Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest Stephen Turner

Zapruder, Four questions..

Recommended Posts

Wiegman was in Camera Car 1. Towner's photo on p. 218 of POTP shows Camera Cars 1 and 2 as they are passing the knoll, and it also shows that Zapruder and Sitzman have already left the pedestal. As Trask notes, it may be Zapruder whose shape is discerned already inside the shelter.

IOW at the time of the Wiegman frame showing the empty pedestal, it was indeed empty because Zapruder and Sitzman already had promptly gotten down from it. So yes, there is no one on the pedestal, but not because of any photo fakery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Nix film has been altered.

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

One other thought comes to mind, How do you control all the other Film/photographs taken in D/P that day. It would be physically impossible to confiscate all of them, so how could you possibly know that a day, week, month or year one, or more of them is not going to surface, and blow the faked Z Film out of the water. If you cant exercise total control of the wider environment, you cant be sure of the outcome.

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

One other thought comes to mind, How do you control all the other Film/photographs taken in D/P that day. It would be physically impossible to confiscate all of them, so how could you possibly know that a day, week, month or year one, or more of them is not going to surface, and blow the faked Z Film out of the water. If you cant exercise total control of the wider environment, you cant be sure of the outcome.

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

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

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

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

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

This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

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

Colby wrote:

One thing that's odd is that Jack White claims that (at least one of) Mary Moorman's Polaroids were altered and then uses one of the Poloroids as evidence that the Z-film was altered!

Anyone who says this clearly does not comprehend the subject!

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

not on the grass. This is provable by anyone.

That genuine Polaroid was altered by ADDING or CHANGING two persons

on the pedestal to represent Zapruder/Sitzman.

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.

Focus is not involved, since both are at infinity from Mary's position.

It is logical to assume that the sharp Badgeman image, which is compatible with

the rest of the photo is GENUINE, and the fuzzy Zapruder image is added by

retouching.

Jack

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

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

In Wiegman, Zapruder is just off the pedestal, a short distance to the right of it.

Martin Shackelford

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

Some time ago, John Costella posted a series of six Dave Wiegman frames. For me, the importance of these frames is that there are the clearest copies I have of these important frames. As a colleague of John Costella, I am sure you also have a copy of that post.

See Slide 1 below:-

On the right hand side I have posted the six frames posted by John Costella. I have labelled them W1 to W6. At the top of that slide I have also labelled your copies of three of the Wiegman slides in two ways. In one way I have equated them to the Costella 6 frames and also have endeavoured to list their original frame number.

In post 13 you appear to suggest that this composite, shown at the top of slide 1 is from the same moment in time. It is not exactly the same moment, but it is close enough. However I believe that what you are trying to do is create a complete image of the plaza at this point. You point is also sound, if the Press car is indeed W 93 then in W 89 (the pedestal frame) Zapruder should indeed be seen for he has to be there.

Members have pointed out that it is an effect of both the film and the lighting that make it impossible to see Zapruder in this frame. And, because we do not see him, does not mean he is not there.

See Slide 2 below:-

Slide 2 has a copy of W 109 ( or W 4 of the Costella frames.) I have done no more than lighten the pedestal area and as you can see we can indeed see the two figures of Zapruder and Sitzman. This is 20 W frames after the one that you suggest he is absent. If Zapruder is to be seen in W 109, then he must also be in W 89, even though the light and poor film suggest he is not.

I note for your demonstrations you are using screen dumps of the Groden film. I do not know where or how John Costella got his clear copies, but I could never get the detail Costella has from Preview ( that you are using to demonstrate.) To get the image of Zapruder in W4, I used John Costella copies of the frames. I don’t know why you did not use Costella’s frames, for I am sure you have far better copies of them than I have.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

[...]

Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

Zapruder wore a white shirt. Sitzman wore a light beige dress.

Jack

A white shirt UNDER a dark coat, Jack.

Martin Shackelford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

[...]

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

[...]

Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

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

FOR SOME REASON THE BOARD COMBINED THESE TWO MESSAGES SENT

SEPARATELY, AND PUT THE IMAGE WITH THE WRONG MESSAGE.

I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THIS HAPPENED, SINCE THE MESSAGES WERE

SENT SEVERAL MINUTES APART! THE IMAGE GOES WITH THE FIRST

MESSAGE. The message to John had no image attached.

Zapruder has to be still on the pedestal.

Wiegman had his camera locked on RUN as he sprinted down Elm.

One of his FIRST CLEAR FRAMES shows Jackie on the trunk of the

limo, which is far from the end of the Zfilm. FOUR SECONDS LATER

by the video frame counter, the first CLEAR FRAME of the EMPTY

PEDESTAL is seen. In four seconds he cannot have finished filming

and jumped down from the pedestal.

Jack

possibly there is a confusion with regards to the structure of these images as presented. To illustrate here is a selection enhanced to show the black area at the underpass being made up of a number of 'boxes'. This is so throughout these images. (this frame at least 57 frames after the limo has gone into the underpass)

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

AGAIN THE BOARD HAS COMBINED TWO OF MY POSTINGS FROM SEVERAL

MINUTES APART AND PUT THE WRONG IMAGE WITH THE WRONG MESSAGE.

.....from a film copy of Wiegman clear frame showing Jackie on the trunk.

Jack

ABOVE WAS THE FIRST MESSAGE. SEVERAL MINUTES LATER I SENT THE

MESSAGE BELOW.

John wrote:

On the whole it is in the eye of behiolder and therefore borderline as any sort of evidence that Zapruder was not there. However there appears to be much clear evidence that he was.

Jack asks:

Please give examples of the "CLEAR EVIDENCE". Please do so without

citing other photos which may have been retouched. (see attachment)

Jack

I WILL NOW ATTEMPT TO ADD THE TWO IMAGES.

JACK

THE SECOND IMAGE DID NOT ATTACH. TRYING AGAIN. WHAT IS GOING ON?

JACK

ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO POST THE IMAGE WHICH WOULD NOT POST.

JACK

Once again a "cute" headline is used to obscure the faulty nature of the "evidence" presented.

Martin Shackelford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

Some time ago, John Costella posted a series of six Dave Wiegman frames. For me, the importance of these frames is that there are the clearest copies I have of these important frames. As a colleague of John Costella, I am sure you also have a copy of that post.

See Slide 1 below:-

On the right hand side I have posted the six frames posted by John Costella. I have labelled them W1 to W6. At the top of that slide I have also labelled your copies of three of the Wiegman slides in two ways. In one way I have equated them to the Costella 6 frames and also have endeavoured to list their original frame number.

In post 13 you appear to suggest that this composite, shown at the top of slide 1 is from the same moment in time. It is not exactly the same moment, but it is close enough. However I believe that what you are trying to do is create a complete image of the plaza at this point. You point is also sound, if the Press car is indeed W 93 then in W 89 (the pedestal frame) Zapruder should indeed be seen for he has to be there.

Members have pointed out that it is an effect of both the film and the lighting that make it impossible to see Zapruder in this frame. And, because we do not see him, does not mean he is not there.

See Slide 2 below:-

Slide 2 has a copy of W 109 ( or W 4 of the Costella frames.) I have done no more than lighten the pedestal area and as you can see we can indeed see the two figures of Zapruder and Sitzman. This is 20 W frames after the one that you suggest he is absent. If Zapruder is to be seen in W 109, then he must also be in W 89, even though the light and poor film suggest he is not.

I note for your demonstrations you are using screen dumps of the Groden film. I do not know where or how John Costella got his clear copies, but I could never get the detail Costella has from Preview ( that you are using to demonstrate.) To get the image of Zapruder in W4, I used John Costella copies of the frames. I don’t know why you did not use Costella’s frames, for I am sure you have far better copies of them than I have.

James.

This guy does not even correctly identify the pedestal. He sees some "blobs"

many feet west of the pedestal and calls them Zapruder and Sitzman,

even though they are not in the vicinity of the pedestal!!!

Crap such as this should be identified as misinformation lest it be

believed by the uninformed.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unaware of any clear Wiegman digital frames by Costella.

My images from the Groden CD are very poor quality, but are

the best I have.

However, my image of the press car and the limo was done

in the 80s from a 16mm FILM outtake of Wiegman frames

obtained from another researcher by Gary Mack...and the

quality is excellent.

Jack

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll have to look it up if I have time, but I think there were 59 persons who testified that the limo came to a stop. Typical is Hugh Betzner, who said "I WALKED DOWN TOWARD WHERE THE LIMO HAD STOPPED".

...I just looked it up. It is a Vince Palamara article in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, 119-128.

Were all 59 mistaken? I suggest that you read Palamara's list before continuing.

Jack

Jack,

Once again, it has to do with perspective: if you were where the limo appeared to move from side to side, then it did not stop, but DID slow down very slow. If you were to the rear and the limo appeared to be growing smaller as it receded away from you, and you saw the brake lights go on, it may have appeared to have stopped, even if it did not.

If the 59 people were all to the rear, then yes, they are all mistaken. Appearances can be deceiving, as you of all people should know!

Duke...by your answer you show you have no idea what the 59 witnesses SAID. This is very poor research ... to comment on witness statements you HAVE NOT READ. Do you have a copy of MIDP? If not, how can you comment on the Palamara article... and INCORRECTLY at that? Get the book.

Read the article. Then comment on each witness statement from the perspective of each witness. You will be surprised to find that all 59 were not at the REAR, but in many locations. For instance, Witness Johnson on the TRIPLE OVERPASS said "YOU COULD SEE IT SPEED UP, STOP, SPEED UP, AND THEN STOP..."

There are 58 others.

Eager to hear your 59 analyses.

Jack

Well, either 59 witnesses are wrong, or one film is. I opt for the witnesses. People form impressions that are often wrong.

SO YOU PREFER TO DISBELIEVE 59 WITNESSES WITHOUT READING WHAT THEY SAID?

Incredible!

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO YOU PREFER TO DISBELIEVE 59 WITNESSES WITHOUT READING WHAT THEY SAID?

Incredible!

Jack

Jack

Do you have a list of these 59 witnesses and their statements? How close where they to the limo? How many witnesses said the limo didn't stop? Who took these witnesses' statements?

Your Wiegman frames are too unclear to say definitively if anyone is the pedeastal or not. Althought the base is in sunlight the top is in shade. Zapruder and Stizman were wearing reletively dark clothing and the background was dark. Also the pedestal area is is out of focus and blurred, Wiegman was filming from a moving car. Zapruder and his assistant would have been quite small in the image - note the size of the small blob onthe steps in front of the pedestal. That is obviously a person and any image of people on the pedestal would be similar in size. If that blob were in the shade it would be even darker and thus would be invisible against the dark background atop the pedestal.

You admit that your images of the Wiegman film are poor quality. I agree, they are of too poor quality to make the kind of analysis to trying to do. Before offering them as proof you should have tried tracking down better quality copies.

You have yet to give a ration explaination for why Zapruder and Stizman wouldn't have filmed from where they said they did. Who then do think filmed the Z-film and where were they? If Stizman and Zapruder were part of the plot why not have one of them film it? What was to be gained by filming from one location and saying it was filmed from another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Len, the witnesses break down thusly..Ten Police officers, seven S/S agents, thirty seven spectators, two presidential aides, one Senator one state Gov, and the First Lady..But descriptions of the Limo within this group vary widely. eg Norman Similas "The Presidential limousine had passed me (North side of elm) and slowed down slightly" or John Chism (by the Stemmons sign)" the motorcade begining to speed up" which is completely different from saying it had stopped. Compare these to Maurice Orr ( again north side of Elm) "the motorcade stopped" or LR Terry (again north side of Elm) The parade stoped right in front of the biulding"( I assume he means the TSBD) Four people, all on north Elm, two claim the motorcade stopped, one that it slowed slightly, and one that reports it "Speeding up" after the last shot. of the fifty nine several only report the Limo speeding up, and others (i will do a count later) only that it slowed, although to be fair some of the latter group report it slowing "Almost to a stop" Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len, the witnesses break down thusly..Ten Police officers, seven S/S agents, thirty seven spectators, two presidential aides, one Senator one state Gov, and the First Lady..But descriptions of the Limo within this group vary widely. eg Norman Similas "The Presidential limousine had passed me (North side of elm) and slowed down slightly" or John Chism (by the Stemmons sign)" the motorcade begining to speed up" which is completely different from saying it had stopped. Compare these to Maurice Orr ( again north side of Elm) "the motorcade stopped" or LR Terry (again north side of Elm) The parade stoped right in front of the biulding"( I assume he means the TSBD) Four people, all on north Elm, two claim the motorcade stopped, one that it slowed slightly, and one that reports it "Speeding up" after the last shot. of the fifty nine several only report the Limo speeding up, and others (i will do a count later) only that it slowed, although to be fair some of the latter group report it slowing "Almost to a stop" Steve.

So what do you think Steve does this prove to you that the limo stopped and thus that the films that don't show this were altered?

Strange if the S/S was "in on it" that they would say the limo stopped or slowed down. If there were several markmen shooting at a slow moving target stopping the limo would have been totally unneciessary. Also IIRC most of the people who said it stopped were a good distance away and as you indicate there are inconsistancies in their accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO YOU PREFER TO DISBELIEVE 59 WITNESSES WITHOUT READING WHAT THEY SAID?

Incredible!

Jack

WHY DOES ANYONE SO UNINFORMED TRY TO MASQUERADE AS A JFK RESEARCHER? MY COMMENTS

ARE INTERSPERSED IN ALL CAP LETTERS BELOW:

Jack

Do you have a list of these 59 witnesses and their statements? How close where they to the limo? How many witnesses said the limo didn't stop? Who took these witnesses' statements?

YES. I HAVE A LIST. IT IS ON PAGES 119-128 OF MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, WHICH ALL "REAL"

JFK RESEARCHERS HAVE READ. THIS FETZER BOOK IS AVAILABLE ON AMAZON AT A VERY

MODEST PRICE. GET THE BOOK AND READ MY LIST. TO FIND THE LOCATIONS OF THE 59 WITNESSES,

READ THE ENTIRE LIST. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO ASK HOW MANY SAID THE LIMO DID NOT STOP, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH STATEMENTS TO COUNT, AND IF OTHER MOTORCADE WITNESSES DID NOT

REPORT THE STOP, WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THEY DID NOT, DO WE? PERHAPS THEY WERE DISTRACTED

BY THE SHOTS OR SOMETHING ELSE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPECULATE ABOUT SUCH A NEGATIVE.

HOWEVER, WE CAN SAY HOWEVER THAT OPPOSED TO THE 59 WHO SAW THE STOP, NOBODY...REPEAT

NOBODY...SAID THERE WAS NO STOP!

Your Wiegman frames are too unclear to say definitively if anyone is the pedeastal or not.

THIS IS UNTRUE. ALL AREAS OF THE FRAMES EXPOSE SOME IMAGE IF AN OBJECT IS THERE,

EXCEPT FOR THE SOLID BLACK AREA ABOVE THE PEDESTAL. HOWEVER INDISTINCT THE DETAIL

OF THE FRAMES, LIGHT AREAS SHOULD BE LIGHT, GRAY AREAS SHOULD BE GRAY, AND DARK

AREAS SHOULD BE DARK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE PHOTOGRAPHICALLY FOR LIGHT AND GRAY AREAS

TO PHOTOGRAPH BLACK WHEN THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN ELSEWHERE IN THE FRAMES.

Althought the base is in sunlight the top is in shade. Zapruder and Stizman were wearing reletively dark clothing and the background was dark.

SITZMAN WAS WEARING A LIGHT BEIGE DRESS, AS SEEN IN OTHER PHOTOS. IT WOULD HAVE

STOOD OUT IN STARK CONTRAST TO A DARK BACKGROUND. YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS

IS APALLING. YOUR IGNORANCE OF PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABYSSMAL. THERE IS NOT A BIT OF

REASON TO STATE THAT THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL IS IN SHADE. THERE IS NOTHING THERE

TO CAST A SHADOW. THE TREE IN THE BACKGROUND IS TOO FAR WEST TO CAST A SHADOW

TO THE EAST WHEN THE SUN IS IN THE SOUTH. IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF A SHADOW ON TOP

OF THE PEDESTAL, PLEASE SHOW IT TO US, BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER SEEN SUCH

EVIDENCE. ALL OTHER PHOTOS PURPORTING TO SHOW Z&S ATOP THE PEDESTAL DO SHOW

"PEOPLE" THERE WHOSE IMAGES WERE "RECORDED DESPITE BEING IN SHADE".

Also the pedestal area is is out of focus and blurred, Wiegman was filming from a moving car.

YE GODS! YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. WIEGMAN WAS NOT FILMING FROM

A MOVING CAR. HE JUMPED OUT OF THE CONVERTIBLE AT THE HOUSTON INTERSECTION

AND RAN DOWN ELM WITH HIS CAMERA LOCKED IN OPERATING POSITION. HIS IMAGES ARE

NOT "OUT OF FOCUS", SINCE THE FOCUS WAS FIXED. MOST OF THE FRAMES SUFFER FROM

"MOTION BLUR" BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING AND SWINGING THE CAMERA AS HE RAN. IF

YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BASIC FACTS ABOUT WIEGMAN, YOUR CREDIBILITY IS LESS THAN

ZERO!

Zapruder and his assistant would have been quite small in the image - note the size of the small blob onthe steps in front of the pedestal. That is obviously a person and any image of people on the pedestal would be similar in size. If that blob were in the shade it would be even darker and thus would be invisible against the dark background atop the pedestal.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOUR MOUTH IS RUNNING

BUT YOUR BRAIN IS NOT IN GEAR.

You admit that your images of the Wiegman film are poor quality. I agree, they are of too poor quality to make the kind of analysis to trying to do. Before offering them as proof you should have tried tracking down better quality copies.

FALSE. THE IMAGES ARE ADEQUATE FOR GROSS INTERPRETATION OF TONAL SHADES OF

GRAY. SITZMAN'S DRESS WAS ABOUT 10% GRAYSCALE, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT

AS BRIGHT AS THE WHITE PEDESTAL. YOU ARE IGNORANT OF EVEN THIS SIMPLE LAW OF

PHYSICS.

You have yet to give a ration explaination for why Zapruder and Stizman wouldn't have filmed from where they said they did.

I ONLY ANALYZE PHOTOGRAPHS. I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOTIVATIONS

OF ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN FOR LYING. THERE ARE MANY DISCREPANCIES IN WHAT THEY SAID,

SO WHY BELIEVE ANY OF IT? ZAPRUDER SAID LIFE PAID HIM $25,000 WHEN IN FACT IT WAS

TEN TIMES THAT MUCH. SINCE HE LIED ABOUT THIS, WHY WOULDN'T HE LIE ABOUT OTHER THINGS?

Who then do think filmed the Z-film and where were they?

THE Z-FILM IS A FABRICATION. THE CONSPIRATORS HAD MANY CAMERAS IN THE PLAZA. I

DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW WHERE THE CAMERAS WERE, OR HOW THE FILM WAS FABRICATED.

I DO NOT KNOW WHO FABRICATED THE FILM.

If Stizman and Zapruder were part of the plot why not have one of them film it?

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR HOW Z&S WERE INVOLVED. THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF IS

THAT THE PLOTTERS NEEDED "A CIVILIAN" TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THE FILM. MY OPINION

IS THAT THIS WAS FOOLISH. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITHOUT ANY FILM AT ALL!

BUT THE PLOTTERS (LIKE LBJ) WERE VERY EGOTISTICAL, AND MAYBE WANTED THE FILM AS

A "TROPHY OF THEIR KILL".

What was to be gained by filming from one location and saying it was filmed from another?

THE FILM WAS FABRICATED, USING A "PILOT FILM" MADE FROM THE PEDESTAL, PLUS

OTHER FILMS THAT SHOWED WHAT HAPPENED. NOTHING WAS GAINED BY THE CONSPIRATORS

BY HAVING SUCH A FILM. NUMEROUS FILMS LIKELY WERE SHOT FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS.

WHY NOT CONFINE YOUR COMMENTS TO THINGS WITH CORRECT INFORMATION, INSTEAD

OF SPREADING MISINFORMATION?

JACK

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears Len hasn't picked up a book yet, ANY book! Have a nice New Year, Jack! :)

David

SO YOU PREFER TO DISBELIEVE 59 WITNESSES WITHOUT READING WHAT THEY SAID?

Incredible!

Jack

WHY DOES ANYONE SO UNINFORMED TRY TO MASQUERADE AS A JFK RESEARCHER? MY COMMENTS

ARE INTERSPERSED IN ALL CAP LETTERS BELOW:

Jack

Do you have a list of these 59 witnesses and their statements? How close where they to the limo? How many witnesses said the limo didn't stop? Who took these witnesses' statements?

YES. I HAVE A LIST. IT IS ON PAGES 119-128 OF MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, WHICH ALL "REAL"

JFK RESEARCHERS HAVE READ. THIS FETZER BOOK IS AVAILABLE ON AMAZON AT A VERY

MODEST PRICE. GET THE BOOK AND READ MY LIST. TO FIND THE LOCATIONS OF THE 59 WITNESSES,

READ THE ENTIRE LIST. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO ASK HOW MANY SAID THE LIMO DID NOT STOP, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH STATEMENTS TO COUNT, AND IF OTHER MOTORCADE WITNESSES DID NOT

REPORT THE STOP, WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THEY DID NOT, DO WE? PERHAPS THEY WERE DISTRACTED

BY THE SHOTS OR SOMETHING ELSE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPECULATE ABOUT SUCH A NEGATIVE.

HOWEVER, WE CAN SAY HOWEVER THAT OPPOSED TO THE 59 WHO SAW THE STOP, NOBODY...REPEAT

NOBODY...SAID THERE WAS NO STOP!

Your Wiegman frames are too unclear to say definitively if anyone is the pedeastal or not.

THIS IS UNTRUE. ALL AREAS OF THE FRAMES EXPOSE SOME IMAGE IF AN OBJECT IS THERE,

EXCEPT FOR THE SOLID BLACK AREA ABOVE THE PEDESTAL. HOWEVER INDISTINCT THE DETAIL

OF THE FRAMES, LIGHT AREAS SHOULD BE LIGHT, GRAY AREAS SHOULD BE GRAY, AND DARK

AREAS SHOULD BE DARK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE PHOTOGRAPHICALLY FOR LIGHT AND GRAY AREAS

TO PHOTOGRAPH BLACK WHEN THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN ELSEWHERE IN THE FRAMES.

Althought the base is in sunlight the top is in shade. Zapruder and Stizman were wearing reletively dark clothing and the background was dark.

SITZMAN WAS WEARING A LIGHT BEIGE DRESS, AS SEEN IN OTHER PHOTOS. IT WOULD HAVE

STOOD OUT IN STARK CONTRAST TO A DARK BACKGROUND. YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS

IS APALLING. YOUR IGNORANCE OF PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABYSSMAL. THERE IS NOT A BIT OF

REASON TO STATE THAT THE TOP OF THE PEDESTAL IS IN SHADE. THERE IS NOTHING THERE

TO CAST A SHADOW. THE TREE IN THE BACKGROUND IS TOO FAR WEST TO CAST A SHADOW

TO THE EAST WHEN THE SUN IS IN THE SOUTH. IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF A SHADOW ON TOP

OF THE PEDESTAL, PLEASE SHOW IT TO US, BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER SEEN SUCH

EVIDENCE. ALL OTHER PHOTOS PURPORTING TO SHOW Z&S ATOP THE PEDESTAL DO SHOW

"PEOPLE" THERE WHOSE IMAGES WERE "RECORDED DESPITE BEING IN SHADE".

Also the pedestal area is is out of focus and blurred, Wiegman was filming from a moving car.

YE GODS! YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. WIEGMAN WAS NOT FILMING FROM

A MOVING CAR. HE JUMPED OUT OF THE CONVERTIBLE AT THE HOUSTON INTERSECTION

AND RAN DOWN ELM WITH HIS CAMERA LOCKED IN OPERATING POSITION. HIS IMAGES ARE

NOT "OUT OF FOCUS", SINCE THE FOCUS WAS FIXED. MOST OF THE FRAMES SUFFER FROM

"MOTION BLUR" BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING AND SWINGING THE CAMERA AS HE RAN. IF

YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BASIC FACTS ABOUT WIEGMAN, YOUR CREDIBILITY IS LESS THAN

ZERO!

Zapruder and his assistant would have been quite small in the image - note the size of the small blob onthe steps in front of the pedestal. That is obviously a person and any image of people on the pedestal would be similar in size. If that blob were in the shade it would be even darker and thus would be invisible against the dark background atop the pedestal.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOUR MOUTH IS RUNNING

BUT YOUR BRAIN IS NOT IN GEAR.

You admit that your images of the Wiegman film are poor quality. I agree, they are of too poor quality to make the kind of analysis to trying to do. Before offering them as proof you should have tried tracking down better quality copies.

FALSE. THE IMAGES ARE OF ADEQUATE FOR GROSS INTERPRETATION OF TONAL SHADES OF

GRAY. SITZMAN'S DRESS WAS ABOUT 10% GRAYSCALE, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT

AS BRIGHT AS THE WHITE PEDESTAL. YOU ARE IGNORANT OF EVEN THIS SIMPLE LAW OF

PHYSICS.

You have yet to give a ration explaination for why Zapruder and Stizman wouldn't have filmed from where they said they did.

I ONLY ANALYZE PHOTOGRAPHS. I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOTIVATIONS

OF ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN FOR LYING. THERE ARE MANY DISCREPANCIES IN WHAT THEY SAID,

SO WHY BELIEVE ANY OF IT? ZAPRUDER SAID LIFE PAID HIM $25,000 WHEN IN FACT IT WAS

TEN TIMES THAT MUCH. SINCE HE LIED ABOUT THIS, WHY WOULDN'T HE LIE ABOUT OTHER THINGS?

Who then do think filmed the Z-film and where were they?

THE Z-FILM IS A FABRICATION. THE CONSPIRATORS HAD MANY CAMERAS IN THE PLAZA. I

DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW WHERE THE CAMERAS WERE, OR HOW THE FILM WAS FABRICATED.

I DO NOT KNOW WHO FABRICATED THE FILM.

If Stizman and Zapruder were part of the plot why not have one of them film it?

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR HOW Z&S WERE INVOLVED. THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF IS

THAT THE PLOTTERS NEEDED "A CIVILIAN" TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THE FILM. MY OPINION

IS THAT THIS WAS FOOLISH. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITHOUT ANY FILM AT ALL!

BUT THE PLOTTERS (LIKE LBJ) WERE VERY EGOTISTICAL, AND MAYBE WANTED THE FILM AS

A "TROPHY OF THEIR KILL".

What was to be gained by filming from one location and saying it was filmed from another?

THE FILM WAS FABRICATED, USING A "PILOT FILM" MADE FROM THE PEDESTAL, PLUS

OTHER FILMS THAT SHOWED WHAT HAPPENED. NOTHING WAS GAINED BY THE CONSPIRATORS

BY HAVING SUCH A FILM. NUMEROUS FILMS LIKELY WERE SHOT FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS.

WHY NOT CONFINE YOUR COMMENTS TO THINGS WITH CORRECT INFORMATION, INSTEAD

OF SPREADING MISINFORMATION?

JACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
(i will do a count later) only that it slowed, although to be fair some of the latter group report it slowing "Almost to a stop" Steve.

So what do you think Steve does this prove to you that the limo stopped and thus that the films that don't show this were altered?

Okay, best I can do. Stopped, 31 Slowed, 21 Speeded up (after last shot) 7

Some of the reports are difficult to interpret, in this case I have erred on the side of a vehicle halt. From these witnesses it would appear that the limo at least slowed during the shooting, but due to well documented confusion by spectators in similar circumstances, it is at the very least difficult to draw firm conclusions from this sample. for example at least two of the witnesses who describe a halt also say that the vehicle moved to the left, Roy Truly "I saw the presidents car swerve to the left and stop"If this were the case you would have expected others to have reported this left swerve. But 31 witnesses do report the Limo stopping, make of it what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, either 59 witnesses are wrong, or one film is. I opt for the witnesses. People form impressions that are often wrong.
SO YOU PREFER TO DISBELIEVE 59 WITNESSES WITHOUT READING WHAT THEY SAID?

Incredible!

Jack

Gee, Jack, I post extensively using not only original WCH readings ($2500+ if you can find the volumes) but online materials as well, so are you suggesting that I need to tell people that if they want to know what so-and-so said, they have to go find the books somewhere?

Why are you pushing people to spend the money on the book rather than summarizing what they had to say, or at least naming each of the 59 witnesses so we can look it up ourselves? Do you have a financial interest in it or something?

Sadly, I was looking up some JFK book or other on Amazon and noticed it had been reviewed by Vince Palamara, so I clicked to see what he had to say. The opening words were "Good book but ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron is the VERY BEST book on the JFK assassination bar none," or words very much to that effect.

Oh well, I thought, let's see what else he has to say about other books because it seems like he's got 50+ reviews here. And do you know what the opening words were?

So, not having bought "the VERY BEST" book by my friends Thom and Lamar, why should I buy something clearly second-rate by Palamara? (Tho' it is possible that he didn't review his own books with that opening line, eh?)

Spend the time and quote the stuff or get off the soap box. So say my handlers at Langley. :)B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...