Zapruder, Four questions..

[Ron Ecker]

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

You are talking about Moorman being a babe right?

Yes. I will carry this conviction to my grave.

[Ron Ecker]

So, Ron, it's your conclusion (a) that Mary was a babe, (b ) that Mary was a midget, © that Mary was both a babe and a midget, or (d) that you are ready for the men in white coats to cart you away, too? What is the point of research and evidence (including observations, experiments, and measurements) if you aren't willing to allow it to affect your beliefs? What are you--some kind of seer with direct access to the truth?

Jim,

I like short women. (But I like tall women too.) And if I had been in Dealey Plaza, I think I could have come up with a better line than Featherstone's "May I see your Polaroid?" But black humor aside, I am not a seer, and I have not dismissed all the evidence that you and others have cited that films and photos have been altered. I'm skeptical of the concept itself - shoes changing color but the head snap left in, etc. - but I have not plowed through the evidence. Nor have I read your book on it. Why? Because I don't have the time. I have several books I haven't had time to read yet. Yours gets low priority. Why? Because what is film alteration going to prove to me? That there was a conspiracy? I already know there was a conspiracy. If someone gathered up all those films and photos and altered them, so that all would agree, then it had to be a pretty vast conspiracy. Well, I already think it was pretty vast (involving CIA, LBJ, FBI, MIC), so again, what do you have to prove to me that is vital for me to know to determine who killed JFK? I'm more interested in knowing, for example, if Ted Shackley was basically running the operation for all interested parties, than in some people altering film of the event. So it's not that I dismiss what you and others say about film alteration, it's that in the large scheme of things I don't have time for it.

Ron

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for your candor, Ron. And my very best wishes for the New Year! Jim

P.S. Your take on ULTIMATE SACRIFICE was "right on the money"! Good work.

Nov 10 2005, 08:52 PM Post #6

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1314

Joined: 16-May 04

Member No.: 720

Since I won't be able to go to the conference, perhaps someone can ask this question for me. Why would the Mafia deliberately stop a coup in Cuba, aborting their great hope to get their Havana casinos back, by killing JFK, if he was planning to invade Cuba on Dec 1? (He was planning to invade Cuba with exactly what, even the Sec of D reportedly being out of the loop?) Seems to me that the Mafia would wait a couple of weeks till JFK got rid of Castro for them before bumping off JFK. (It's like my niece said when asked the other day why she wants a book about the Mafia for Christmas. "Because," she said, "they're smart.")

--------------------

Ron Ecker

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2030

Website: http://www.hobrad.com/ecker.htm

Edited December 31, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Mark Stapleton]

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

Ron,

It's only a notion I'm tossing up, but what if Moorman was put on the grass because when she was on the street, something incriminating was visible? Pure speculation but I can't resist rhetorical questions.

I nominate your post for "post of the year". Frankly, I hadn't realised Mary Moorman was such a babe. I knew this thread would be educational. I agree with your thoughts about certain aspects of the case. I think the film(s) were probably altered but it just reinforces what I already know ie. there was a conspiracy afoot. And on the issue of time to read all the material available, I unequivocally agree.

Bernice, thanks for the post. Very informative (Glen Bennett's testimony is strange (#21)).

Robin, great photos and posts (as always).

Interesting debate from all contributors and to all a happy new year and best wishes for 06.

In two thousand and six,

Let's nail those ######.

What an optimist.

[Jack White]

Numerous obstructionists have claimed that Zapruder and Sitzman

were in the shadow of a tree while on the pedestal. I challenged

them to produce evidence of a shadow. They have not, because

the pedestal WAS IN FULL SUNLIGHT.

In this image from Nix, the shadow of the pedestal is seen on the

sidewalk. If a tree shadow were there, it would also fall on the sidewalk

and would hide the pedestal shadow.

Jack

Edited December 31, 2005 by Jack White

[Frank Agbat]

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

Ron,

It's only a notion I'm tossing up, but what if Moorman was put on the grass because when she was on the street, something incriminating was visible? Pure speculation but I can't resist rhetorical questions.

I nominate your post for "post of the year". Frankly, I hadn't realised Mary Moorman was such a babe. I knew this thread would be educational. I agree with your thoughts about certain aspects of the case. I think the film(s) were probably altered but it just reinforces what I already know ie. there was a conspiracy afoot. And on the issue of time to read all the material available, I unequivocally agree.

Bernice, thanks for the post. Very informative (Glen Bennett's testimony is strange (#21)).

Robin, great photos and posts (as always).

Interesting debate from all contributors and to all a happy new year and best wishes for 06.

In two thousand and six,

Let's nail those ######.

What an optimist.

The most immediately obvious reason I can think of to move Moorman from the street to the grass would be to conceal a furrow or turf kicked up from an errant shot. Of course, that said, if they had the capability to move a person from street to grass, why not just edit the grass?

Alternatively, working along the theory put forth by Ron, they might have agreed on the 'babe factor' and moved her for a better view. Of course, the possibility exists that the Moorman still photo presented here was altered to *increase* the 'babe factor', thus distracting generations of researchers.

Happy New Year!

Frank

[Duke Lane]

Thank you, sir, you saved me a lot of typing! I appreciate that .... And now I can return MIDP since, having owned it, I am now a "real researcher!"

Edited January 1, 2006 by Duke Lane

[Jack White]

It appears that the Zapruder thread has degenerated into name calling, and point scoring.If the protagenists wish can we start again?

I believe that the argument breaks down into four questions, namely..

1, Did Zapruder take the "Zapruder" film?

2, Did the necessary technology exist in 1963 to do what the alterationists claim?

3,Were other films/photo's altered to agree with the extant Z film?

4,If it was altered, why?

I am aware that other questions about this exist, but i feel the above is the nub of the case. Gentlemen please, no name calling, best evidence when asked to provide it, and unless anyone has a good reason why, stick to the agreed perimeters.

Having followed this thread about Zapruder being on,or rather NOT on the pedestal in the Weigman film,where does that leave us if he was not on the pedestal?Quite simply this...It means that if Zapruder was not there given the accepted time frame of the Weigman film, then someone else must have taken the film from the pedestal during this time sequence.Now let me think who else could have shot the film from this location...,GOT IT!!!...Sitzman?...yeah,why not?

Ok..i've posted this analysis many times,but it all just seems to make so much sense when we see no Zapruder on the pedestal in Weigman.

All we have to look at after the shots have been fired are the films from Bell which shows Zapruder and Sitman walking away from each other,Martin,where Sitzman can only be seen on the edge of 3 frames,and Nix where in my opinion,Zapruder can be seen hands at his face,and then dropping his hands and looking downwards and not at the Limo.

Duncan

Duncan...thanks for the Nix frame. Please do a study like I have

done below...which shows that Sitzman's ARMS, IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT

HAVE MR. Z IN A HEADLOCK! The direction of the sun also is clearly

seen by the shadows of the people and pedestal, showing that the

people are NOT IN SHADOWS on top of the pedestal.

Your copy of this frame is superior to mine, so please post one without

your white lines.

Thanks.

Jack

Edited January 1, 2006 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

HMMM...Jack, I concede the parts of Zapruder facing sun are not shadowed by tree. Similarly parts of Sitzmzn exposed by not being shadowed by Zapruder are not shadowed by tree.

The bits about headlocks and Moorman on street are wierd. Why the hell would she do such a thing? Wouldn't it be easier to...

[Craig Lamson]

Numerous obstructionists have claimed that Zapruder and Sitzman

were in the shadow of a tree while on the pedestal. I challenged

them to produce evidence of a shadow. They have not, because

the pedestal WAS IN FULL SUNLIGHT.

In this image from Nix, the shadow of the pedestal is seen on the

sidewalk. If a tree shadow were there, it would also fall on the sidewalk

and would hide the pedestal shadow.

Jack

Thank you once again Jack, you have just shown that from Weigman the Pedestal is in backlight.

BTW, when I get time tomorrow I'm going to destroy your statments about the tone of a tan dress and how tones photograph. You might want to take some time tonight and bone up on the zone system and the exposure properties of film, because you really need it. I might suggest www.google.com as a start.

Till tomorrow....

[Robin Unger]

Nix Pedestal Crop.

Edited January 1, 2006 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

They're standing apart as can be seen by their shadows on the ground. Robin could you post (or email me) a full frame or at least one that shows their shadows fully on the ground please?

[Robin Unger]

They're standing apart as can be seen by their shadows on the ground. Robin could you post (or email me) a full frame or at least one that shows their shadows fully on the ground please?

[John Dolva]

Thank you, Robin.

Based on this wider view, I would have to withdraw full agrreement that Zapruder is not shadowed by at least some part of tree. As far as the original discussion of whether the parts of Zapruder exposed to the Wiegman frame are all in 'full sun' or not is obviously : no they are not, quite the opposite, only incidentally.

Further I wonder if the separtion of Zapruder and Sitzman apparent by this view would make any sort of 'headlock' possible?

[John Dolva]

Much is revealed by

considering the angle to the limousine revealing camera position.

considering the sun angle revealing shadow components.

On this crop where color edges are indicated. The shape of the camera where one would expect it to be is outlined. The tree trunk or branch is partially shadowing this.

At Zapruders feet one sees what, (also taking the shadows into acccount,) may be a camera bag? This may be a contributor to Jacks 'black box'? Is there another indication that Zapruder or Sitzman was carrying something apart from the camera?