Zapruder, Four questions..

[Len Colby]

I agree that the pedestal area was most certainly retouched, but not to add the images of Zapruder and Sitzman since they were already depicted, but rather to obscure images of policemen aiming cameras, and who had been located in and around, below on the ground, and to the rear on the pergola. The 'doctoring' was to say the least careless , inasmuch as the original images of Zapruder and Sitzman after being removed, were then 'inked ' back in again, but without due care and attention being paid to the accuracy of their overall depictions.

In regard to the Wiegman frames, and in particular to the one used to show that they were not on the pedestal, I have attached the relevant crop below.

Spectacular images, Ed ... the clarity just leaves one in awe at what you can do with these assassination images.

Bill

It looks like the blob Jack insisted was the Pentagon fire station until I proved him wrong. Another "Rorschach" image.

Yes, nice image Ed.

People with a long track record on photo analysis in the case think it clear...but Len wants to:

1] declare it otherwise - a shapeless blob - from the wannabe expert on anything against the official line. It is an exceptionally clear image....but that would be beyond your ken.

2] make an backhanded attack on Jack (who isn't even involved in the post above). Further, denegration of others in the thread above. Not in the spirit of the Forum rules.

3] make an arrogant and false brag on having proved anyone wrong, here or elsewhere.

You convince no one but yourself; impress no one but yourself; make no point here but to disrupt/negate...your same old techniques. For someone self-proclaimed as believing in a conspiracy in Dallas I've never seen you put effort into a solution to it nor reward others for same. Perhaps just a faux position / facade as pretext for all the negativity. 

Here’s the blob I was referring to. This is an enlargement and crop of a “study" supposedly showing the point of impact (POI)of the Pentagon Jack posted on the linked thread. He placed the “B” to indicate what he identified as the location of the helipad building. It was a point of reference he used to identify the POI. On the next page in post 47 he wrote “Thanks to Colby for providing an updated VDoT frame which shows the error of my initial study.” The point he had initially identified as the helipad (“B”) was several hundred feet north of that structure’s actual location.

To honest the blobs don’t look that much alike, their similarity lies in their resolution being way too low to discern anything. People can see in them what they want hence my labelling it a "Rorschach image". I really doubt anybody knowledgeable about photography or even many people who know nothing about photograph would say otherwise. I even suspect Ed may have been joking.

I was obviously being jocular if anyone could take offense it would be Ed. You as someone who without provokation labeled two other forum members Nazis and started that provocative thread about me don’t really have much business taking people to task for the "denegration of others"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=78894

[Bill Miller]

Mary Moorman took a GENUINE Polaroid while standing in the street,

not on the grass. This is provable by anyone.

This response is so full of illogical thinking that I just had to point some things out for future researchers to consider.

Jack, you just said above that Moorman took a genuine Polaroid and was standing in the street when she took it. You have also said Jean Hill was in the street with Mary. Jean Hill makes it clear on Len's Black Op Radio show that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot was fired. Moorman tells Mark Oakes that the claim she was in the street when she took Polaroid number 5 is "silly" to use the word Mark attributed to her. And then there is Altgens #6 that you also claimed in Fetzer's book to be genuine and Mary and Jean's shadows are coming from the grass just south of the curb. Only after it was pointed out to you that the genuine Altgens #6 supported what Mary said to Oakes, what Jean said on Black Op Radio, and what all the assassination films and photos showed - instead of you admitting that you must have made an error ... you immediately took the position that Altgens #6 must have been altered, as well. I find your persistence somewhat interesting in light of the evidence to the contrary.

That genuine Polaroid was altered by ADDING or CHANGING two persons

on the pedestal to represent Zapruder/Sitzman.

More illogical thinking IMO. How can anyone be added to the pedestal when Mary's photo was filmed for TV viewing not 35 minutes after the shooting and the photo was still in Mary's possession. Is it your position now that someone stole her Polaroid from her during those first 35 minutes and altered it - only to then get it back into her hands without her ever knowing about it? And if not stolen from Moorman ... the other option would be her being part of the conspiracy as well.

And why replace Zapruder and Sitzman with look-a-likes?? And is it your position that because Zapruder and Sitzman said they were standing atop the pedestal when the President was assassinated that they are somehow involved in JFK's murder?? I'm am seeing one silly thing after another being said to help support the prior silly things that was said - where is the logic in all this madness???

The proof of this is a COMPARISON of the Badgeman image and the

Zapruder image, BOTH FROM THE SAME POLAROID. (see attachment)

Badgeman, standing in the SHADE, is clear, crisp and sharp.

Zapruder, standing in FULL SUNLIGHT, is fuzzy and indistinct.

Jack, these may be taken from Moorman's photo, but not from the same print. Your whole defense of the Badge Man image was that you used a 1963 print before deterioration took place. The Zapruder images are from a different print all together, so Zapruder and Sitzman are not going to be as sharp just as the Badge Man in that image in that same print is probably nothing more than mud.

Bill

[Jack White]

I agree that the pedestal area was most certainly retouched, but not to add the images of Zapruder and Sitzman since they were already depicted, but rather to obscure images of policemen aiming cameras, and who had been located in and around, below on the ground, and to the rear on the pergola. The 'doctoring' was to say the least careless , inasmuch as the original images of Zapruder and Sitzman after being removed, were then 'inked ' back in again, but without due care and attention being paid to the accuracy of their overall depictions.

In regard to the Wiegman frames, and in particular to the one used to show that they were not on the pedestal, I have attached the relevant crop below.

Spectacular images, Ed ... the clarity just leaves one in awe at what you can do with these assassination images.

Bill

It looks like the blob Jack insisted was the Pentagon fire station until I proved him wrong. Another "Rorschach" image.

Yes, nice image Ed.

People with a long track record on photo analysis in the case think it clear...but Len wants to:

1] declare it otherwise - a shapeless blob - from the wannabe expert on anything against the official line. It is an exceptionally clear image....but that would be beyond your ken.

2] make an backhanded attack on Jack (who isn't even involved in the post above). Further, denegration of others in the thread above. Not in the spirit of the Forum rules.

3] make an arrogant and false brag on having proved anyone wrong, here or elsewhere.

You convince no one but yourself; impress no one but yourself; make no point here but to disrupt/negate...your same old techniques. For someone self-proclaimed as believing in a conspiracy in Dallas I've never seen you put effort into a solution to it nor reward others for same. Perhaps just a faux position / facade as pretext for all the negativity. 

Here’s the blob I was referring to. This is an enlargement and crop of a “study" supposedly showing the point of impact (POI)of the Pentagon Jack posted on the linked thread. He placed the “B” to indicate what he identified as the location of the helipad building. It was a point of reference he used to identify the POI. On the next page in post 47 he wrote “Thanks to Colby for providing an updated VDoT frame which shows the error of my initial study.” The point he had initially identified as the helipad (“B”) was several hundred feet north of that structure’s actual location.

To honest the blobs don’t look that much alike, their similarity lies in their resolution being way too low to discern anything. People can see in them what they want hence my labelling it a "Rorschach image". I really doubt anybody knowledgeable about photography or even many people who know nothing about photograph would say otherwise. I even suspect Ed may have been joking.

I was obviously being jocular if anyone could take offense it would be Ed. You as someone who without provokation labeled two other forum members Nazis and started that provocative thread about me don’t really have much business taking people to task for the "denegration of others"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=78894

This may be correct...but strange. I recall mislabeling the heliport building in one study

which got uploaded to the Aulis website. If I remember correctly, as quickly as I noted

that I had labeled it wrong, I fixed it and resent it. It is STRANGE that someone downloaded

my mistake immediately before I had a chance to fix it. Hmmmmmmm.

Jack

[Len Colby]

This may be correct...but strange. I recall mislabeling the heliport building in one study which got uploaded to the Aulis website. If I remember correctly, as quickly as I noted

that I had labeled it wrong, I fixed it and resent it. It is STRANGE that someone downloaded

my mistake immediately before I had a chance to fix it. Hmmmmmmm.

Jack

On October 20 (2006) Jack started a thread asking why the tapes of the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VdoT) traffic cameras near the Pentagon from the time of the crash were not released. He claimed they should have shown the attack.

Later that day in response to a reply from me for documentation he posted a “study” claiming that the point of impact (POI) could be seen of the cameras’ field of view (FoV). Part of that study included a still from the VDoT camera in which he misidentified a spot in it as being the POI, which in reality was several hundred feet off camera. For several days I posted contrary evidence.

On the morning of Oct. 25 he posted another “study” in response to my evidence, that study included the photo with the “blob” misidentified as the the helipad building. On the evening of Oct. 26 I posted a reply to Jack which included the crop of that photo which I posted here. On the evening of Oct. 27 he admitted error and produced a new study showing (correctly) that the POI was indeed far outside the FoV of the VDoT still just as I’d being saying the previous 7 days.

I have no idea how long his erroneous study was online at Aulis, I never even saw it. It is however still online on a thread on this forum which I twice clearly indicated was the source of the image. If Jack’s memory is failing him he could at least have clicked on the provided link before making insinuations and false claims.

claims.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Len Colby

[Bill Miller]

If Jack’s memory is failing him he could at least have clicked on the provided link before making insinuations and false claims.

claims.

It does make one wonder why Jack didn't bother to do as you say.

Bill

[Duke Lane]

Bump for someone (Jim DiEugenio) looking for this post some time ago on "59 witnesses said the limousine stopped" (click here if that doesn't work).

Jack White's response was erudite and enlightened as well. Rare seems to be the occasion where we trade compliments!