Chris Davidson

Here is Bronson at 1200DPI, 100% same scanner. Do with it what you want. Here's my result. chris

John, What I posted was directly from Life magazine, I scanned it at 1200 DPI with Descreening for a 133LPI magazine which is what I supplied to the thread. I tried without descreening it, but the moire effect degrades it even more. If you have specific instructions for an alternative method of scanning with a desktop scanner, please advise. I do this at work, so the earliest I could post would be Monday afternoon. Bill, the scaling I did. I scanned the magazine at 100%. What do you want me to use as the size? Michael, I haven't changed anything in the photo except the contrast/color balance. Their is a green cast to the original scan, but apply some contrast and that cleans up pretty well. That's why I supplied the original scan and invited other's to do their own research. I also scanned this about a year ago at(200DPI) on an Agfa ArcusII, which does a much better job than what we use now, but those have been eliminated from work. If your interested in that scan, please ask and I would be more than happy to supply it. Let me say just looking at the magazine by natural eye, the hat as I call it, is clearly visible. Check for yourself, I believe I resized John's photo of Zapruder at 40% and layed it over the Betzner I supplied. I have 4 different scanned versions of what I supplied, but in reality, they all appear about the same quality. Once again, I am supplying this forum with the best material I have. If there is something of better quality out there, PLEASE POST. thanks chris

From 2003 Thanks Duncan, I'll work on Moorman also, and see what we get. John, Do you agree that's a hat and eyes or glasses in the Betzner I supplied? If yes, where is the camera? If no, what is it that looks like a hat/eyes/glasses? chris

John, Here's another comparison. The hat in the original does not go with the body. In the Zapruder photo you supplied, now part of the animation, notice Zapruder's shoulder height in comparison to Sitzman's, that looks good. But that doesn't come near the rest of the body in Betzner. chris

A few more questions: Is Zapruder wearing a hat? If so, please point out his hat in this one? His Face? Where do his shoulders end and neck/head begin? Compare to Sitzman's left shoulder joining her neck. thanks chris

Robin, Peter's photo which is part of the animation is much closer to Wiegman's position. (Relation of pergola to pedestal corner) check Cabluck. Where's all that light in Peter's photo? thanks chris

Sorry, original scan included. Create your own contrast. chris

Is there another person on the pedestal in Betzner? Please follow the right arm of the man in the black suit when it ends at his hand. Vertical Red lines That face does not belong to the dark suit. There is also a black hat in there, which does belong to the black suit. This is a hi res scan from the 67 Life Magazine. Who's filming? chris

Is there another person on the pedestal in Betzner? Please follow the right arm of the man in the black suit when it ends at his hand. Vertical Red lines That face does not belong to the dark suit. It belongs with the horizontal red stripes in the shape of a dress. Just take a look at the shape of the bottom of Sitzman's dress. There is also a black hat in there, which does belong to the black suit. This is a hi res scan from the 67 Life Magazine. Who's filming? chris

John, I follow what you are saying. But how does the light area in Peter's photo, become the pants/shadow area in Wiegman? thanks chris

John, Are you indicating that what you have circled is the white shirt man area, because of Parallax? I believe there is a way to line up photos, shot from different angles with common elements. (3 Dimensional Registration). Since I don't possess this software, I used what I believe an anchor point in the (somewhat) center of these photos. The tree. Earlier, I described the Cabluck photo was taken from a bus. Yet the difference in the location of the light spot is minimal, compared to others taken on the ground. Peter's photo and the Wiegman photo appear to be taken down near the street at ground level. Whoever took Peter's photo was to the left of Wiegman's position. (Relation of Stemmons sign to tree) I found what I thought to be my white shirt guy. The problem: If Peter's guy is to the left of Wiegman, shouldn't that white shirt area also move left and not towards the pergola. And the light spot you circled, I assume indicating possibly my white shirt guy, is within the parameters of Parallax, compared to the bus/ground scenario. thanks, chris

Here are photos that are the closest in location to Wiegman's frame as I have. Their is a consistant light area coming through the trees that's common to each, except Wiegman's. The light STARTS at the 2nd lowest opening in the pergola and RISES. Cabluck's photo, (boy running) was taken while he was riding a bus(higher elevation) so that light area dips a bit lower which is correct. The white shirt in Wiegman /light spot, depending on what you believe, ENDS at the 2nd opening and drops. They are not the same. I do not see other light in this area to create the appearance of a man in white shirt and black pants. If someone does, please point it out. Duncan, the closest I came to the image is from the Couch film, which is the picture in the upper right. The angle on that is much further down Elm, and the image is alot higher than would be expected. chris

Duncan, thanks for supplying us with an alternative view and supporting photos. When I get home, I'll study it more in depth. chris

Thanks Eugene, I will study them more closely after work. I do have PhotoZoom Pro, but I think the technology that PhotoRetouchPro uses does a better job, which is why I have chosen it. I will however go back and use Zoom again, to see if I can create a difference. chris

Here's a different one. Looks like that sunlighted white shirt has started to lean a little. chris

Jack, would you like for me to go back and start putting up the things you have said about NO ONE BEING ON THE PEDESTAL? That's right ... using those blurry frames was the holy grail for you to suggest that all the assassination images showing Zaprudert and Sitzman are altered. Only now that I have shown you that Sitzman and Zapruder are on the pedestal in some of the Wiegman frames - the first thing that comes out of your mouth is that some one altered the Wiegman frames to make them appear. In other words - your solution for not being accurate is to merely claim everything is altered. It is for that very reason that Groden tells people that you have brought more harm to the research community with your ridiculous claims. Bill Miller Bill, 1. I don't recall you posting any of YOUR Wiegman frames, not including the one I have supplied. 2. Please direct us to where Z/Sitz are in YOUR Wiegman frames. I'm still waiting for an original Wiegman frame from you, that will put mine to shame, then we can resolve this, I can admit I'm wrong, and we'll go on. Until then, at the least there is a woman in front of a (man with a white shirt and black pants on). Spin it the way you want, the photo tells it all. chris

Eugene, here is the original, taken from the Discovery Channel special "Murder in Dealy Plaza". I believe the one your using might be from a Groden version. I use Photoshop and PhotoRetouchPro on the Mac. Any other questions please ask. The process I'll explain later. Not very involved. Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris + Chris, Thanks For the original. You are right, at a cursory glance I can see something new in your original which is not visible in my Wiegman frame. I will do some enhancement on this and see if I can bring out more detail. However, can you tell me why there should be a difference between the Groden version and this Discovery Channel version. Finally, a minor point but would it be possible to post an unskewed version of the original? Regards, EBC Hi Eugene, Sorry it took so long to get back to this. Here is the process that I used: 1. Exported the frame using Quicktime Pro with No Compression applied. 2. Used PhotoRetouch Pro to upsize it about 1000%, using CDC 4X technology. CDC 4x Technology description: Alongside the conventional interpolation algorithms, bi-cubic, bi-linear and nearest neighbor, PhotoRetouch Pro offers an additional method, called CDC 4x. The "4x" indicates that it is designed for factor 4 enlargements (i.e. 200% horizontally and 200% vertically). CDC 4x is an enlargement technology, similar to a slide in a slide projector: the farther the projector is placed from the screen, the larger the image will be. Yet, it remains the same image. Images enlarged with CDC 4x retain the original pixels, thus they retain the same look and feel as the original, which is simply enlarged. This enlargement technique does not generate noise and does not result in jagged edges. Images are enlarged but so are defects. Two consecutive CDC 4x enlargements generally yield excellent results if the original image quality is high. 3. Used PhotoRetouchPro's Process tool "Backlight Enhancer" with a "Strength" of about 15 and "Luminosity" around 12. 4.Take into photoshop and used Levels 5.In Levels, take the midtone slider arrow and move to the left til it touches the shadow slider arrow. (Picture will look white) hit O.K. 6.Back to Levels, take shadow slider and move it right to start creating your contrast. That's it. The numbers may vary slightly as I did this about a year ago, but pretty sure the process is the same. Attached is the Quicktime version saved as a PNG , a screenshot PNG, and one that's a result of the process I just described. I think it would be better if I just email you the Quicktime original, because when it's exported, it adds the PICT extension and the forum does not allow this type of attachment. If it gives you problems let me know , and I will just email to you. hope this helps, and any more questions please feel free to ask. chris

Chris, there is an important thing you are missing because you do not think in terms of the 'angle of perspective'. From the view that someone like Betzner had - Zapruder will appear side by side with Sitzman. Bronson and Nix have a different angle of view to the pedestal, so Zapruder will be more between Sitzman and the Bronson or Nix cameras. So many times I have witnessed these types of mistakes made because you guys never think about the angle at which any particular camera is filming from. Look at the photo posted in response #63 which shows Sitzman on the pedestal. Look towards the corner of Elm and Houston in that photo - can you not see how Zapruder and Sitzman would look to be standing side by side from that angle. Now consider the angle at which Zapruder would have rotated his body to so to see Nix - cannot you not see how from that LOS that Sitzman would appear to be more behind Zapruder than beside him. This is not rocket science, but thin gs that we all should have learned in a grade school art class when discussing "perspective". Also, if you watch a good copy of the Nix film ... you can see Zapruder twisting his body just as you did. in fact, if you had given any thought to have done it - you would have had someone take a photo of you on the pedestal with a Sitzman stand-in and at the same time had two photos of you taken - one from the Betzner location and the other from the Nix location and then compared that to the images being discussed here. peoples inability to carry out an in-depth test study when given the chance does not equate alteration. Bill Here's another comparison between Z/Sitz by Jack White, from the Betzner photo. Was Zapruder wearing a tie? I think it was a bow tie and white shirt. chris

Zapruder and Sitzman are so close to looking side by side from Wiegman's angle of perspective that it is silly to even debate it. The important thing is that I believe we can all see Sitzman's dress in the frame I lightened, thus any frame not showing those two on the pedestal can only be a result of a B&W image compromised by motion blur which is what I have said from day one. Your so-called white shirt is the Dallas sky seen through the opening in the tree foliage beyond the pedestal. That same opening can be seen over Sitzman's shoulder and from a different angle in the Willis photo. Is there not a similar view in the DCA film where a camera car came down the street filming in that direction? If so, then that would be the closest to the angle that Wiegman viewed the pedestal as he filmed. Your photo interpretation skills are really poor when you cannot see the obvious and apply that to the other assassination images that do not show a white shirted man standing on the pedestal/wall/ or anywhere else in that vicinity. That's your interpretation Bill, Let's try this for ours. Of which I agree with Jack 99%. The only difference between what Jack has summized and me is: I see him holding something black in his left hand and not her arm. Her left arm extends below his and grabs his waist. Thanks Jack

Maybe lightening the image will help people see Sitzman's dress against the background ............. the bottom yellow arrow is pointing at Sitzman's light colored legs. As I have said all along - it was the result of a poor B&W film filled with motion blur that makes seeing Zapruder and Sitzman so difficult. If anyone would just go into the 6th floor Museum and as Gary Mack to show them frames from the best scans of that film ... they would see these two people even better than what is shown on the forum. People like Jack have been to the plaza many times and I would like to know what his excuse was for not taking a moment to go see the Museum's Wiegman film rather than spending so many years pushing a ridiculous claim that could have been double checked with little to no effort on his part. Bill, you see Zapruder in front of Sitzman in this photo. That's fine. Who's behind her in a white top and black pants. Surely your not saying that what you have designated as Zapruder in front of her, is easier to see than what's behind her. chris

Eugene, here is the original, taken from the Discovery Channel special "Murder in Dealy Plaza". I believe the one your using might be from a Groden version. I use Photoshop and PhotoRetouchPro on the Mac. Any other questions please ask. The process I'll explain later. Not very involved. Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris + Chris, Thanks For the original. You are right, at a cursory glance I can see something new in your original which is not visible in my Wiegman frame. I will do some enhancement on this and see if I can bring out more detail. However, can you tell me why there should be a difference between the Groden version and this Discovery Channel version. Finally, a minor point but would it be possible to post an unskewed version of the original? Regards, EBC Eugene, Sorry about the rotated version. I did that right before leaving for work, which is where I'm at now. I'm sure it's rotated to fit the Betzner comparison I did. I will post it in PNG form when I get home, which will be after work. Why the difference between Groden and this version? I have no idea what the original sources from either are. If somebody can find that out, that would be awesome. All I do is try to work with the best material I have acquired. If there is a better frame of this out there, I ask that somebody please post it. But until they do, please refrain from telling me my posting is crap, while describing another version which they will not reveal to others. Take the MONEY out of this, and maybe the truth will come out. chris

Eugene, here is the original, taken from the Discovery Channel special "Murder in Dealy Plaza". I believe the one your using might be from a Groden version. I use Photoshop and PhotoRetouchPro on the Mac. Any other questions please ask. The process I'll explain later. Not very involved. Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris

Chris, there is an important thing you are missing because you do not think in terms of the 'angle of perspective'. From the view that someone like Betzner had - Zapruder will appear side by side with Sitzman. Bronson and Nix have a different angle of view to the pedestal, so Zapruder will be more between Sitzman and the Bronson or Nix cameras. So many times I have witnessed these types of mistakes made because you guys never think about the angle at which any particular camera is filming from. Look at the photo posted in response #63 which shows Sitzman on the pedestal. Look towards the corner of Elm and Houston in that photo - can you not see how Zapruder and Sitzman would look to be standing side by side from that angle. Now consider the angle at which Zapruder would have rotated his body to so to see Nix - cannot you not see how from that LOS that Sitzman would appear to be more behind Zapruder than beside him. This is not rocket science, but thin gs that we all should have learned in a grade school art class when discussing "perspective". Also, if you watch a good copy of the Nix film ... you can see Zapruder twisting his body just as you did. in fact, if you had given any thought to have done it - you would have had someone take a photo of you on the pedestal with a Sitzman stand-in and at the same time had two photos of you taken - one from the Betzner location and the other from the Nix location and then compared that to the images being discussed here. peoples inability to carry out an in-depth test study when given the chance does not equate alteration. Bill Bill, since Nix and Bronson were somewhat close to each other while filming the pedestal, let me know where Zapruder is in this photo, compared to what you supplied earlier. Once again, I guess my perspective just sucks. But then again, show me Zapruder filming and Sitzman holding onto him. chris

Why not measure the top of Zapruder's hat with Sitzman's face, and then figure out why his body is not connected to his head, unless he is a giraffe. chris

Someone has suggested I post better quality photos. Try this one. Oops! I think were missing someone. chris