Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 '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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 '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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 '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. Steven, quite a few in this thread alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 '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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 '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 Yes Jack I know the difference between side and back lighting..side light is 90 degrees or less, and Weigman was at least at 120 degrees, which makes it backlight. Its really pretty simple. You say no one is on the pedestal yet plain sight is Sitzman sitting on the ped in her tan dress, with her legs hanging over the edge. I suspect that Zapurder is leaning down placing his camera on the Pedestal as is written he did after he became dizzy after the shooting. He's the black blob besides Sitzman. And surely you know about the properties of film and the threshold of exposure ? You think it might apply here? Given that both people ont he pedestal had their shadow sides facing the Weigman camera, what zones do you suppose zapruders black suit or Sitzmans tan dress were in the Weigman photo and how does that compare to the threshold of exposure based on a camera exposure set for full sun? (you know the sunny 16 rule right?) I'll give you a hint. Most films have a threshold of exposure of about 4 to 5 stops under middle gray. The difference between a full sun exposure and open shade is 3-4 stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 '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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 '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 Nice post Jack, on this one you can clearly see Sitzman sitting on the pedestal with her back to the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 (edited) 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) Edited December 30, 2005 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 (edited) 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 Edited December 30, 2005 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 A careful look at these frames only relatively 'clear' (really as far as many other images go not clear at all) reveals a faint image of Zapruder in this particular frame in the process of jumping off, so yes, he is not on the pedestal, which does not mean that shortly before he was not standing on it. The last group of frames of the zfilm show the camera still running but not centered, rather indicating the camera is being lowered. A smooth continuation of this movement matches an intent/reaction leading to a fast 'dismount'. Jack, I respect the fact that you post clear descriptions of your ideas. This allows a proper critique. I am suggesting alternatives that within the accuracy possible here that I feel should be answered. If they can be answered there is a case. I don't seek to debunk you as a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Lamson says he sees Zapruder and Sitzman SITTING on the pedestal. Tell us if that is what you find. Thanks. Jack Good point, I didn't spot the addition to the post as I first responded. I don't see Sitzman sitting, I see what could be interpreted as such. I see faintly Zapruder in the process of jumping off. If it can be established he was holding the camera in his left hand and put his right hand on the edge to 'dismount' it would lend support to this. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 (edited) 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 Edited December 30, 2005 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 (edited) sometimes it's a matter of posting to fast in succession, causing flood protection to kick in. Also at times 'false' flood may occurr by the interest people have and multiple people are requesting access at same time. Taking it slow seems to help. I posted an image earlier showing Zapruder and Sitzman in color on the pedestal. Also in the Nix thread there is what seems to be reflections that pan to follow the Limousine. This is seen by careful scrutiny of many of these frames. Apart from this there is the zfilm itself and no doubt other photos will be posted or referred to. Apart from this there is all the verbal statements. Edited December 30, 2005 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 (edited) Lamson says he sees Zapruder and Sitzman SITTING on the pedestal. Tell us if that is what you find. Thanks. Jack Good point, I didn't spot the addition to the post as I first responded. I don't see Sitzman sitting, I see what could be interpreted as such. I see faintly Zapruder in the process of jumping off. If it can be established he was holding the camera in his left hand and put his right hand on the edge to 'dismount' it would lend support to this. 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. Clearly this is an exercise in subjectivity. None of these Weigman frames are worth a dang, at least not the net version. I usu ally dont like playing this game because it is subjective and no clear answer can be found. However I did work on two of the weigman frames posted and have put together some quick graphics to support "subjectivity" Rather than post here and I simply put them up on my webspace. www.infocusinc.net/sitzman/index.htm Edited December 30, 2005 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now