Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Martin Shackelford

Members
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Martin Shackelford

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,406 profile views
  1. Zapruder, Four questions..

    Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit. ________ What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position. What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him. Nope, you are wrong David, the sun was a good 120 degrees around from the Weigman camera position, which makes it backlight. There are ample examples of this in the Weigman frames. Craig, any chance of posting the examples in the Weigman frames so that those of us not skilled in photo analysis can get a look, or suggest a link where they can be viewed..Thanks, Steve. Steve...I think you will find this illustration of interest. It shows the Weigman clear frame lightened and colorized. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE PEDESTAL. It also shows Sitzman in the very light colored dress she was wearing. Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting. Jack Here is another Wiegman which seems to show a large black box atop the pedestal. Jack Marilyn Sitzman might object to her back being described as "a big black box." I erred in saying they were off the pedestal--I was looking at the wrong figures. Craig got it right. You were nowhere near. Martin Shackelford John...I know all about PIXELIZATION creating the appearance of rectangles. That may be what is happening to cause the black box. I cannot explain it. Even without pixelization there seems to be a solid black rectangle on top. How about spending some time using your powers of enhancement to study the Wiegman film itself instead of trying to debunk me? Repeat my studies yourself and tell us what you find. Lamson says he sees Zapruder and Sitzman SITTING on the pedestal. Tell us if that is what you find. Thanks. Jack Try using a less muddy copy of the Wiegman film, Jack. Martin Shackelford Once again a "cute" headline is used to obscure the faulty nature of the "evidence" presented. Martin Shackelford
  2. Zapruder, Four questions..

    Zapruder wore a white shirt. Sitzman wore a light beige dress. Jack A white shirt UNDER a dark coat, Jack. Martin Shackelford
  3. Zapruder, Four questions..

    Jack, You got any evidence to back this assertion? What about the Muchmore film was that altered too? Unfortunately, in the White/Fetzer universe, everything that contradicts their claims is altered evidence. Martin Shackelford Steve...COMPLETE CONTROL WAS EXERCISED by the govt. All KNOWN films and photos WERE in their hands for extended periods. They had plenty of time to attempt making all of them show what was wanted. If you know of ANY evidence film not in the govt's hands, please let us know. Jack Jack, my point exactly, all KNOWN films and photo's, but how could the authorities be absolutely certain, as they had to be, that ALL Film/ photos were in their hands to ensure that they agreed with the faked Z film, the short answer? they couldn't, not without a veritable army of men to confiscate ALL camera's, if just one slips through, and shows scenes different to zapruder then the games up. At the very least they are taking a huge risk. Jack I know of no evidence of film not seen by the Gov, but that does not invalidate my point. BTW, what part do you believe Zapruder played in this if he didn't take the film, EG willing accomplice. In fact, photos published the same day were not first in the hands of the government. Also, the Muchmore film was included in a UPI newsreel before the government received a copy of the film. UPI also used the Nix film in a newsreel. Jack has to ignore many things to support his claims. Martin Shackelford Point well taken, and understood, Stephen. However, prior the Geraldo show screening -- who cared about the contents of the Z-film? Nobody but the Warren Commssion saw the extant camera original Zapruder film run after Feb '64, if that late and IF what THEY saw was the alledged camera original in the first place! Prints of prints of prints, ad nauseum are what researchers viewed/saw projected when they went to the archives for a "preview" of the film -- No side by side comparisons of ANYTHING (relating to OTHER DP films - not even in question at the time) All the pissing and moaning by "preservers of Dealey Plaza Photographic history", he-he, if they wanted to deliver a "knock out" punch to the pro-alteration camp, they know whats required... they won't, because they can't. Any, ANY attempt on their part to clean up alledged Z-film/eye witness testimony - discrepancy would create a torrent of questions, most notably bringing the SBT theory (which ALSO drags in the Moorman5 photo and early SS/FBI re-enactments) into question and THAT will NEVER happen -- best they can do is stay below the radar screen (which means have others do your posting for you) and send in pissants, in a attempt to discredit those that question the *DP photographic record 'status quo' along with 6th floor museum endorsements...* DH This is simple nonsense, David. You suggest that the film wasn't viewed between 1963 and 1975 except by the Warren Commission, but that is completely false. It was viewed by many at Time-LIFE and shown to friends of Time-LIFE personnel very quickly. A good print was available for viewing at the National Archives by end of 1964, and many researchers viewed it there--frames slides were also available for viewing, as was the FBI frame album. The film was shown repeatedly at the Clay Shaw Trial in 1969. After that, bootleg copies were widely circulated. Mark Lane showed the film in his lectures. Robert Groden began showing the film at conferences in 1973. Copies were cheaply available to anyone who wanted to view one. Penn Jones and others sold a great many of them. Robert Groden sold sets of frame slides from 132-486. Martin Shackelford Richard Hotelett: The car never stopped did it! Dan Rather: Thc car never stoppcd, it never paused. Those who argue film alteration are always very selective in their citation of Rather. They insist that his account is precisely the content of the "real" Zapruder film--and at the same time they argue that the film is altered because it doesn't show the limousine stopping--ignoring this quote from the same description. Martin Shackelford In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL, I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like. Jack "A few seconds" is all it took, Jack, for Zapruder to step down off the pedestal. Is it your claim that Zapruder wasn't up there filming? Martin Shackelford In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL, I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like. Jack ------------------------------------ Jack: As I remember the Pergola area, the Zapruder "pedestal" is farther to the right, and just out of that photo. _____________________ Jack has the pedestal located correctly--he is just playing games with the time factor. Martin Shackelford I am definitely in the midst of a subject I have somewhat intentionally stayed away from (Zapruder Film controversy) but didn't the History Channel show a 'unedited' version of the Zapruder film a couple of years ago? Was it the MPI Video 'Image of an Assassination?' FWIW - I think there is an incredible lack of awareness regarding CIA technology circa 1963. And it is ironic how the 'temperature goes up', when 'certain aspects of the assassination' get brought up. I still havent quite figured that out, except it appears to be related to 'rejection of very cherished perceptions.' A complete copy (no missing frames) of the Z film can be found in Robert Groden's DVD "The Assassination Films." Martin Shackelford Tink Thompson just wiped the floor with Jim Fetzer when Fetzer supported this claim on another forum. All of the photographic evidence shows Mary Moorman was standing in the grass, not the street. Martin Shackelford In Wiegman, Zapruder is just off the pedestal, a short distance to the right of it. Martin Shackelford Jack, It was always my impression that Zapruder climbed off the pedestal nearly immediately after completing his film. Wiegman, I thought, caught the pedestal later -- after A.Z. had climbed off. I also reviewed the Nix film -- seems to show A.Z. filming exactly as expected. Is your contention that Abraham Zapruder was *not* the one who shot the film? Also -- I was under the impression that the Badgeman image was the byproduct of some *extensive* photographic enhancement. Have these techniques ever been applied to the Zapruder pedestal area? Frank...your "impression" is wrong. During his very short run, Wiegman captured both the empty pedestal and the limo not yet to the underpass (see attachment). The empty pedestal frame and the underpass frame are a split second apart. Zapruder filmed the limo entering the underpass, so MUST be on the pedestal when Wiegman films while running. On Badgeman...he can be seen on the ORIGINAL, which I have copied. There was NO EXTENSIVE PHOTO ENHANCEMENT. All I did was copy the image making an OPTIMUM EXPOSURE (bracketing). The Nix film has been altered. Nobody knows who shot the Z film...but it likely was NOT Abe. Jack As must be clear to anyone, the three frames were taken at slightly different times. Add to that the fact that Wiegman shows the limo beyond the point where it passed out of Zapruder's line of sight--Jack doesn't take into account the substantially different angle from which the film was taken. By the time Wiegman panned to the pedestal, Zapruder had just stepped down from it. Martin Shackelford
×