Chris Davidson

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. Is Sitzman the one showing leg in the frame? If she is, who is holding her in a white top and black bottom? And, if that is not his shoulder/arm which forms a human V shape in the color WHITE, what or who is that? Pretty easy to replicate that arm position. chris

Chris - The original Wiegman film will not show the kind of detail you are seeking because it is a film of very limited color tones so the eye will not separate shapes as well as a color film .... and it is severaly blurred to the point that distant objects all but disappear. What the film will do is allow someone to make out that there is someone on the pedestal in some of the better frames. I think that I may have the frame showing Sitzman's legs over the pedestal ... they are really blurred and her feet are not visible because of it, but her two light colored legs are there nevertheless. If I can find it - I will post it. Bill Please post some of the better frames. Bill/Mark, whose LIGHT COLORED LEGS are in front, in this photo. It doesn't matter if it's a B/W or color photo. Black is Black / White is White In this particular frame, not another frame, the person showing leg and wearing a dress, is in front. The person with a white shirt and black bottom is in back. Black and white create a very nice contrast break, as shown in this frame. Is it your view you can't distinguish people in this frame, I'm a little confused. chris

I think Chris is unable to understand the effects of motion blur. I invite him to go to the 6th floor Museum and see their superior copy of the Wiegman film and he will find that some of the less blurry frames do show signs of Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. One such frame that I have seen - shows Sitzman's legs, while streaked on film, hanging over the pedestal as she is sitting on it preparing to dismount. But until then, by all means keep playing around with the poorer degraded images and trying to figure out why things happen the way that they do. Bill The Wiegman frames are from "Murder in Dealy Plaza" in which Gary Mack from the 6th floor museum was directly involved. Are you telling me they used a different version? It's not from Groden there are no transistion frames. Mark, in the Wiegman frame, which one is Zapruder and which is Sitzman? Remember, Zapruder is in a dark suit with a dark hat, and Sitzman is in a tan dress with high heels. Bill, maybe Gary can supply us with a copy from the one in the museum. In other words, who's in front/back in Wiegman? Sure would like to see Sitzman's legs. chris

Chris, with all due rspect, but you have got to be one of the worst at interpreting what is in this photos. Where is your hippie in the Willis photo? How about the Bronson slide? How about Moorman's photo? How would this alleged person's size play out if you go by his assumed outline versus the distance he would be from the camera? All these things should be considered when getting onto something that you may think is a person in a photo. Bill Let me create another illusion. This time we'll compete against the clock. Picture is from the Wiegman film. Notice time designation. Animation is another Wiegman frame layered over Betzner. Betzner is for size/registration. Once again,notice the time in the animation. Wall and pergola, sized to fit. The 2 Wiegman frames are less than 2 seconds apart, even less, if you get rid of the interlaced frames. By coincidence,when we line up the pergola and wall, the people/blur in Wiegman, align perfectly with Z/Sitzman in Betzner. Are you telling this juror: 1. They got off the wall in less than 2 seconds. 2. They are not the same people. 3.They are the same people, his dark suit turned white. 3.They are an illusion. 4.That's not a white shirt. 5.They changed position's while filming. 7.Blurring and bad lighting/photography created the placement of this illusion. If it walks/talks like a duck. chris

I am not going to waste too much time on this for one's interpretation of the evidence is only as reliable as one's ability to follow it. However, Sitzman did wear her high heels and is caught in several photos or flim captures wearing them. Going from memory here ... open the first few pages of Groden's book "TKOAP" and he shows a small crop of Sitzman wearing those high heels, so to take the position that no woman wears them on slopes or pedestals is simply not accurate. In fact, there are post assassination photos showing women all over the knoll in high heels. The Paschall film shows Zapruder hopping off the pedestal after Sitzman dismounted it. Altgens 8 shows both of them together at that moment and Sitzman is taller because of her wearing those heels. The Bell film as I recall shows Zapruder walking away from Sitzman as she is standing at the pedestal. If Sitzman said that Abe walked away as she tood on the pedestal, then she misspoke or the interviewer heard it incorrectly. Created by Jack White: Thanks Jack. I will post some supporting material in awhile. chris

Chris, with all due rspect, but you have got to be one of the worst at interpreting what is in this photos. Where is your hippie in the Willis photo? How about the Bronson slide? How about Moorman's photo? How would this alleged person's size play out if you go by his assumed outline versus the distance he would be from the camera? All these things should be considered when getting onto something that you may think is a person in a photo. Bill Bill, what is in this photo, please describe what you see, as this is what I regard as one of the better posted copies/enhancements from Betzner. Remember too, your the one that saw Jesus without any input from me, so sometimes we do see the same thing. I'll just refer back to Wiegman and ask" Who is the person/person's on the wall? If your telling me it's not a person with a white shirt, I guess we'll have to leave it at that. But please explain what that is also, because it's not very blurry in that area of the photo. chris

Jack ... we have been through all this nonsense before, as well. Just as you can use the Bronson slide to show how Zapruder was holding the camera - you can use the Betzner and Willis photos to show that Sitzman was not waltzing around on the pedestal in Bronson's slide. You are having trouble understanding the shadow Zapruder has cast upon Sitzman ... which for some reason you think it is the shape of her body. To date - you are the only person who has failed to see your mistake that I am aware of. Bill Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess. Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem. Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass. It's not who you think it is. Please view at full size. thanks chris Chris...the small inset of the people on the pedestal is very sharp and clear...one of the best I have seen. Will you please post just this small ENHANCED inset at about two or three times bigger? I can no longer post images on the forum, so I may take what you post and do some analysis, which I can email you to post. Thanks for the good work! Jack Thanks Bernice, it's just a matter of time. Jack, here it is 4x larger. chris

Jack ... we have been through all this nonsense before, as well. Just as you can use the Bronson slide to show how Zapruder was holding the camera - you can use the Betzner and Willis photos to show that Sitzman was not waltzing around on the pedestal in Bronson's slide. You are having trouble understanding the shadow Zapruder has cast upon Sitzman ... which for some reason you think it is the shape of her body. To date - you are the only person who has failed to see your mistake that I am aware of. Bill Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess. Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem. Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass. It's not who you think it is. Please view at full size. thanks chris

It is little wonder why lone assassin believers call CT's "BUFFS". It is bad enough that one has the Zapruder film that somehow got in Zapruder's possession immediately following the assassination - and that every film and photo showing he and Sitzman on the pedestal show a man and a woman and not some Negro in a white shirt as someone foolishy stated, but now you raise a question as if it is some conspiracy that no one took a good clean film of them while they stood on the pedestal ... have I got that right? Below is a crop from the Willis photo as seen in Groden's book "TKOAP". If someone cannot make out that there is a man in a dark suit and a woman on the pedestal instead of it being Jesus, then they need to find some other part of the assassination to study because their interpretation skills "SUCK"! Then there is the 'Baghdad Bob Healy's' who wish to promote paranoia anywhere that they can and in this case they make claims that there is no proof that Zapruder or Sitzman were on the pedestal or were even in the plaza for all that matter. I recall this nonsense coming up over a year or two ago, so at that time I posted the clip showing Zapruder filming Sitzman from the rear as she talked with the Hester's near the bench near the eastmost shelter. That sequence was filmed before the motorcades arrival and most people have forgotten that it existed. As the clip runs - Sitzman in her black scarf and dress spins around and looks right at Zapruder's camera. But was she on the pedestal they ask? Well, some forum xxxxx like Healy will mention that there is no film or picture clearly showing that it was Zapruder on the pedestal. Well, dah ... Zapruder had a damned camera in front of his face, so how can there be such a clear image of him? They forget that the photographers who did get images of Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal were amateurs and the quality of their images are testimonial to this. The Willis and Betzner photos are not sharp when it comes to the stationary people along the north side of Elm Street ... is that Zapruder's fault? Then there is the occassional idiot that says that no one was on the pedestal, but then they have to be repeatedly reiminded that Moorman's photo shows the same two people on the pedestal that all the other films and photos show and that her photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the shooting, making alteration impossible that soon following the shooting. As I said before, Altgens 8 shows this man and woman with their backs to the camera as they leave the pedestal. But who is this mystery woman in the black scarf and dress ... well it was Sitzman and here she is being talked to near that pedestal ... the image is not photo studio quality, but does it have to be to see if it is Sitzman or not. As I posted to 'Baghadad Bob Healy' over a year ago - go get a copy of Trask book called "National Nightmare" and see these images ... he obviously hasn't bothered to research the matter, but maybe trolling takes up too much of his time. It's the mentality that if one leaves the lights off - he or she can continue to pretend that the hat and coat on the rack is an intruder. In that same book is a lightened version of a photo taken of the people inside the shelter and if that is not Zapruder's face, then he had a twin brother. I might add once more that these clowns that keep trying to make it appear that there is no proof that Zapruder and Sitzman were ever on the pedestal are the same jokers who have never bothered to get Trask's book, have never bothered to check with the Hester's when they had the chance to see who Beatrice and Charles claimed were on the pedestal and who they had met with in the shelter immediately after the shooting, they never bothered to check with Jean Hill or Mary Moorman who by the evening of the assassination had seen Zapruder on TV and could say whether he was the man on the pedestal, and the list goes on. They do not address how it is that Zapruder's family home movies are on the original film just prior to the plaza film. Half of the time these same jokers will claim Zapruder and Sitzman were oin the pedestal so to promote film editing with the "other film" and the other half of the time they say no one was on the pedestal. It's the same old sorry assed research that led to Altgens 6 being said to be genuine while claiming that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street. Maybe us merely being called "BUFFS" is letting us off easy. Bill Miller Thank you for the Willis photo. It appears he is filming with one arm. Or is that another tree branch? How many arms is he using in Moorman to film? Do other medium have him filming with one ARM? Amazing, what a great job he did holding the B/H 414 with one hand while filming, has vertigo, holds onto Sitzman with guns firing away. I have that model camera, the tendency is to hold it with 2 hands while filming, to steady it against your eye. But then again, I created a white shirted man on the wall and Jesus in the sky. chris

Well David ... have you even watched the Wiegman film? Compare my image to the frames of the Wiegman film and see how far they are off. Bill, Why is it that there is not a CLEAR photo/movie of Z/Sitzman ON THE WALL. Everyone had a bad photo day. I believe the enlarged photo of the white shirt man on the wall and Jesus, show much more a resemblance/detail of people than any of Z/Sitz. Hopefully you can show something enlarged with detail from any photo, that clearly shows them on the wall. What I've seen, there isn't any to distinguish what they are. chris

The animation is 4 consecutive Wiegman frames. The photo is the upper left corner enhanced. He sure looks like that white shirted guy on the wall. Appears to have something up to his face, could he be filming? It's not Zapruder. chris Edited: Perhaps that's a gun in his hand and not a camera. Chris, you must be joking! One would have a better chance of pushing that off as an image of Jesus. Do you have any idea as to how large someone would be to be that much further back from the camera that location is compared to the pedestal that Zapruder stood on? You have taken a large opening in the tree foliage and by observing some overhanging branches - you have come up with a figure. I am sure that if you go back and consider its size in relation to the distance from the camera - you'll have to admit that its just an illusion. One should treat themselves to going to the 6th Floor Museum and see the film there - its quality far exceeds that of which Groden offered. Playing around with severely blurrred B&W images is like pouring gas onto the ground in direct sunlight and then start looking for shapes of asassins. Bill Glad you see the Jesus figure also. This frame was taken from the Discovery DVD "Murder in Dealy Plaza" which if I'm not mistaken, is the version from the 6th Floor museum. Maybe someone can provide an even better copy of that frame to show me I'm wrong. It's not Groden's version. WHO'S ON THE PEDESTAL? Is that created from trees and foliage also. chris

Jack, You are following correctly. The image appears in the area I have the red box around. I showed that area from 5 different photos supplied in my previous post. Is it possible to create an image of a long haired gentleman from any one of these photos, in that area? In my opinion, no. But yet, in Wiegman's movie, we already have a long haired gentleman with a white shirt, on the wall, discovered some time ago. Now I come across another frame which is Earlier in the movie, and this guy also has long hair with something black in his hand. If you remember our previous discussion on the other forum, concerning the white shirt guy on the wall, I pointed out he also has something in his hand which is black. Is this a coincidence? Yes, he is in the trees according to the frame, and I don't believe this can be. But, I'm not an artist either, and can't create long haired gentleman. chris P.S. Here's the gif again, a little bigger and slower. It shows the Wiegman image appearing in the other 5 photos red box area. I AM dense. I still don't understand unless you are saying the "man" is an illusion. I am very interested in what is on the pedestal. I am not interest in a man in the red box in the sky. Jack NOV.01..1965 : Telephone conversation between David Lifton and the "Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator, James WILLIAM ALTGENS," Ike"...... He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on the knoll. He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of the stairs when one faced the knoll. When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he replied, "I seem to remember that there were. " Jack, your response in BDM thread below: Regarding BLACKDOGMAN...my opinion again, if anyone is interested: 1. BDM is NOT Gordon Arnold. 2. BDM is not a gunman. 3. BDM is seen ONLY in two photos...Willis and Betzner. 4. BDM is NOT seen in Moorman. 5. BDM is not seen in any movies. 6. BDM in Willis and Betzner IS VERY BLURRY AND INDISTINCT. After studying all the facts, my guess is that BDM was added to Willis and Betzner by RETOUCHING to HIDE A MAN IN UNIFORM OPERATING A CAMERA. Such an image of an UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER TAKING PHOTOS WAS VERY TROUBLESOME TO THE CONSPIRATORS. In short, BDM did not really exist, in my opinion...or there would be other evidence of him than only two blurry indistinct images. Jack, Why can't I use the same reasoning as you did in your reply about BDM, with regards to the man on the pedestal or the image in the sky. Don't see that white shirted man in any other photos or movies except Wiegman. If photos were altered, why not movies? Yet, here are two photos. At least a man in each. Are they both illusions? Other's have claimed there is another version of the Zfilm, I believe it. Where is Z and Sitz in the Wiegman film. Z is wearing a dark suit in all other films/photos, but not in Wiegman. They are not there. Please, somebody/anybody prove that gentleman on the pedestal is in a dark suit Conspiracy! chris

Jack, You are following correctly. The image appears in the area I have the red box around. I showed that area from 5 different photos supplied in my previous post. Is it possible to create an image of a long haired gentleman from any one of these photos, in that area? In my opinion, no. But yet, in Wiegman's movie, we already have a long haired gentleman with a white shirt, on the wall, discovered some time ago. Now I come across another frame which is Earlier in the movie, and this guy also has long hair with something black in his hand. If you remember our previous discussion on the other forum, concerning the white shirt guy on the wall, I pointed out he also has something in his hand which is black. Is this a coincidence? Yes, he is in the trees according to the frame, and I don't believe this can be. But, I'm not an artist either, and can't create long haired gentleman. chris P.S. Here's the gif again, a little bigger and slower. It shows the Wiegman image appearing in the other 5 photos red box area.

Same area noted in 5 different photo's + Wiegman, and how the long haired man fits into them. chris

Robin, although I did show that frame, I'm concentrating on a different frame from Wiegman. Here it is. Try stepping back from your computer about 10 feet as you view the enlarged version. thanks, chris P.S. Antti, It is not Gordon Arnold, but I'm glad you see him. I think he's the other cameraman.

The animation is 4 consecutive Wiegman frames. The photo is the upper left corner enhanced. He sure looks like that white shirted guy on the wall. Appears to have something up to his face, could he be filming? It's not Zapruder. chris Edited: Perhaps that's a gun in his hand and not a camera. Here's a little bigger version. A gun or a camera. You decide. chris

The animation is 4 consecutive Wiegman frames. The photo is the upper left corner enhanced. He sure looks like that white shirted guy on the wall. Appears to have something up to his face, could he be filming? It's not Zapruder. chris Edited: Perhaps that's a gun in his hand and not a camera.

Trying to enhance what little is there. chris

I think we have reached a solid conclusion on this one. I needed to separate body twist from lateral movement, which I was having difficulty doing. Here is a quick example of what I initially saw. It appears that Babushka is moving away from Hill/Moorman. In reality, she is twisting toward them. If nothing else, perhaps this will concrete a sync point for John/Frank's great work. thanks to all, chris

John, that is outstanding. Am I missing something though in regards to Brehm and Babushka moving in sync in Zapruder, but towards each other in your gif(Muchmore), or am I at the wrong moment in time for my comparison. I just don't see them moving away from each other in Zapruder. much appreciated chris

Chris, I neglected to answer (or theorize, at least) on one of your main questions... There are some limits to the precision with which animated GIFs can achieve framerates for reasons I mentioned below. However, using Adobe ImageReady to produce an Animated Gif, it allows me to set a "delay" of 0.05 seconds. This will result in a framerate around 20fps if the target computer can render the frames fast enough. It did not allow me to add another decimal place of precision to get to 18 (or 18.3) frames per second. When I entered 0.055 (~18fps), the software rounded it back to 0.05... This may vary from application to application. I'd have to look back at the actual GIF spec to see how much precision is allowed. Oh -- and if the browser misinterprets this delay field, your framerate is shot anyway. However, when I'm trying for "close to actual speed" I use a delay of 0.05. Thanks Frank, I use a combination of Photoshop and Image Ready. Here's the movie showing Babushka and the child moving more alike than Brehm and Babushka. Zapruder shows Brehm and Babushka moving together This does not match Zapruder. chris

Bill/Robin, In the Z film, Brehm and Babushka move at the same speed, same direction and angle. In Muchmore, Babushka moves into Brehm, and actually her angle movement is closer to the child's movement. chris P.S. Will post a stabilized gif showing Babushka and child later, got to go.

Frank/John, thank you for the additional information. You might find this next one rather interesting. Watch Brehm/Babushka in sync. They move at the same angle and at the same speed. Brehm's child NEVER STEPS (legs always apart) to the side of Brehm and appears, it's as if he's uncovered, as a (left to right) slanting of the adults occurs. For the most part, Zapruder films from the same angle according to the red lines. chris Updated Forgot frame 284 in gif. Included now.

Thanks John, The gif you posted of the limo rocking back and forth from Groden, how was that done if you have a quick explanation? I took what I thought was the same two frames, stabilized the limo and Newman's and get this. chris

Is there an appropriate/agreed upon speed for creating animated gif's? Should it be related somehow, to the original film's FPS? Any suggestion's appreciated, thanks, chris P.S. David, here is Dr. Costella's frame's 284/285 compared with some I took. I think this is a more reasonable speed, but I'm just a novice. Leftside is with the car's stabilized. Rightside is the people stabilized. Slowed down much more than the MPI's I previously posted.