" so to get the facts straight. Better yet, have someone read it to you so you can have them explain what the tougher sentences area saying. dgh: mesure WHAT difference, Bill, if you [an amateur], nor anyone else [including professionals] can get access to the Zapruder in-camera original [for testing], HOW can one compare the colors? Groden stated how he reached his conclusion ... just because you don't like what he said doesn't mean he was in error. BTW, Trask new book shows the films side by side - aren't you reading these post thoroughly? dgh: yeah right, rotflmfao give us a break, do you even know what a 'light pak', is? Yes, David ... but even if I didn't know what a light pack was - you can bet your last dollar that the experts that I have spoken about know exactly what it is. The problem here is that you know little to nothing about the properties of Kodachrome II film and in case you have never been told this before - IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART IS NOT A DEFENSE. Bill Miller Edited December 3, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) I am accusing no one of lying or doing anything illegal. However, how do I know what Groden's, Zavada's, or any "experts" MOTIVES are when they gave their opinions? Am I to believe because they are called experts, that I am to be naive enough to believe that opinions by experts in any field cannot be BOUGHT ? Are these men special "Film Angels" sent to earth by the Almighty to clarify the issue. In almost every aspect of this case, I have seen testimony by some of who have been considered "The Most Honorable Men" in our country....testimony that is an absolute lie. I have seen a former U.S. President admittedly alter JFK assassination evidence. Is Robert Groden acclaimed to be, along with his other "credentials", a paragon of honesty and fair play? How am "I MYSELF" to believe that Mr. Zavada actually gives a damned about the "truth" of 8mm alteration. How does Robert Groden, Gary Mack, or Roland Zavada acquire the knowlege of how many light years in advance of the film industry, that intelligence agency expertise might be? The reason that this debate continues is because it is apparent to those arguing "IMPOSSIBILITY", that not one of those who know that it is "possible" will ever "dare" to show their complicity. If one did dare to do so, they would have to be declared insane or have their loved ones found dead......most likely both. Our enemies are the "Killers of Kings". Does anyone truly believe that the foulest deeds imagineable, are beneath their dignity? Every reasonable being should realize that with this much power, that there is NOTHING that cannot be bought.....and not necessarily with money. I am sure that some of you believe that there was government complicity in historical acts such as 9/11.....the Gulf of Tonkin incident....Pearl Harbor....the sinking of the "Maine....the assassination of the heads of foreign governments. It has been proven that the U.S. govt. is willing to sacrifice thousands of its own citizens and soldiers in order to fulfill its responsibility of manufacturing "world democracy". It is our Manifest Destiny ! What is good for those who rule must certainly be in the best interest of its servants. It should be obvious to most of you that I am paranoid and certifiably insane. If any of you see things as I do, your future is probably not very secure. Simply said.....I believe from the depths of my soul that there is no issue, no tests or testimony submitted or admitted by my government, that I should take as being the whole truth. I feel that there has been so much "evidence and testimony" sworn to by my government, that I know to have been lies......I cannot accept anything government related, not to be tainted or tilted in the direction in which they have chosen to proceed. There are so many lies and "false evidence" that has been advanced by my government, that I no longer can accept anything as absolute. Certainly not the impossibility of undetectably altering an 8mm KodacolorII film strip. Charlie Black Edited December 3, 2006 by Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) I am accusing no one of lying or doing anything illegal. However, how do I know what Groden's, Zavada's, or any "experts" MOTIVES are when they gave their opinions? Am I to believe because they are called experts, that I am to be naive enough to believe that opinions by experts in any field cannot be BOUGHT ? Are these men special "Film Angels" sent to earth by the Almighty to clarify the issue. In almost every aspect of this case, I have seen testimony by some of who have been considered "The Most Honorable Men" in our country....testimony that is an absolute lie. I have seen a former U.S. President admittedly alter JFK assassination evidence. Is Robert Groden acclaimed to be, along with his other "credentials", a paragon of honesty and fair play? How am "I MYSELF" to believe that Mr. Zavada actually gives a damned about the "truth" of 8mm alteration. How does Robert Groden, Gary Mack, or Roland Zavada acquire the knowlege of how many light years in advance of the film industry, that intelligence agency expertise might be? The reason that this debate continues is because it is apparent to those arguing "IMPOSSIBILITY", that not one of those who know that it is "possible" will ever "dare" to show their complicity. If one did dare to do so, they would have to be declared insane or have their loved ones found dead......most likely both. Charles, how well have you thought things thrtough? Let me address each paragraph accordingly as to your remarks so you can see it from the outside looking in. Paragraph 1) I supposed that the same can be said about CT's who possibly have been bought to post responses on forums that are designed to make CT's as a whole look like baffoons. Claiming that anyone can be bought out so to lie is a statement designed to offer a back door to slip out of when sound logical reasoning have just barged through the front door! Paragraph 2) Zavada, as far as I know, has no interest in promoting one side or the other. His accuracy reflects his reputation, thus why risk it on something when it's not necessary? Robert Groden has been and still is one of the most vocal CT's known in this field, so why would Groden claim conspiracy in every aspect of the assassination only then to cover-up the Zfilm being altered - IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE! Paragraph 3) These individuals acquired their knowledge through education and/or experience. Bill Miller Edited December 3, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) This isn't Lancer Bill, you got t'a make the case and your failing miserably... When you tell us where the frames came from and who extracted them, then you can move on and tell me/us what is the matter with the mattes.... After all your a *amateur* film/photo sleuth.... Get Len to give you a hand. This isn't the DellaRosa forum Dave, you got t'a make the case and you're failing miserably... you have yet to 1) tell us which scenes from which movies contemporaneous to or predating the assassination exhibit undetectable alterations similar those alleged in Hoax or 2) quote a cinemaphotography book or magazine that indicate such alterations were possible at the time. Note: "your" = the 2nd person possesive adjective, "you're" = the contraction of "you are" you [an amateur], nor anyone else [including professionals] can get access to the Zapruder in-camera original [for testing], . HOW can one compare the colors? Zavada already had access and tested the color balance, do you think he was a) dishonest or incompetent? Has anybody qualified to do such testing asked to be able to test the film and been denied? Can you name any forensic photo/film or FILM post production experts who doubt the authenticity of the Z-film? C'mon Dave just one. The 1963 assassination of the President of the United States IS the FARCE, the record of that FARCE was created utilizing "TWISTED LOGIC", for whatever reason. There in lies the Lone Nutter problem, trying to defend the undefendable, the SBT theory & WCR.... I guess having little else you revert to strawmen and lies being an 'anti-alterationist' does not make one a LN or a defender of the SBT or WCR and you know it, I take this as a sign of your desperation.I am accusing no one of lying or doing anything illegal. However, how do I know what Groden's, Zavada's, or any "experts" MOTIVES are when they gave their opinions? Am I to believe because they are called experts, that I am to be naive enough to believe that opinions by experts in any field cannot be BOUGHT ? With that kind of thinking there is no way of being sure of anything relating to this or any other case. It's possible but not very probable, the alterationist's inability to name a movie (not made long after the fact) with similar undetectable alterations or find a single expert to back their position is strong evidence that they (Fielding, Zavada etc) are correct."How does Robert Groden, Gary Mack, or Roland Zavada acquire the knowlege of how many light years in advance of the film industry, that intelligence agency expertise might be? The reason that this debate continues is because it is apparent to those arguing "IMPOSSIBILITY"," I would suspect that it was the other way round, i.e. that Hollywood was in front the government, the former had been investing millions of dollars and thousands of man hours into making film fakery as realistic as possible for decades, before the assassination the latter would have had little incentive to develop such technology at all let alone secretly. It's hard to believe they could have done this so secretly that even decades later there is no evidence they even attempted to do so. "that not one of those who know that it is "possible" will ever "dare" to show their complicity. If one did dare to do so, they would have to be declared insane or have their loved ones found dead......most likely both." I don't know lots of people have said things that contradict the WCR the vast majority are still alive or their deaths we clearly not murders related to the assassination. There have been some allegations that people were murdered to shut them but AFAIK nothing has been proven "I no longer can accept anything as absolute. Certainly not the impossibility of undetectably altering an 8mm KodacolorII film strip." I don't think anybody would say that it is 100.0% certain that the film wasn't altered or that it was impossible nor for that matter can the possibility that the assassination was carried out by ET's be totally excluded but the probability of either is extremely low. You have said a few times your understanding of the technical issues is nil, perhaps your belief that alteration is a reasonable possibility is due to this lack of expertise like creationists with no science background declaring that the theory of evolution is obviously wrong. Len Edited December 3, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 3, 2006 Author Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) 'Len Colby' dronned on: [...] I don't think anybody would say that it is 100.0% certain that the film wasn't altered or that it was impossible nor for that matter can the possibility that the assassination was carried out by ET's be totally excluded but the probability of either is extremely low. You have said a few times your understanding of the technical issues is nil, perhaps your belief that alteration is a reasonable possibility is due to this lack of expertise like creationists with no science background declaring that the theory of evolution is obviously wrong. dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter. Edited December 3, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 3, 2006 Author Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' whinned: Charles, how well have you thought things thrtough? Let me address each paragraph accordingly as to your remarks so you can see it from the outside looking in. Paragraph 1) I supposed that the same can be said about CT's who possibly have been bought to post responses on forums that are designed to make CT's as a whole look like baffoons. dgh: ah--- might you define the two classes of CT's first: Lone Nutters claiming to be CT'ers, you know the preservers of the WC status quo, then those that have been quietly dealing with the REAL coverup. Claiming that anyone can be bought out so to lie is a statement designed to offer a back door to slip out of when sound logical reasoning have just barged through the front door! dgh:now THAT is a real Millerism... Paragraph 2) Zavada, as far as I know, has no interest in promoting one side or the other. His accuracy reflects his reputation, thus why risk it on something when it's not necessary? Robert Groden has been and still is one of the most vocal CT's known in this field, so why would Groden claim conspiracy in every aspect of the assassination only then to cover-up the Zfilm being altered - IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE! dgh:and you verified his Zavada's accuracy HOW. I don't recall *peer* review, perhaps you know something the rest of us don't. As for Groden? Accuracy in WHAT selling assassination photos to supermarket rags -- fill us in, please! Paragraph 3) These individuals acquired their knowledge through education and/or experience. dgh: Roland Zavada's education-experience in film compositing? NIL comes to mind, by his own admission. Nor was Roland Zavada charged with determining the validity of Zapruder film content. That is why Zavada asked Author/Producer Ray Fielding (who has vast knowledge of the art form) to join him rewriting his report, which appears not to be forth coming due to Zavadas 'current state of health' As for Groden; are you going to layout his VAST film compositing experience for us (can he?) so we can determine if he's qualified to talk to, and address film compositing issues... Hell, why don't you tell us YOURS I'm sure a few around here would like to know. Bring Len into the fold too, that way we can determine how much 'weight' to give you and the rest of the uninformed Nutter responses note: perhaps Robert can get a letter from Moses Weitzman praising his expertise Edited December 3, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) I have read both sides of this debate, on this forum, as well as the Lancer forum, and I am thoroughly convinced that the alterationist side is correct. There are just too many things wrong with the film for it to be on the up and up. If the technology existed to put men in space, and eventually on the moon, (as official history has it anyway) then it requires no stretch of the imagination to believe that a little 8 mm film could have been altered to cover up proof of a conspiracy to murder a President. I agree with Healy, White, O'Hagen. et al. The film we have all seen over and over, is not the original, in camera Zapruder film. That film contained absolute, irrefutable visual information proving the existence of multiple shooters, and it showed the driver stopping the limo as the shots were fired. That is why they had to alter it, frame by frame, and remove that visual information. They did a great job, but not good enough. ps Mr Healy I seem to have read in one of your earlier posts that Harrison Livingstone and another researcher are about to release a new book on this topic. If this is true, do you have any other information, like when it is scheduled for release, etc? Edited December 3, 2006 by Brian Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) Ah yes another useless Z film thread. Healy posts a strawman and has yet to deal with it in an over a 100 post thread. White posts more disinformation this time concerning the qualities of Kodachrome and Extachrome film. Then really spins one as he tells us he has made dupes without generational loss and Hollywood does the same. Black chimes in with more nonsense about the secret film editing prowess of the government and how he believes it must have been possible in 63 to fake the Z film (never mind that Hollywood still cant do what he suggests today) and in the process shows us all the depth of his paranoia Miller posts some nonsense about how its the lightsource making dupilcation impossible and Mack joins in with some silly statement about how clothes look in different light...stupid. Of course all along Healy continues to act the jerk and fails over and over again to deal with the Mary Poppins defects, and his original strawman argument that started this thread. Len joins in and is, as we can always expect, attacked by Healy who once again fails to deal with the objections to his arguments. What a crock. As for Groden; are you going to layout his VAST film compositing experience for us (can he?) so we can determine if he's qualified to talk to, and address film compositing issues... Hell, why don't you tell us YOURS I'm sure a few around here would like to know. Bring Len into the fold too, that way we can determine how much 'weight' to give you and the rest of the uninformed Nutter responses Why should we give any "weight" to you David, you have NO film compositing experience and yet you spew ignorantly on the subject every time it gets mentioned. Hell your posted examples of computer aided digital composites are "third grade" level. We should listen to you why? Because you have read a book? Edited December 4, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 (edited) dgh: roflmao, now WHY is Len whose taken a few photos during his lifetime talking about this technical subject for. Even by his (Len's) own admission, he knows nada about the subject matter. Dave please point out where I said I know little about photography. I have been taking photos since I was 12, took photo courses including advanced ones and worked in photo labs etc no I'm not a pro but I know what I talking about. I think I said know little about film post-production perhaps that's what you were referring to but you have yet to tell us what experience you have in that field, we all know you can talk the talk but do you actually have any experience? Your “video editing is just like film editing” argument won't wash.Due to my lack of expertise in film editing I have not based my arguments on finer technical points but rather your inability to cite any films that or experts who back your position and the opinions of Zavada and Fielding etc. I suppose your sarcasm is an attempt to cover up the fact that you have been asked straight forward questions but so far have refused to answer them. I'll waste my time asking them once again. 1) What scenes from movies contemporaneous to or predating the assassination are the result of UNDETECTABLE alterations of the type alleged in Hoax? 2) Does anybody with FILM (not video) post production or forensic photo analysis experience back your position? Why not? There are just too many things wrong with the film for it to be on the up and up. If the technology existed to put men in space, and eventually on the moon, (as official history has it anyway) then it requires no stretch of the imagination to believe that a little 8 mm film could have been altered to cover up proof of a conspiracy to murder a President. Brian simply stating that you think something is true without giving any real reasons isn't very convincing. What exactly do you think is wrong with the film? Why do you think it is that the alterationists can't get anyone with relevant expertise to back their position? Your “we went to the moon” argument doesn't hold much water cinemaphotography and aerospace engineering are totally unrelated fields one could find it hard to believe that a civilization could be capable of brain surgery, advanced irrigation systems and building pyramids yet never develop the wheel but that was the case of the Aztecs. Craig - I don't know why you think Bill's point about color temperature is stupid it was basically a rewording of a point made by Zavada. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf (pgs 1 - 2) Len Edited December 4, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Len, Bills statement is not simply a paraphrasing of the Zavada statement. Its not even close. Bill tells us that the problem with duplicating Kodachrome film is that the film is Daylight balanced and that you must use "artifical" light (tungsten balance) to dupe the film. And using this 'artifical" light causes colorshifts. This is a silly argument. First Zavada tells us that the film was designed for visual color responce when viewed with 3200K light. Thats Bills "artifical light" or tungsten. There is no "problem" being caused by the Kodachome original being projected (or contact printed) via 3200k light. Kodachome was available in both daylight and tungsten emulsions. It was also available in a low contrast dupe stock (tungsten balance) There was no real problem with any of these films as far as the color temp of the light source used during duplication. If you wanted to use the daylight film with tungsten light you simply filtered the lightsource. What Zavada is telling us is that its the dye sets and the spectural responce of the iintermediate films that cause the problems when taking the original Kodachome POSITIVE film into a motion picture workflow. There were NO film sets designed to create sucessful intermediates when starting with Kodachrome film. Kodachrome has a very unique dye set and the process used to transfer the dyes is also unique. Its this unique dye set that causes problems duplicating Kodachome film. The color temp of the lightsource has nothing to do with the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share Posted December 4, 2006 (edited) 'Craig Lamson' drones... Ah yes another useless Z film thread. Healy posts a strawman and has yet to deal with it in an over a 100 post thread. dgh: pssst; tell me what the matter with all those frames in my Z-film presentation, make a case worthy of my comment and you'll get a response -- till then, your nothing more than *white noise*. Perhaps Ray Fielding will give you a hand, he knows, film compositing and optical film printing... White posts more disinformation this time concerning the qualities of Kodachrome and Extachrome film. Then really spins one as he tells us he has made dupes without generational loss and Hollywood does the same. Black chimes in with more nonsense about the secret film editing prowess of the government and how he believes it must have been possible in 63 to fake the Z film (never mind that Hollywood still cant do what he suggests today) and in the process shows us all the depth of his paranoia Miller posts some nonsense about how its the lightsource making dupilcation impossible and Mack joins in with some silly statement about how clothes look in different light...stupid. dgh: of course it's stupid, none of them have a clue as we've been saying for months and years and they're laying the above at the feet of Zavada, so have at it -- Of course all along Healy continues to act the jerk and fails over and over again to deal with the Mary Poppins defects, and his original strawman argument that started this thread. Len joins in and is, as we can always expect, attacked by Healy who once again fails to deal with the objections to his arguments. What a crock. dgh:well big guy, perhaps you can tell me where those Poppins frames came from, why the amateurs are so scared to post their origin, perhaps you can tell me and the lurkers what's the matter with the Poppins frames, if ANYTHING... you can't save these morons everytime they blow it, Craig. They can opine all day long, they've no credibility -- As for Groden; are you going to layout his VAST film compositing experience for us (can he?) so we can determine if he's qualified to talk to, and address film compositing issues... Hell, why don't you tell us YOURS I'm sure a few around here would like to know. Bring Len into the fold too, that way we can determine how much 'weight' to give you and the rest of the uninformed Nutter responses Why should we give any "weight" to you David, you have NO film compositing experience and yet you spew ignorantly on the subject every time it gets mentioned. Hell your posted examples of computer aided digital composites are "third grade" level. dgh: simple, my profession -- just for the record, I've probably handled more film (16mm/S16mm/35mm/65mm/70mm) in the past 2 years than you have in your entire life. Of course you handle no film these day's, nor do I suspect have you stood in a lab in the past 10 years, much let alone *pull* a matte... also, I don't believe I've posted anything here... Have you posted composite imagery here, perhaps some of your film effects work? We should listen to you why? Because you have read a book? dgh: I've read plenty of them, wrote a chapter concerning the subject matter we're discussing, oops i should of said the Zapruder film, and your film compositing/expertise/track record? Oh that's right, you can light a trailer even a row of chairs.... you're beating an old story Craig, why not *think* repurposing your photo database, stock footage, big market in that these day's I hear Edited December 4, 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