Tripple Underpass

[Tim Carroll]

Same old twisting. And here Jack is talking about the diagram with some unrelated attachment, but not the diagram supposedly being discussed. Now he accuses two honorable gentlemen of disinformation, and that this map is not reflective of their view. Here it is so we can be clear about what Jack is being so unclear about. I don't have to accuse someone of "senility" to show them incorrect. He's the one who came here immediately making personal attacks. If he construes that as "senile," that's his problem.

He immediately jumped into this forum and accused me of "pursuing" him. I hadn't had a thought of him, let alone mentioned him, until he came on shooting from the hip with his incredible theory. I AGAIN ASK, WHO AGREES WITH JACK THAT ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN WERE NOT BOTH ON THE PEDESTAL THROUGHOUT THE SHOOTING? JUST YES OR NO, WHO AGREES WITH THAT?

There would be no reason for these JFK forums if we all relied on the likes of Jack, accepted their every word as gospel, and had no cause for further discussion. HE CLAIMS ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN WEREN'T BOTH ON THE PEDESTAL.

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Why does everyone IGNORE THE EMPTY PEDESTAL in Wiegman

but claim the other pedestal images are genuine? The pedestal

was (and is) in bright open sunlight, and Wiegman's camera

would have filmed anybody on top of the pedestal as well

as any other camera.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An idea for your consideration:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another Wiegman semi-clear frame showing NOBODY on the pedestal

Edited October 27, 2004 by Jack White

[Tim Carroll]

Why does everyone IGNORE THE EMPTY PEDESTAL in Wiegman but claim the other pedestal images are genuine?

The effect of light and shadow? You think that to be the case with classic gunman, but not with Zapruder and Sitzman. How conveeeeeeenient. How about the possibility that the Weigman still is taken after Zapruder and Sitzman ran into the pergola, which Sitzman later denied?

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[William Plumlee]

Tosh,

I for one wish I could help with that south knoll photo, in terms of analyzing the spot where you were. But I know nothing about photography, photoanalysis, the necessary software, etc. I wish someone would do it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Ron. I have been trying for years to get the photo experts to look into this, (even the Dallas PD) but it always goes back to the debate of the North Knoll.

Tom Wilson some years ago did look into it and he did state, to me and others, he felt that somebody was at that location, but it needed more work. Shortly after that he died. I ask Jack long ago about the photo, but he said he failed to see anyone there but never to my knowledge did any extensive work on it.

Seems everybody wants to stay clear of that photo. Makes me wonder Why. Perhaps, if it is proven someone is there, then some researchers will have to retract their words and their works. Heaven forbid that. They are the X-Spurts and their livelyhood depends on what they have had to say in the past and their credibility would then be in question. Thanks again Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Tosh...Yes, Tom did extensive work on Cancellare but would never share it

with either you, me nor Peter Lemkin. He said he saw a "person" where the shadow

of the forked tree is on the grass (not where you said you were located near the steps).

I did many hours of darkroom work trying to find you or ANYBODY in the Cancellare

photo. I told Tom and Peter (and perhaps you) that I COULD FIND NOBODY THERE.

That does not mean that there was nobody there...just that I could not find anyone.

I do not say I see things when I do not.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reply Jack. Long time no hear. Hope your well.

I was told by Tom; quote"..I did find somebody in the shadows near the fork in the tree, in the grass not far from the steps..." (grass behind the steps) I asked him if he would share that with me and others. He said 'NO! I have more work to do. I have found another person where you said you thought a shooter was on the parking lot above the truck.."

I contacted you about that time and asked you if you had done any work on the picture and told you about the other shooter Tom had said he found. I was under the impression you already knew that from Tom.

I was told by you and others, that you could not find anyone there, but you needed a better picture. I said, I would try and get a better copy or perhaps the Negative. I later found out that the negative had been lost (?) by life magazine a long time ago. That was the end of that. That was about the time when I got tied in with the WRONG type people due to my ignorance of which I am now sorry. Thanks anyway. I respect your work and dedication. Tosh

[Ron Ecker]

Another Wiegman semi-clear frame showing NOBODY on the pedestal

Jack,

So your conclusion is what? The Wiegman film has been tampered with to remove Zapruder and Sitzman? For what purpose?

There was a reference earlier to a black box there on the pedestal instead of Zapruder and Sitzman. But if you look at the Moorman photo posted earlier by Tim, there are Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. There is no black box apparent. Or is it the Moorman photo that was tampered with, and Zapruder and Sitzman were put there where there really was no one, and the Wiegman film hasn't been tampered with?

Wouldn't it be easier to arrange someone to film the assassination, such as Zapruder and Sitzman, instead of doing it with a black box? There is no sense or logic behind all this perceived alteration that I can discern. I think it is more likely that there are mundane reasons why Zapruder and Sitzman may not be seen in certain images.

For example, if you look at frames from the Bell film, at about the same time when this Wiegman frame was taken, you can see that Sitzman is heading into the shelter, while Zapruder has walked several feet away as if to head back to his office. So in the Wiegman frame, Sitzman could already be in the shelter out of view, and Zapruder is out of frame, having walked away to the right. A boringly simple explanation for what we don't see.

Ron

Edited October 27, 2004 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Carroll]

I agree with every word of Ron's post.

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

My AGE has nothing to do with this discussion.  I NEVER SAID "SENILE"  THAT'S YOUR WORD.

IT IS YOU, NOT SPRAGUE NOR CUTLER WHO ASSOCIATES THE CAR WITH A GUNMAN.   I DO NOT ASSOCIATE "THE CAR WITH THE GUNMAN"  ANYONE WHO READS WILL SEE THAT DISASSOCIATING THE TWO HAS BEEN MY POINT.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same old twisting. And here Jack is talking about the diagram with some unrelated attachment, but not the diagram supposedly being discussed. Now he accuses two honorable gentlemen of disinformation, and that this map is not reflective of their view. Here it is so we can be clear about what Jack is being so unclear about. I don't have to accuse someone of "senility" to show them incorrect. He's the one who came here immediately making personal attacks. If he construes that as "senile," that's his problem.

He immediately jumped into this forum and accused me of "pursuing" him. I hadn't had a thought of him, let alone mentioned him, until he came on shooting from the hip with his incredible theory. I AGAIN ASK, WHO AGREES WITH JACK THAT ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN WERE NOT BOTH ON THE PEDESTAL THROUGHOUT THE SHOOTING? No, 'ew, many researchers believe..... JUST YES OR NO, WHO AGREES WITH THAT?

There would be no reason for these JFK forums if we all relied on the likes of Jack, accepted their every word as gospel, and had no cause for further discussion. HE CLAIMS ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN WEREN'T BOTH ON THE PEDESTAL AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE TOO COWARDLY TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO SUCH NONSENSE.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well...uh, Bill, uh Larry, uh Tim...thanks for taking my bait in the latest

of your multiple personalities. Your flood of postings in this latest trivial

subject fits right in. Whatever name you use, you are always identifiable by

your attack writing style in whichever forum you assail me. Your modus

operandi never changes. First on the DellaRosa forum and now Simkins'

your PERSONAL ATTACKS always mention MY AGE and MY FORGETFULNESS.

You always attack me on trivial points like this one to show how

out of touch I am...such as your ridicule regarding CLASSIC GUNMAN

VS. CARTOP GUNMAN. You always ridicule me for suggesting that

FILMS WERE ALTERED. How convenient that new personality Tim joined

this forum at about the same time old personality Larry was exposed as

really being Bill. Whose photo are you using this time Tim, uh, Larry,

uh Bill...or whoever you are? You really should UPDATE your ACT.

You are really getting tiresome in your same old "Get Jack" campaign. It

is very transparent.

"Larry" quit the forum after being exposed. Will "Tim"? Or maybe his

handlers will retrain him to do his job better.

Jack

[Jack White]

Another Wiegman semi-clear frame showing NOBODY on the pedestal

Jack,

So your conclusion is what? The Wiegman film has been tampered with to remove Zapruder and Sitzman? For what purpose?

There was a reference earlier to a black box there on the pedestal instead of Zapruder and Sitzman. But if you look at the Moorman photo posted earlier by Tim, there are Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. There is no black box apparent. Or is it the Moorman photo that was tampered with, and Zapruder and Sitzman were put there where there really was no one, and the Wiegman film hasn't been tampered with?

Wouldn't it be easier to arrange someone to film the assassination, such as Zapruder and Sitzman, instead of doing it with a black box? There is no sense or logic behind all this perceived alteration that I can discern. I think it is more likely that there are mundane reasons why Zapruder and Sitzman may not be seen in certain images.

For example, if you look at frames from the Bell film, at about the same time when this Wiegman frame was taken, you can see that Sitzman is heading into the shelter, while Zapruder has walked several feet away as if to head back to his office. So in the Wiegman frame, Sitzman could already be in the shelter out of view, and Zapruder is out of frame, having walked away to the right. A boringly simple explanation for what we don't see.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron...I thought I made it clear. I think that Zapruder and Sitzman

WERE NOT ON THE PEDESTAL. Wiegman shows NOBODY on the

pedestal (or maybe a mysterious black shape). The Wiegman film

was NOT ALTERED because it contained very bad images. ALL

OTHER FILMS WERE ALTERED TO ADD ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN.

Therefore what they show cannot be trusted.

By the way, you are wrong about the Bell frames. Wiegman was

DURING the motorcade. The portion of Bell you mention was much

later.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Do you really consider it balanced to keep hassling me over your your same old Moorman polaroid certainty (including the certainty of the visibility of Badgeman and Hatman) while not taking issue with the outrageousness of your tag team partner Jack's assertions?  You aren't trying to add to the discussion, you're repetitiously trying to shut it down.  I don't see you stalking Nancy Eldreth, and since you've gone on record as placing me in a category with her, go pick on some other "nut."  You can't find one reasonable point I've made on this thread, as I have sought to do with regard to you?

Tim

Tim - I have said that your observation that the light spots were visible in the Bell film were correct ... it was just your not understanding that a photo was taken of the same area between the Nix film and the Bell film and no one is seen standing there. Only the light spots on the shelter wall are seen. Moorman just happens to be the person who took that photograph and is why she is mentioned so much. The discussion does not have to stop. What needs to stop is the assertion that the light spots you speak of are the image of a gunman because the Moorman photo shows no one at the wall. This is common sense 101. There are only two alternatives - Moorman's photo was altered to hide the gunman or her photo is genuine and the image you see in the Nix film is an illusion.

Regardless of Hat Man or Badge Man - they are moot points and can be discussed on their own. The fact is there is absolutely no one at the shelter wall in Moorman's photo. I assume that even Nancy has realized this.

[Jack White]

Tosh,

I for one wish I could help with that south knoll photo, in terms of analyzing the spot where you were. But I know nothing about photography, photoanalysis, the necessary software, etc. I wish someone would do it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Ron. I have been trying for years to get the photo experts to look into this, (even the Dallas PD) but it always goes back to the debate of the North Knoll.

Tom Wilson some years ago did look into it and he did state, to me and others, he felt that somebody was at that location, but it needed more work. Shortly after that he died. I ask Jack long ago about the photo, but he said he failed to see anyone there but never to my knowledge did any extensive work on it.

Seems everybody wants to stay clear of that photo. Makes me wonder Why. Perhaps, if it is proven someone is there, then some researchers will have to retract their words and their works. Heaven forbid that. They are the X-Spurts and their livelyhood depends on what they have had to say in the past and their credibility would then be in question. Thanks again Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Tosh...Yes, Tom did extensive work on Cancellare but would never share it

with either you, me nor Peter Lemkin. He said he saw a "person" where the shadow

of the forked tree is on the grass (not where you said you were located near the steps).

I did many hours of darkroom work trying to find you or ANYBODY in the Cancellare

photo. I told Tom and Peter (and perhaps you) that I COULD FIND NOBODY THERE.

That does not mean that there was nobody there...just that I could not find anyone.

I do not say I see things when I do not.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reply Jack. Long time no hear. Hope your well.

I was told by Tom; quote"..I did find somebody in the shadows near the fork in the tree, in the grass not far from the steps..." (grass behind the steps) I asked him if he would share that with me and others. He said 'NO! I have more work to do. I have found another person where you said you thought a shooter was on the parking lot above the truck.."

I contacted you about that time and asked you if you had done any work on the picture and told you about the other shooter Tom had said he found. I was under the impression you already knew that from Tom.

I was told by you and others, that you could not find anyone there, but you needed a better picture. I said, I would try and get a better copy or perhaps the Negative. I later found out that the negative had been lost (?) by life magazine a long time ago. That was the end of that. That was about the time when I got tied in with the WRONG type people due to my ignorance of which I am now sorry. Thanks anyway. I respect your work and dedication. Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Tosh. Peter Lemkin furnished me and Tom with a very expensive 11x14 print

he bought from LIFE. He got very mad at Tom because Tom refused to return the

print to him. It may have been the same print I used, because I think Peter only

allowed me to photocopy it, not keep it. Do you ever hear from Peter any more?

He spent years trying to prove your story true.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Why does everyone IGNORE THE EMPTY PEDESTAL in Wiegman

but claim the other pedestal images are genuine? The pedestal

was (and is) in bright open sunlight, and Wiegman's camera

would have filmed anybody on top of the pedestal as well

as any other camera.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack - as you know - the Wiegman film is a B&W image and is limited on color tone. If you take the dark image of some of the people along Elm Street and move them up into the tree line - they too will disappear by blending into the tree foliage. There is one Wiegman film frame where Sitzman's legs can be made out as she is getting off the pedestal. Trying to use a poor film as this to make a case that all the other films and photos must be altered is nonsense IMO.

[Bill Miller]

Well...uh, Bill, uh Larry, uh Tim...thanks for taking my bait in the latest

of your multiple personalities. Your flood of postings in this latest trivial

subject fits right in. Whatever name you use, you are always identifiable by

your attack writing style in whichever forum you assail me.  """""""   You really should UPDATE your ACT.

You are really getting tiresome in your same old "Get Jack" campaign. It

is very transparent.

Jack - you are such a paranoid fool. So Now Tim, Myself and Larry Peters are all the same person in your shorted out brain. Yeh, Jack - Tim and I are just the multiple personalities of one person who have been arguing with each other for a month on the classic gunman issue - first on Lancer and then here. You need to quit thinking that you are that important that anyone needs to go after you because in reality you have become your own worst enemy. People may disagree with your observation(s) and not be attacking you the person. You need to learn how to spearate the two.

"Larry" quit the forum after being exposed. Will "Tim"? Or maybe his

handlers will retrain him to do his job better.

Jack

Larry never quit this forum or Lancer's. Once in a while he can be seen logged in when some of the rest of us are Online. From reading the past threads it looks like Larry was posting on film alteration, which that thread has been dead for quite some time. He probably feels there is nothing here that he can add that hasn't been said. You need to find something else to occupy your time besides sitting around and trying to play 'MASTER SPY'!

Edited October 28, 2004 by Bill Miller

[William Plumlee]

Tosh,

I for one wish I could help with that south knoll photo, in terms of analyzing the spot where you were. But I know nothing about photography, photoanalysis, the necessary software, etc. I wish someone would do it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Ron. I have been trying for years to get the photo experts to look into this, (even the Dallas PD) but it always goes back to the debate of the North Knoll.

Tom Wilson some years ago did look into it and he did state, to me and others, he felt that somebody was at that location, but it needed more work. Shortly after that he died. I ask Jack long ago about the photo, but he said he failed to see anyone there but never to my knowledge did any extensive work on it.

Seems everybody wants to stay clear of that photo. Makes me wonder Why. Perhaps, if it is proven someone is there, then some researchers will have to retract their words and their works. Heaven forbid that. They are the X-Spurts and their livelyhood depends on what they have had to say in the past and their credibility would then be in question. Thanks again Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Tosh...Yes, Tom did extensive work on Cancellare but would never share it

with either you, me nor Peter Lemkin. He said he saw a "person" where the shadow

of the forked tree is on the grass (not where you said you were located near the steps).

I did many hours of darkroom work trying to find you or ANYBODY in the Cancellare

photo. I told Tom and Peter (and perhaps you) that I COULD FIND NOBODY THERE.

That does not mean that there was nobody there...just that I could not find anyone.

I do not say I see things when I do not.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reply Jack. Long time no hear. Hope your well.

I was told by Tom; quote"..I did find somebody in the shadows near the fork in the tree, in the grass not far from the steps..." (grass behind the steps) I asked him if he would share that with me and others. He said 'NO! I have more work to do. I have found another person where you said you thought a shooter was on the parking lot above the truck.."

I contacted you about that time and asked you if you had done any work on the picture and told you about the other shooter Tom had said he found. I was under the impression you already knew that from Tom.

I was told by you and others, that you could not find anyone there, but you needed a better picture. I said, I would try and get a better copy or perhaps the Negative. I later found out that the negative had been lost (?) by life magazine a long time ago. That was the end of that. That was about the time when I got tied in with the WRONG type people due to my ignorance of which I am now sorry. Thanks anyway. I respect your work and dedication. Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Tosh. Peter Lemkin furnished me and Tom with a very expensive 11x14 print

he bought from LIFE. He got very mad at Tom because Tom refused to return the

print to him. It may have been the same print I used, because I think Peter only

allowed me to photocopy it, not keep it. Do you ever hear from Peter any more?

He spent years trying to prove your story true.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack: Peter spent years trying to wrap my story into his concepts of what he thought happen.., like most others I have been associated with over the years. I have refused to become part of that type of "one sided" closed research.. Peter's project with me started out concerning "The Cuban area, and 'Black Operations, of the time..,but changed into JFK and became an obsession with him. I pulled out of his project. Others then came to me with their private specialized projects that they wanted me to confirm. I would not, or could not.., and therefore "I do not know what I was talking about". (their quotes)

I was the one who said I was there at that location in 1964 to Scott Warrner, Denver FBI, long before researchers knew of the photo.., in fact the FBI showed me a copy and ask where I was, which I pointed it out to them. I find there is a lot of twisting of facts as to who said, they said and etc.. I am trying to stay out of all that and take the 'POP Shots, thrown at me.. It is difficult. Some have so much time and money into this JFK research, that they refuse to be "OBJECTIVE" and opened minded to ALL possibilities... Thanks again...

[William Plumlee]

Tosh,

I for one wish I could help with that south knoll photo, in terms of analyzing the spot where you were. But I know nothing about photography, photoanalysis, the necessary software, etc. I wish someone would do it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Ron. I have been trying for years to get the photo experts to look into this, (even the Dallas PD) but it always goes back to the debate of the North Knoll.

Tom Wilson some years ago did look into it and he did state, to me and others, he felt that somebody was at that location, but it needed more work. Shortly after that he died. I ask Jack long ago about the photo, but he said he failed to see anyone there but never to my knowledge did any extensive work on it.

Seems everybody wants to stay clear of that photo. Makes me wonder Why. Perhaps, if it is proven someone is there, then some researchers will have to retract their words and their works. Heaven forbid that. They are the X-Spurts and their livelyhood depends on what they have had to say in the past and their credibility would then be in question. Thanks again Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Tosh...Yes, Tom did extensive work on Cancellare but would never share it

with either you, me nor Peter Lemkin. He said he saw a "person" where the shadow

of the forked tree is on the grass (not where you said you were located near the steps).

I did many hours of darkroom work trying to find you or ANYBODY in the Cancellare

photo. I told Tom and Peter (and perhaps you) that I COULD FIND NOBODY THERE.

That does not mean that there was nobody there...just that I could not find anyone.

I do not say I see things when I do not.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reply Jack. Long time no hear. Hope your well.

I was told by Tom; quote"..I did find somebody in the shadows near the fork in the tree, in the grass not far from the steps..." (grass behind the steps) I asked him if he would share that with me and others. He said 'NO! I have more work to do. I have found another person where you said you thought a shooter was on the parking lot above the truck.."

I contacted you about that time and asked you if you had done any work on the picture and told you about the other shooter Tom had said he found. I was under the impression you already knew that from Tom.

I was told by you and others, that you could not find anyone there, but you needed a better picture. I said, I would try and get a better copy or perhaps the Negative. I later found out that the negative had been lost (?) by life magazine a long time ago. That was the end of that. That was about the time when I got tied in with the WRONG type people due to my ignorance of which I am now sorry. Thanks anyway. I respect your work and dedication. Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Tosh. Peter Lemkin furnished me and Tom with a very expensive 11x14 print

he bought from LIFE. He got very mad at Tom because Tom refused to return the

print to him. It may have been the same print I used, because I think Peter only

allowed me to photocopy it, not keep it. Do you ever hear from Peter any more?

He spent years trying to prove your story true.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack: Peter spent years trying to wrap my story into his concepts of what he thought happen.., like most others I have been associated with over the years. I have refused to become part of that type of "one sided" closed research.. Peter's project with me started out concerning "The Cuban area, and 'Black Operations, of the time..,but changed into JFK and became an obsession with him. I pulled out of his project. Others then came to me with their private specialized projects that they wanted me to confirm. I would not, or could not.., and therefore "I do not know what I was talking about". (their quotes)

I was the one who said I was there at that location in 1964 to Scott Warrner, Denver FBI, long before researchers knew of the photo.., in fact the FBI showed me a copy and ask where I was, which I pointed it out to them. I find there is a lot of twisting of facts as to who said, they said and etc.. I am trying to stay out of all that and take the 'POP Shots, thrown at me.. It is difficult. Some have so much time and money into this JFK research, that they refuse to be "OBJECTIVE" and opened minded to ALL possibilities... Thanks again...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

P>S> to previous post for Jack:

I did talk to Peter a few months ago. He was overseas. It seems he lost all and the government did a number on him. (his statements) Pete is an O.K person.., just in my opinion got caught up in the Web of confussion and lost his objectivity... He seems to be happy now that he is no longer engaged in any of this.. (My observations after our talk). All his files were lost or taken by the government, IRS, and law suits, ect... strange if what he was working on was no threat... ???? Tosh