Chris Davidson

Chris, what date is the Life issue that has that photo?

____________

Some thoughts::

People who wear glasses find that using things with other lenses like cameras, binoculars and telescopes difficult as the eye piece has to be separately focused to suit their particular sight. It can be, as the side by side photo I posted of Zap indicates, that he looked over the top of the camera. Otherwise, if he didn't do that and looked through the eyepiece with his glasses on then the eye piece is a distance away from his face. This (either of those situations) could explain the apparent corona visible on Zapruder as the eye piece is also a projector. If light enters it from behind the camera it projects that light forward. In this instance towards Betzner.

This helps to locate the eye piece, and hence, depending on whether Z looked over the camera when filming (which could account for him not centering the limo very well.) it then locates the hat.

_____________

Here Betzner photographs Zap and vice versa. Does not being able to see B well mean he was not there?

John,

the issue is November 24, 1967.

Bill pointed out the top of the black hat for a comparison. I agree with that.

I also see the brim of that hat.

I see a black hat and just below, two dark circles which appear to be eyes.

Where's the rest of this person's face?

If you tell me he has a camera up to his face, where's the camera and his black arm sleeve that come up to his face holding the partial black camera housing? The rest of his suit is black.

Instead, we have this somewhat transparent area cutting diagonally across the middle of his face.

The body doesn't fit with the hat.

chris

Bill,

One more item.

Perhaps you can provide a face and glasses for Zapruder in this Betzner?

As I stated earlier to John, and you pointed out previously, that is the top of his hat. I agree

Where would his eyes and glasses be in relation to his hat?

Where's the camera in front of his face?

chris

Bill, the scaling I did. I scanned the magazine at 100%. What do you want me to use as the size?

You are joking - right? You can't just take two different pictures of someone taken from different angles and distances from the camera and overlay them on top of one another and expect to have a meaningful overlay example. Unbelievable!

Bill,

If that's the case, then all the comparisons supplied with the white shirted man in Wiegman are invalid.

And I guess that's not light through trees, but a person after all.

Yes, you can take photos from different angles and positions and compare. It's called 3Dimensional Registration.

I ask again, please supply your versions.

chris

Chris,

Please do not take my post the wrong way.The only reason I asked the question,is because I believe that there are several images blended together.Now,please don`t think that all I ever did in life was follow around the Grateful Dead & consume large amounts of mind altering drugs.I assure you that is not the case.

Although there are not many images that are clearly visable,I believe that there might be several that are blended together.

I would like to take this time and ask you,how many hats do you believe you can see in that whole picture?These can be "any" kind of hats,they just can not be visors or beanies.

I will anxiously await your answer.

Michael,

I see one dark hat atop the black-suited man, whose body it does not belong to.

If you see others, please specify.

chris

Here is Bronson at 1200DPI, 100% same scanner.

Do with it what you want.

Here's my result.

chris

Chris,

I studied the photo that you posted (the second down on the page) and wanted to ask you if you added,or changed any images in the photo just for kicks? Please excuse my lack of ability to recognize something that might be very obvious to others.

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

This is a hi res scan from the 67 Life Magazine.

Who's filming?

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

This is not the same LOS as wiegman, but this Cabluck image gives us a good indication as to how much sky was visible through the trees.

The sky area visible seems to corrolate with the wiegman image.

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

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

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

IMO right reasoning, wrong blotches. My suggestion(gif):: (rip and compare if gif's not clear) the jumping square is yours, the blue mine

EDIT:: I've reread your post a few times and perhaps we already agree on the blotch and you're pointing out what you previously thought? Anyway, on the right track I think.

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

Quite right, Chris, the way the light spots move in the background as the cameras move is an important ingredient in fully understanding what's going on.

The background and items closer shift in predictable ways if one knows the filming location. So that helps to say which items are in front etc. (think Parallax)

The flower photo by Peter in 'some pics' is perhaps helpful.

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

FWIW.....Here's my analysis of the white shirted man.....I stand to be corrected if my locations are in error.

Duncan

Duncan, thanks for supplying us with an alternative view and supporting photos.

When I get home, I'll study it more in depth.

chris

Chris,

Here are a few of my enhancements of the original you posted yesterday.

I think this may be a person and that he is holding some sort of spherical object

- perhaps an old style ( by today's standards) camera flashgun?

You know the type like a big dish with the flashbulb in the centre.

(See the conical shape in front of the main figure).

The flashgun may be attached to a camera as was - I think - the technology in 1963.

Is it possible that there is a figure standing behind him to his left or is this just an illusion?

Your enhancements have achieved more detail than mine.

I think I have gone as close as is possible with this image.

I hope these images are of some interest and perhaps even of some help.

Feel free to work on these if you wish. I also recommend you get PhotoZoom

which is IMO invaluable for this sort of graphic enhancement.

Keep 'interpreting photos', Chris! Right on!

Regards,

EBC

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

What a dolt! One frame is totally black, with nobody on the pedestal. BLACKED OUT, NADA, NOTHING, NOBODY.

Another frame shows a man and a woman doing the cha-cha-cha. TWO PEOPLE NOT ZAPPY AND SITZY.

It is called photo alteration, dummy.

Miller cannot seem to comprehend.

Jack

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

EBC

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

Mark,

I got up on the pedestal with my B/H 414 and shot about 5 rolls of film. At no point did I ever move my feet. The tendency is to set your feet in a comfortable position, then pivot from the waist which allows you to cover the top of Elm St. to the underpass.

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

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

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

Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall.

chris

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

EBC

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