From a study in 2003
Does anyone consider this a possibility ?



Duncan MacRae

LOL!!!! The Bronson slide shows Sitzman's right hand on Zapruder's back and her left hand on her him, but its that third hand that keeps you in the running. (smile~)

BM....can you positively ID Sitzman and Zapruder (in the Moorman5 [above] or any other Elm Street film-photo sequence for that matter) on that pedestal? THEN we'll talk about whose hands are on what and whom....

Little foundation, son.....

LOL!!!! The Bronson slide shows Sitzman's right hand on Zapruder's back and her left hand on her him, but its that third hand that keeps you in the running.

Bill

Prove it



Duncan

Right, David ... it could have been someone dressed like Sitzman. Almost like it could have been someone dresses like Bill Newman and Emmett Hudson ... maybe they weren't really there either!!!! LOL!!!!

Click to view attachment A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real.

That may be a tough one when dealing with someone who doesn't want to be proved wrong. I have seen no assassination image that makes me believe that Sitzman had a camera in front of her face ... not even the degraded images that you have posted.

Bill


Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

denying and/or avoiding the question gets you no where... Can you ID those standing on the pedestal? Here's a hint: nor can Gary Mack make the ID

can you ID those on the pedestal here?

Click to view attachment
Bill, you've just got one over me here. The image above which you have posted posted shows exactly what you said, Sitzman's right hand on Zapruder's back...............Yeah right!! ...stick to Shandy LOL!!!


Duncan

The bigger picture so that people can see things in perspective.This animated gif might take a minute to load.
Click on the gif to view at full size

Duncan are you asking or implying "Sitzman had a camera"? Did anyone ever state/report (including herself) that she had a camera? In the last 45 years has there been a claim (with some form of evidence) that she had a camera?

And a quick one for David, are you saying that no one can "ID those on the pedestal"? After nearly 45 years no one knows for sure who those people are in the picture?

Thanks in advance - Steve

David is saying NO PHOTOGRAPHS ARE KNOWN WHICH PROVIDE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
OF ANY PEOPLE ON THE PEDESTAL. Identifications are all based on assumptions of the verity
of the official story. Right, David?

Jack

Steve:

For your interest.......

Quote:""David is saying NO PHOTOGRAPHS ARE KNOWN WHICH PROVIDE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
OF ANY PEOPLE ON THE PEDESTAL. Identifications are all based on assumptions of the verity
of the official story. Right, David?""

Jack

******************
This below is Jack White's "The Zapruder Waltz"....

As we see in Bronson, which shows Marilyn Sitzman to be wearing a dark dress, she was in reality wearing a light beige coloured one....also seen in many other photos from that day........

........It is impossible to see within any of these frames who exactly is on the pedestal....there is no clarity..........and yet, in a re-enactment Robert Groden is ,with much more......as well as other such photos that are available.......from studies taken later....

I have over time read the explanations, many times, of the photographers having the wrong settings, the wrong type of film, the excitement of the moments , the rush etc etc......and so on and so forth, which seem in the end to me, to be just more coincidences, when are there simply too many....within all of the assassination scenario...

When studied, the heights of the two people, as seen on the pedestal, also seem to vary....at times by what appears to be several inches, but also I have read the, he must have crouched down, bent etc etc...... whatever....

......Marilyn was a tall girl, Zapruder his son has stated I believe, was 5' 10"...Marilyn was approximately the same....and or somewhat taller if as some say, she had on high heels.....that day.....which would have added another 2 inches or so....

Also if one notes, in Bronson, Marilyn's, apparently it is called her right leg and foot, ? but when studied her right leg and foot appear to be, what?? no foot, with a fat widening leg ??

There were reports from a couple of witnesses that come to mind, off hand........of people seen in this area and with cameras.....two that come to mind are the Associated Press Photographer, James Altgens seen on the south side of Elm, from where he took his photographs, opposite the pedestal and also Emmett Hudson....the Dealey Plaza, groundskeeper....who was standing on the steps, to the left ......of the pedestal...

Is it possible that Marilyn Sitzman had a camera ?, well that is just as possible as Gordon Arnold having one........ imo.......as seen within the studies, what could be Arnold, a soldier holding a camera to his eye, filming from the top of the steps, in front of the fence........

........but then again he cannot bee seen clearly either nor identified.....with any real clarity.....soooooooooo...

B........

David ... maybe you are asking the wrong people ... and probably purposely I might add. The whole JFK assassination field has heard of and seen Zapruder and Sitzman, so should you not have been asking these questions to the people who were there and can tell you if the people on the pedestal was indeed Zapruder and Sitzman??? I heard Jean Hill reference Zapruder being on the pedestal during the assassination .... so lets do this another way by you telling us the names of the assassination witnesses who have told you that Zapruder or Sitzman were not the two people standing atop of the pedestal. Maybe see if Mrs. Hester is alive for she knew them both and was right there on the knoll with them.

There must be a reason why over the years you didn't go to the witnesses who were in my view the best sources to answer the types of dead-end questions that you like to put on the table. Anyway, what ever game you're trying to run obviously didn't stop you from saying the following ...

David Healy: "I go with the Z-film is altered ..."

Bill Miller

Yes Jack ... no one finger printed Zapruder or Sitzman while on the pedestal so to later ID them either. We can only assume that Jean Hill and Mary Moorman were the two women standing next to the man said to be Charles Brehm. Yes, these people were filmed up close after the shooting and wearing the same clothes as the people in the blury assassination images, but wait ... so was Zapruder and Sitzman .... so what is your point, Jack? Trask book "National Nightmare" shows a woman at the pedestal wearing the same clothes as the women seen on the pedestal had wore ... and lo' and behold ... its Sitzy up close and personal. Now it could be a CIA Sitzman look-a-like and without those pesky fingerprints to compare ... we were left with only common sense to rely on .... too bad there is only a limited supply of it to go around.

Bill

Duncan, look at the print in the Hoax book and maybe in assassination science ... Jack's slide is much nicer than the only one I had to post earlier. Then see if you think its a joke and if so, please explain why it is a joke compared to 'floating cop man' - 'drunken AOL man' - or 'the details you are trying to sell in the poor Moorman image of the pedestal area'???

Bill

Here.

There is much interesting information in the Bronson slide.

Jack

Yep...the Bronson slide shows many interesting things, like this one.

Jack

(I am looking for the one which shows Bea Hester holding a
large sign as JFK passes.)

Bronson shows two mysterious unidentified identically dressed blond ladies by the curb.

Jack

It may be a newspaper, not a sign, that Mrs. Hester holds.

Jack

Jack, with all due respect ... you are using one image that is so far away and blurred that minute detail is being lost ... not to mention the bush being seen from a totally different angle altogether which does make a difference in how the foliage will appear. I am sitting here looking at a bush across the road from me that has higher branches on it than others in the same bush, but when seen from the side they all clump together and appear to be uniform in shape. No mystery there!

By the way, thanks for posting the Bronson slide image. I find it odd, although nothing new, that Duncan can draw floating cop torsos out of badly degraded images, but cannot see the white of Sitzman's hand on the back of Zapruder's coat. Maybe if someone can destroy the image to the state at which Duncan did the Black Dog Man in the image below ... then maybe he will then spot the hand. (smile~)

Click to view attachment

Bill

Zappy films Sitz's bosom.

Jack

Zapruder is much closer, thus causing him to have a steeper angle to Moorman's location. Because of that angle ... the slope of the south pasture to the curb cannot be seen, but Bronson seeing Moorman from behind and at a lesser angle sees Moorman over the edge of the pasture as it declines to the curb. No mystery here either.

And the object that Mrs. Hester was holding appears to have been a newspaper ... possibly one with the already altered Zapruder frames - YOU THINK!!! Click to view attachment

Bill

The other option is that you have misread the image. That Zapruder's body is between Sitzman and Bronson, thus casting a shadow upon her. Below is a Nix frame and I can see the white of Sitzman's face and Zapruder's two legs ... just as I do in Bronson's slide.

Click to view attachment

Bill

Bill,

Halt, cease and desist.

Are you sure you are talking to the actual David and Jack?

How can we be sure it is really them?

How can we be sure the person known as Duncan is really Duncan, and not some cast off from the rock band KISS?

How can we be sure that it was really JFK in that limo (I'm already ahead of their next ridiculous claim!), how do we know that JFK is not working in a McDonalds in Kalamazoo Michigan with Elvis, and Richie Valenz, and DB Cooper?

Bill Old Buddy you have to draw a line in the sand of stupidity, and just refuse to cross it. Your research time is to valuable to be derailed with the ridiculous.

How can we be sure the person known as Duncan is really Duncan, and not some cast off from the rock band KISS?

Mike Williams

For a newcoming suspected troller, that's quite a statement to make.
How do we know that you are who you say you are?. Your picture looks like a rejected frame from an old Action Man TV Commercial, with the hat being way too big for the toy's head.
I suspect your comment about the identity of myself and others was intended to provoke.
You've got a lot to learn mister, or as DGH would say................Son LOL!!!

Gene Simmons

Duncan,

Man I was way off I had you pegged for Paul Stanley! I assure you if I had been intending to provoke, it would have been very clear, there would be no need to suspect it.

My intention was not to provoke, it was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous post. The question was a matter of identity, there was no intent to be mean spirited.

As for me being a troll, well why would that be? Could it be because I speak my mind, and just so happen to not agree with you? Is that the qualification of a troll? Do I need to sugar coat my replies more so as to satisfy the thin skinned among us, and avoid them bunching their cotton lining?

As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut.

You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure. Heres a hint, I am not hatman.

I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation.


Rock on Duncan,

Mike

Duncan,

Man I was way off I had you pegged for Paul Stanley!

Yes, way off, just like the size of that hat. Now if you said you borrowed it from Bill miller who i'm sure his head would produce a better fit, then maybe I would believe you

I assure you if I had been intending to provoke, it would have been very clear, there would be no need to suspect it.

It was very clear

My intention was not to provoke, it was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous post. The question was a matter of identity, there was no intent to be mean spirited.

As for me being a troll, well why would that be?

I dinn't say you were a troll, I said I suspected you are a troll. The reasons i'll keep to myself.

Could it be because I speak my mind, and just so happen to not agree with you?
Is that the qualification of a troll? Do I need to sugar coat my replies more so as to satisfy the thin skinned among us, and avoid them bunching their cotton lining?

Trolls need no qualifications. Their tactics are always obvious to those, like me who have been around a while.

As for my photo simply ask around a bit, there are many here who know me, and have seen other pictures of me. I do grant that picture was about 24 years ago, most likely about the same time you had your last haircut.

LOL!!! More agent provocateur tactics, and hey you what's your problem with my hair, it obviously gets to you, are you bald as a billiard ball and a tad jealous? LOL!!!

You should feel free to blow that picture of me up, to the point of over pixelation, and you will find my true identity I am sure.

I'd rather not thanks, I watched The Exorcist last night, and that was scary enough LOL!!!

Heres a hint, I am not hatman.

Maybe not the Moorman hatman, but you sure are the forum Hatman...big time

I would however like to add one further comment. The use of the term Son would imply that you have slept with my mother, she has far better taste than that I am sure, so in the future it may better to leave lineage out of the equation.

I have a reply that which I won't post because it would be in extremely bad taste, and I don't want to push the forum rules.

Rock on Duncan,

Mike

Peace Brother

Duncan

[color="#FF0000"][/color]

Ah now the brother relation I would gladly accept. Peace to you as well Brother! After all we are all researching to the same end, to find out what happend that day!


Mike

Click to view attachment Now that was funny because it probably isn't that far off the mark!



I notice that David Healy likes to talk that way too ... possibly he and Duncan were raised by the same pack of wolves.

Bill

Click to view attachment Now that was funny because it probably isn't that far off the mark

I guess you must be thinning on top too Bill, probably be caused the stress of failing to come up with an anwser to the undisputable issues raised by me in " The Gordon Arnold Competition "


I notice that David Healy likes to talk that way too ... possibly he and Duncan were raised by the same pack of wolves.

Bill

Better than being raise on a pack of lies.


Duncan

The issues that you raise can be solved with a spell-check program and a Psychiatrist. You have a history of not wanting to understand things that do not support your claims. Keep working on that third man at the pedestal. By the way, have you spoken to anyone in Photogammetry yet to see if your Gordon Arnold figure is too small or are you still relying on the same expertise that made you believe that the image of BDM was somehow enhanced by you in the illustration below?

The Duncan Black Dog Man enhancement
Click to view attachment

(sigh~)

Bill

The Duncan Black Dog Man enhancement
Click to view attachment

Bill

And what's wrong with the enhancement. It's the clearest view the research community has ever had of BDM.
No one has bettered it as far as I know.
Duncan

I rest my case!!! Click to view attachment

Bill

I rest my case!!! Click to view attachment

Bill

To rest a case, you first must have a case. In the case of Gordon Arnold, you promised 6 months ago to present your case. This failure to do so tells everyone who followed the concerned thread that you obviously don't have a case to present.
I have proven Arnold to be nothing more than a midget illusion, others have agreed. Here's a small, pardon the pun, reminder for anyone who missed the thread.



Duncan MacRae

You have proved nothing to anyone but yourself. No test images - not even a mention of having solicited the experience of someone skilled in Photogammetry. And if you want to get old claims addressed, then quit making up stupid ones on a daily basis.

Bill

You have proved nothing to anyone but yourself. No test images - not even a mention of having solicited the experience of someone skilled in Photogammetry. And if you want to get old claims addressed, then quit making up stupid ones on a daily basis.

Bill


You mean claims like your memorable Bowers was able to identify a man who he could not see LOL!!!

Duncan

Duncan,

What "man" are you referring to? I believe Kathy Becket took some photos that show rather well what Bowers was capable of seeing.

Bill,

Just a quick question.

How could Sitzman have made the "other" film, when according to some, she was never even on the pedestal?

Will the real Abe Zapruder please stand up, please stand up, please stand up!

Duncan,

You need to give your eyes a rest man, your seeing things!

But in the interest of science....heres a photo for you!



Circled in green is proof positive of the far reaches of the conspiracy, as we can clearly and plainly see E.T. standing behind the Zapruder Sitzman team!

What ever you do, please do NOT give Fetzer this photo, it would be a whole new book in no time.

Instead of seeing ET after your glass of wine, look at the image you posted and tell us:

1. How much shorter than Sitzman is Zapruder?
2. Show us Zapruder's camera.
3. Show us what he is aiming his camera at.
4. Show us Zapruder's hat and bow tie.

Scoffing at research and researchers is not research. It is goofy.

Jack

Jack,

Goofy Perhaps, but no less goofy than some of the ridiculous claims.

Ill need about 1/2 bottle of good scotch, wine is for the non hacking faction.

Abe appears to be about a half a head shorter than Sitzman.

His camera is in front of his face.

Cant see the bow tie.

Hes aiming it at the limo.

Jack,

You have done some great work over the years, and I certainly dont mean to torment you, I just do not buy into the whole alteration theory. It has never been satisfactorily proven to me, and in my opinion. Most of the claims are weak at best and ludicrous at worst.

However would love to buy you a drink sometime, your tenacity and dedication is impressive.


Mike

Isn't that obvious Mike to someone with your astounding intellect?
The answer is in the " Bowers could identify a man he couldn't see " ....Work it out.

Duncan

You need to give your eyes a rest man, your seeing things!

But in the interest of science....heres a photo for you!



Circled in green is proof positive of the far reaches of the conspiracy, as we can clearly and plainly see E.T. standing behind the Zapruder Sitzman team!

What ever you do, please do NOT give Fetzer this photo, it would be a whole new book in no time.

Mike


Do you have any more earth shattering discoveries to contribute Mike ?
I suggest you would be better spending your time trying to get a refund for that oversized hat.


Duncan

Duncan,

You really seem to like my hat dont ya?

See The marine Copr dosent give you a choice really, you wear the uniform per their regulations.

But the hair man, the hair you do by choice. I can not wait to see the face paint! Do not forget the big red nose, its befitting a researcher of your stature!

But the hair man, the hair you do by choice. I can not wait to see the face paint! Do not forget the big red nose, its befitting a researcher of your stature!


As Bill would say, troll on Mike, troll on. I look forward to seeing you post some actual research.

Duncan

Duncan I will be awaiting the same from you. But I must admit that Black Dog Blob was entertaining to say the least.

You know Mike, for someone who says they are NEW to studying the assassination, you have too much to say in my opinion, and are far too knowledgeable about many aspects related to the assassination, not just here, but on other forums too.
Your disruptive tactics are nothing more than a minor irritation to me, and the good people on this forum will see through you eventually.
I have nothing more to say to you, or your oversized hat ? lol!!!

Duncan

we have.... its the only tactic left to the Lone Nut cyber-contingent...

Duncan,

Well thank you for the compliment. I say I am new, which I guess is true. I have only been at this a year, give or take a couple months. Might ask Don Roberdeau, he knows me well. Anyhow Ill take the comment about my knowing to much, and having to much to say as a compliment. I am lucky in one regard, I never forget anything I read, and in the last year I have read a ton of books on the subject, as well as have done a ton of reading here.

David,

I am hardly a lone nut.


Peace to you both,

Mike