Tripple Underpass

[Shanet Clark]

Jack, Tim

Hey I posted but it got lost in the $#%@storm!

Jack, you're opinion is valued, but you can't expect us to

totally discount a recurrent evidentiary image just because

you think its red herring!

Whats the Deal with the train, I wondered what the Bright squares

behind the profile man were.

Could you calmly state your reason for believing Cartop man was

a retouched addition. I fail to see why the government would

erase a gunman from a film only to put another one in a few yard away!

Also, please use your delete cursor and tighten up

I spent ten minutes writing a response and by the time I posted

I was thirty feet up from where I started...

Shanet

[Jack White]

So plainly, to twist the point, you've reverted again to the idea of the gunman "at the car." That is the old analysis with which I take exception, because I absolutely grant that no one as far back as a car, regardless of how closely it was parked, could have made a shot that would clear the retaining wall. The car was not between the fence and the pergola and the classic gunman image is in front of the westernmost pergola wall. This would move him far closer to the retaining wall, removing the 9' height calculation. I don't get how we keep going back to the gunman atop the car stuff, unless this is retro analysis rather than progressive, insightful analysis. And once we go retro, we may as well all pack up and go home because everything's already known that will ever be known, right? I am trying to communicate a thoughtful and uncommon perspective which requires the separation of the car and the gunman. The car is in the parking lot, regardless of how close, and the gunman image is in front of the pergola wall. Bill's own photo a few posts earlier with the vertical red line shows people at the steps of the pergola who clearly would have no problem with sufficient height to clear the retaining wall.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have not REVERTED again to anything. Researchers I know have ALWAYS called

this image the CARTOP GUNMAN. That is the term Dick Sprague and I used in

talking to the HSCA staff about the image. Many other researchers use the term.

Most everyone sees it as maybe a gunman LEANING ON TOP OF A CAR.

As far as your theory that the image is a gunman IN FRONT OF THE CAR,

that is plainly insupportable for many reasons.

I do not know a single researcher who uses CLASSIC GUNMAN. That is a term

invented by the HSCA. They did not get it from me or Dick. But then the

HSCA also believed in THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY. I do not go by anything

they say. Should I?

Jack

I have made my opinion VERY CLEAR! There was NO "classic" nor "cartop" gunman. It

is a combination of light spots on the pergola and clever red herring retouching. Here

is a good color copy.

Since there was NO GUNMAN (classic or cartop), it is pointless to discuss "him". "He"

did not exist.

Very simple.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Carroll]

Cut me some slack for using the quarter century old HSCA terminology. We're not all the same age or of the same experience and expertise. It is not a reasonable point to take issue with. Do a search and see which terminology appears from any search engine.

I too struggled for years with the admitted appearance that the gunman is atop the car. After "years" of studying it, I realized that the gunman image couldn't be atop a car and in front of the pergola. That's when I began my re-evaluation.

Tim

Edited October 26, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Tim Carroll]

As far as your theory that the image is a gunman IN FRONT OF THE CAR,

that is plainly insupportable for many reasons.

Jack

Jack:

How is it plainly insupportable that a shooter could have been up near the steps to the pergola? Did you spend years studying that possibility?

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Jack, Tim

Hey I posted but it got lost in the $#%@storm!

Jack, you're opinion is valued, but you can't expect us to

totally discount a recurrent evidentiary image just because

you think its red herring!

Whats the Deal with the train, I wondered what the Bright squares

behind the profile man were.

Could you calmly state your reason for believing Cartop man was

a retouched addition.  I fail to see why the government would

erase a gunman from a film only to put another one in a few yard away!

Also, please use your delete cursor and tighten up

I spent ten minutes writing a response and by the time I posted

I was thirty feet up from where I started...

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I stated it very clearly several times:

1. Itek was correct...part of the image is sunlight spots on the pergola.

2. If part of the "man" was sunlight spots, "he" did not exist, despite opinions.

3. The Nix film is radically retouched in this area and others.

4. The image of the MOVING TRAIN WINDOWS was added. There was no moving train.

This is territory which was put to bed many years ago. I understand

that newcomers may not understand it all...but I was told by Mr. Simkin

that there were students here who would like to benefit from the experience

of those who have studied this case 40+ years. Instead I find that many

do not want to learn, but to challenge and debate. I have studied this for many

years, and the issue of the CARTOP GUNMAN is settled unless proved otherwise.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

Jack,

How could it ever be "proved otherwise" if the old guys here proclaim these issues "put to bed?" According to the guys who managed things so far, Oswald did it by himself. Jack, you should understand this, since by your admission, you spent years of interest on this gunman image. Even if I'm not a student or newcomer, please indulge the passion of my interest, which you should understand, as well as the fact that a declaration from an expert on the fly will not quench the interest.

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

PS As soon as I posted the above, I see that Jack has posted again on the "cartop" point. The cartop point was the very thing that misled researchers so many years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was not misled many years ago. I have never "believed in" the

cartop gunman image. I was one of the first to say that I did not

believe it was a man. ITEK was correct. It is light spots, not a man.

There IS A CAR in the parking lot, and many thought a gunman

was leaning on top of it. For a couple of years, I considered that to

be a possibility...but after much study concluded it was part

illusion and part retouching. You are concluding things about my

studies which are totally untrue. Please stick to facts and quit

speculating.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Shanet Clark]

Jack, Tim

Could you calmly state your reason for believing Classic Gunman was

a retouched addition.  I fail to see why the government would

erase a gunman from a film only to put another one in a few yard away!

Shanet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I stated it very clearly several times:

1. Itek was correct...part of the image is sunlight spots on the pergola.

2. If part of the "man" was sunlight spots, "he" did not exist, despite opinions.

3. The Nix film is radically retouched in this area and others.

4. The image of the MOVING TRAIN WINDOWS was added. There was no moving train.

This is territory which was put to bed many years ago. I understand

that newcomers may not understand it all...but I was told by Mr. Simkin

that there were students here who would like to benefit from the experience

of those who have studied this case 40+ years. Instead I find that many

do not want to learn, but to challenge and debate. I have studied this for many

years, and the issue of the CARTOP GUNMAN is settled unless proved otherwise.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack, my friend

Which is it Retouching or Sunspots?

Claiming both waters down both arguments.

John' Forum does have some totally unknowing young students here,

but Tim and I are not in that category. We don't accept everything from

the 1970's as gospel. This "territory" has not been "put to bed" at all.

You seem to think "Learning" is a one way street where we passively

accept some authority's opinion. Actually, real learning is all about

"challenge and debate" Your pettiness about the jargon is also a sign

of a closed mind. The House committee called it a Classic Gunman,

and that's what we call it on this Forum because its a clear

picture of a gunman in the classic firing position.

You don't have a patent on the name that you can enforce....sheesh!

You didn't answer my questions

Which is it, sunspots or re-touching?

What possible motive could the agencies have to pencil in a gunman

if they were committed to a lone gunman from the rear?

Your story makes no sense. The evidence shows a gunman.

The fence is higher than the wall, so the car isn't behind the fence and

peaking over the wall....its behind the wall in front of the fence,

(Maybe its a GETAWAY CAR???)

I've been looking at this stuff since the mid 1970's too, and I am glad

to be expressing the opinion, along with Tim, that it might be important that:

HEY THERE"S A MAN WITH A GUN IN THESE PICTURES!!!

Shanet

[Bill Miller]

I have made my opinion VERY CLEAR! There was NO "classic" nor "cartop" gunman. It

is a combination of light spots on the pergola and clever red herring retouching. Here

is a good color copy.

Since there was NO GUNMAN (classic or cartop), it is pointless to discuss "him". "He"

did not exist.

Very simple.

Jack

Jack - you are correct about the car issue.

Now about those light spots you called "retouched". You know Moorman's photo was an instant photo and it was filmed for TV less than 30 minutes following the assassination. The photo at that time had not been out of Moorman and Hill's control. With that being said and with the idea that the light spots are still visible in later Nix frames and in Bell's film as Tim pointed out - why do you say it is 'retouching' seen on the Nix film when Moorman's genuine unaltered photo shows no one standing there?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

1. Itek was correct...part of the image is sunlight spots on the pergola.

That's correct. The alleged head and left arm shape are sun spots on the wall. The horizontal left arm shape is light showing from under the RR car across the parking lot.

2. If part of the "man" was sunlight spots, "he" did not exist, despite opinions.

That's correct, as well. The fact that the exact same spot is seen in Moorman's photo proves no one was standing in front of that shelter wall near the steps leading into the doorway.

3. The Nix film is radically retouched in this area and others.

I have not a clue as to what is supposed to be retouched or how such a claim is justified.

4. The image of the MOVING TRAIN WINDOWS was added. There was no moving train.

Where are their moving train windows? The train is standing still - the same train is seen in the Bond photos. The only thing that was moving was Nix.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

There IS A CAR in the parking lot, and many thought a gunman

was leaning on top of it. For a couple of years, I considered that to

be a possibility...but after much study concluded it was part

illusion and part retouching.

Jack - why on earth would anyone retouch someone to make them appear to be an assassin? I mean if you admit that part of the illusion were sun spots, then something else made up the rest, so why retouch it at all, especially to make people think they see an assassin. What am I missing here?

[Jack White]

1. Itek was correct...part of the image is sunlight spots on the pergola.

That's correct. The alleged head and left arm shape are sun spots on the wall. The horizontal left arm shape is light showing from under the RR car across the parking lot.

2. If part of the "man" was sunlight spots, "he" did not exist, despite opinions.

That's correct, as well. The fact that the exact same spot is seen in Moorman's photo proves no one was standing in front of that shelter wall near the steps leading into the doorway.

3. The Nix film is radically retouched in this area and others.

I have not a clue as to what is supposed to be retouched or how such a claim is justified.

4. The image of the MOVING TRAIN WINDOWS was added. There was no moving train.

Where are their moving train windows? The train is standing still - the same train is seen in the Bond photos. The only thing that was moving was Nix.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Response to 3: In Nix, the entire area has been blacked-in, including the sky. (see attached)

Response to 4: Look at the second part of Nix IN MOTION. The train windows move. I discovered

this in the 70s using a 16mm copy of the film provided by Penn Jones. I am relying on memory

from 30+ years ago, and have not checked the film lately.

[Bill Miller]

Response to 3: In Nix, the entire area has been blacked-in, including the sky. (see attached)

Jack - I have to question this observation of yours for a couple of reasons. Even in the Bond and other photos there is a certain amount of darke area seen over the fence because of the foliage. The elevation and direction the camera is pointed is also a factor IMO. Willis and Bond are looking more in a westward direction whereas Niz is looking in a more Northwestern direction which carries with it a slightly different background and clustering the of foliage. Nix also has his camera zoomed in and I bet if he had panned back - the sky above the dence foliage would have been visible. There is also the filter factor that Nix failed to use on his lens that made these areas so dark. Groden also told me that the film we see today is a copy he had made where he did a process called "blocking" which made the shaded area so black looking, too.

Response to 4: Look at the second part of Nix IN MOTION. The train windows move. I discovered

this in the 70s using a 16mm copy of the film provided by Penn Jones. I am relying on memory

from 30+ years ago, and have not checked the film lately.

I just looked at Groden's copy of the Nix film and I cannot see the train windows move one inch from the shelter wall which I used for a reference point. Nix pans his camera around and the windows stretch and change shape slightly which makes them look as if they moved, but when the next clear frame comes up - the windows are just as they were before from what I can see.

[Tim Carroll]

There was much of value in what Jack had to say, and before the thread turned into a fast and furious storm of overlapping, disconnected posts, I had also said that the analysis by Bill with the vertical red line at the pergola was constructive. An image cast upon a wall by a single light source (in this case the sun), will reveal the same patterns of light and shadow despite the angle of the view.

But now we have a whole new ballgame with Jack's assertion that his years of studying this image were never based on the possibility of a gunman but rather on his assertion that there is significant film alteration. Jack's posting of the following photo with caption is quite interesting:

His caption reads: "After years of studying it, I concluded that the image is a red herring, added by the retouchers who blacked in the knoll area in Nix. It is no more a gunman than that is Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal. The Nix film is CLEARLY altered. If altered, why waste time debating what it 'shows'?"

So Jack is not only talking about a blackened area, he is asserting that the film is altered with regard to Zapruder and Sitzman - that they are no more there than a gunman. That is a remarkable statement indeed!

I understand that there is an issue over what happened to the original Nix. I have asked Gary Mack about this. My position is that proof of film alteration is significant rather than a basis to disregard, as is the case with the autopsy photos. I have never stated any certainty that this represents a gunman, but I have and do state with confidence that this subject has not been dealt with adequately.

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll