Sitzman - Did She Shoot The Other Film ?

[Bill Miller]

What makes a mockery of this forum is you announcing to the whole JFK research community that Bowers could identify a man who he could not see lol!

Duncan

I agree ... if that had happened, but that was not what I had said. And to be honest with you ... I believe that you understand better than you are letting on the point that I had made, but are just screwing around like you obviously have done over your claim to these so-called best enhancements.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I agree ... if that had happened, but that was not what I had said.

Bill

There's no escape for you Blunder Bill.

Quote by Bill Miller:

" The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket ".

You're still in Alcatraz

Duncan

Duncan, your lack of comprehension skills does not constitute a blunder on my part. Mr. Ball asked Bowers if he could still see the two men after the shooting that Lee had just described to him a few answers back ... Bowers said he could see one of them and not the other. YOU are the guy who said that maybe one of the men was your alleged floating cop torso. It was YOU who started in with the implication that the man Bowers could no longer see was your guy disguised as a cop ... the thread is there for anyone to review ... it doesn't change. To this day you have not said how the man in the plaid coat (the man Bowers told Mr. Ball that he could no longer after the shots) could be turned into a floating cop torso. The fact is you can't address that question and you don't seem to have the character to admit your mistake. Instead you attempt to divert attention away by misstating what I said and by posting idiotic cartoons. And isn't it funny that you don't distort your cartoons in the way you to the assassination images ... could it be that they then wouldn't be recognizable??? (Think about ths when getting prepared to post another one of your so-called enhancements!)

I do however wish to thank you for the continuous nonsense. I find that your responses do much to show the difference between someone serious about this subject compared to someone who is not serious about it.

Bill

Edited June 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

" The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket "

Duncan, if my explaining this over a half dozen times didn't sink in with you, then continuing on is a waste of time. You misstate things so badly that you have now incorporated 'red plaid' into my position. 'Red Plaid' was some conclusion that Miles reached.

All I have done is point out that Ball and Bowers were talking about two men ... one said to wear a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket. Bowers answered directly to Ball's question and merely said that the white shirted man was still visible and that the other man was no longer visible. Bowers used the term 'darker dressed' man and to figure out which man that was ... all I had to do is go back a few sentences and read how Bowers described the two men. My conclusion was that the plaid jacketed man was later described by Lee as the darker dressed man. You obviously disagree and feel that Bowers all of a sudden decided not to finish telling Ball about the other man he was asked about (the plaid jacketed man), but rather start talking about an alleged cop elevated high in the air who Bowers not only never did mention seeing, but can no longer see. To that I agree to disagree.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The argument is not about what Bowers said, It's what you think the meaning of what he said is that is bonkers.

" The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket "

And another reminder that the floating cop torso is your creation in your imagination, not mine, and your ability not to be able to judge the size of YOUR alleged floating cop torso in comparison with other figures in Moorman is something that is beyond my control, just the same as you have failed after more than half a year to produce your Arnold is not a midget evidence.

The only thing you have proven is that Hatman does exist, pity it's not the Hatman in Moorman LOL!

Duncan

Thats right ... Mr. Ball might as well have said 'could you still see the other man who you said was wearing a plaid jacket', thus it is not bonkers. The 'floating cop torso' was the name I attributed to your claim because of the sky being seen between the top of the fence and the tree foliage. You claimed it to be a washout and when I asked you to explain how there can be a "selective washout' .. you never responded. The bottom line is that your claims die with you. You have not posted where you believed so much in what you have claimed that you have even bothered to get them validated by an expert.

As far as Gordon Arnold ... the best way to do this is to replicate the picture because that is all you will understand.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

But what you fail to understand is that Mr Ball did NOT say that, as you have admitted above, so it's still bonkers. For you to claim that Bowers could identify a man he couldn't see really makes me laugh lol!

Mr. Ball asked about the two men Bowers had just described as seeing in one particular area before the shots were fired. Bowers described them as one man wearing a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket. When Bowers was asked about seeing these two men after the shots had stopped ... Bowers said he could see the man in the white shirt, but could not make out the darker dressed man. You are the only person that I have ever heard say that Bowers went from talking about the main in the plaid jacket to someone dressed like a cop.

The 'floating cop torso' was the name I attributed to your claim because of the sky being seen between the top of the fence and the tree foliage.

That's your opinion only, what so called expert verified that for you?

I have spoken to those who saw Moorman's original photo and made prints from it in the early days ... Groden being one of them who is a photographic expert.

and when I asked you to explain how there can be a "selective washout' .. you never responded.

I've responded constantly over the past 5 years over this. The records are still at Lancer

Are we not on the Education Forum??? The question stands ... please explain your theory as to how there can be selective washout within a single photograph. Its a fair question and I believe that you understand your problem and its why you will not answer the question for those who are reading this forum. Instead you want to send them to another forum to search through countless archives for an answer that you have never given. So instead of running up endless thread space with illustrations of peoples faces attached to cartoons - why not just type out the answer for everyone to read .... do not the other members deserve a serious answer from you for a change!

You have not posted where you believed so much in what you have claimed that you have even bothered to get them validated by an expert.

Like who?

Do a google search under photographic experts ... might even be some close to you. To pretend not to know who to ask about how to find a photographic expert these days is a bit lame even by your standards.

As far as Gordon Arnold ... the best way to do this is to replicate the picture because that is all you will understand.

It's been done using a real recreation taken from the History channel. I subsituted Arnold in that EXACT recreation, it's archived here as you very well know...He's a floating G.I. Joe...Always has been, always will be.

Show us where the history channel did a recreation test of Moorman's photo and Gordon Arnold. You and others never do your homework before posting these off-the-wall claims that you continuously come up with.

In the MWKK series, which was seen on the History Channel, Gordon stood out in view near the sidewalk. Had he taken a few steps back towards the fence, then his height and size would change dramatically. It has been said several times now that Turner asked Gordon to stand in a general location so he could be filmed for the series. The reasons for this could have been so Gordon could be seen better out in the light, but as far as I know ... no one has asked Turner the specifics as to why he chose that spot for Gordon. I do know that on June 6th of 1989, Gordon Arnold said in his oral history that he was 3' from the fence and west of the walkway. To say that the history channel did a recreation of Arnold's precise location is inaccurate.

Another error in your attempt to overlay these images is that the corner of the wall down to the ground is different in height today by almost a foot than it was in Moorman's photo because of resodding, thus your merely overlaying Arnold from one image onto another by lining up the wall heights from a modern photo to Moorman's photo is seriously flawed. If you would first get your facts straight and then do your overlay, then possibly your conclusion would also change ... until then you are offering an opinion based on flawed data.

Now I await your attempt to show how even a foot difference in height of your wall overlay from one image to another still gives you the same result. Miles applauded your sloppy inaccurate illustrations, so maybe he'd like to help you out. This is the same old thing with you guys and it is exactly why you never take your claims to an expert for they would tell you that your data hasn't even been substantiated.

Bill

Edited May 21, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

" The man Bowers could no longer see was still the other man who wore a plaid jacket "

Your infamous words, not mine

Thats right .... Bowers was asked about the two men once again that he had just described to Ball. One wore a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket. Good to see you are understanding this finally.

That's right Bill, the expert who Identified Holland as an assassin with a rifle in the bushes in TKOAP

Holland was on the underpass ... are you misstating the facts again????

I gave my answer, even though you quote me wrongly as saying I said selective washout. It's there for anyone who wants to look for it on Lancer, It's called researching

Your non-responsive answer must be your answer ... just as I expected.

As thick as ever over disc space being used by me on this forum. I don't upload attachments. My images are hosted elsewhere and streamed from that location. They take up ZERO forum space.

I was talking about thread space ... In other words you post idiotic say-nothing replies with cartoons as if you have all the time in the world to jerk around and yet a straight forth question to you gets nothing in return. If you do not wish to simply state how you reached your conclusions when asked a particular question, then why bother being on an "Education Forum".

I don't need to ask a photographic expert, I have did my own research and analysis, and no point in asking Groden, because he'd probably get it wrong, judging by his past record. If you want to dispute it, the legwork is down to you

I see ... so you don't need to get your work confirmed by anyone more knowledgeable than yourself. Are you sure that you want to go on record as holding to that idea??? You do realize that someone skilled in photography could answer the question as to 'selective washout' or have spotted that the distance from the corner of the wall to the ground today is not the same as it was in 63'.

If you read my post properly, you would realise that I did not say the history channel did an Arnold recreation.

Duncan: "It's been done using a real recreation taken from the History channel. I subsituted Arnold in that EXACT recreation"

It's not flawed,the top of the wall is still in the same location..Nice try Bill, but you're not fooling anyone lol!

You guys scaled the two walls to match each other - did you not???

Garbage...The overlay is accurate.

Based on what is your overlay precise???

I always look forward to posts by Miles

It goes to the saying that 'Misery loves company'.

Who substantiated your Holland was not the Groden Bush assassin with the rifle? Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side on that one, but the question remains...Who substantiated your claim?

It was Groden and I who substantiated that the man seen through the bush was "HUDSON" ... not Holland as you have said several times now.

Bill

Edited May 21, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

It was Groden and I who substantiated that the man seen through the bush was "HUDSON"

Bill

That says it all really...You asked the completely non visualisisation expert Groden who got it wrong to confirm that it was right....boy oh boy oh boy.

Duncan

First of all ... what is this word "visualisisation"??? And from what I recall ... Groden had only raised the question as to who the man seen through the pyracantha bush was. As a CTs, he raised the idea that this person may have been connected to the assassins. It was when I got with him that I suggested that we test the location by recreating it. So Groden never got anything wrong for he never said that he knew who it was. Because you don't have the facts ... it appears that it is you who has it wrong.

Bill

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

It was Groden and I who substantiated that the man seen through the bush was "HUDSON"

Bill

That says it all really...You asked the completely non visualisisation expert Groden who got it wrong to confirm that it was right....boy oh boy oh boy.

Duncan

First of all ... what is this word "visualisisation"??? And from what I recall ... Groden had only raised the question as to who the man seen through the pyracantha bush was. As a CTs, he raised the idea that this person may have been connected to the assassins. It was when I got with him that I suggested that we test the location by recreating it. So Groden never got anything wrong for he never said that he knew who it was. Because you don't have the facts ... it appears that it is you who has it wrong.

Bill

when Lone Nuts are cornered the first thing they revert to is spelling, LMAO... Not to mention constant bold[type]ness

[Bill Miller]

And from what I recall ... Groden had only raised the question as to who the man seen through the pyracantha bush was.

Sure Bill, sure

Quote from TKAOP Page 195

" It appears that he is wearing a hat or a helmet, but the white areas creating that illusion are reflecting light shining off the leaves of the pyracantha tree that obstructed Zapruder's view "

He also adds a rifle to the drawing on page 195

Yes, Duncan ... he promoted a possibility based on his interpretation ... just like you always do ... and that time ... like with you all the time ... he was wrong. Groden merely described what he thought to interpret. It has nothing to do with his knowledge of Kodachrome II film, which is the part of Groden that I have looked to for information. What Groden has told me also corresponds with the data that Mack has relayed to me through experts he has spoken to over the years.

It was when I got with him that I suggested that we test the location by recreating it.

Great Idea. but why choose someone with a track record of getting it wrong

The other option was what ... doing it with you! Groden was the one who brought that notion forward, so it seemed only fitting to have him assist in checking that assertion. Groden will tell you today that he was wrong in that interpretation ... something you have yet to do on some of these claims you have made despite the evidence against you.

He didn't say he knew who he was, but he suggested it was a shooter with a rifle. That is a recorded fact in his book, via text and the shooter with the rifle drawing

Groden's man in the pyracantha bush was a proposed interpretation of an unknown person on the knoll ... no more ... no less. None of which has anything to do with his substantiated knowledge of the film and the photographic record of the assassination.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

That's why in my opinion there is no such thing as an expert. No one can get it correct all of the time, including Groden, apart from you of course

Groden merely described what he thought to interpret. It has nothing to do with his knowledge of Kodachrome II film, which is the part of Groden that I have looked to for information.

What's Kodachrome 11 got to do with an inability to identify objects?

Because this topic was about the authenticity of the Zapruder film. I mentioned Groden having studied the original film and you raised some idiotic premise that because Groden misinterpreted and image seen through the pyracantha bush ... it must somehow mean that his knowledge of Kodachrome II film and how to judge its authenticity must be suspect. I find your logic illogical.

What Groden has told me also corresponds with the data that Mack has relayed to me through experts he has spoken to over the years.

Now Gary, we're talking different class.

Glad you think so. I seldom will not rely on just once source for information. If groden tells me something, then I will seek another opinion to see if what Robert has told me can be verified.

I've always admitted when I was wrong, that's the difference between you and I, but as I said, you are never wrong

Really ... how are you coming on that third guy seen at the pedestal when Zapruder dismounted it??? LOL!!!

Knowledge and interpretation of that knowledge are two completely different things, that's where you and he are sadly lacking.

Duncan

Unlike you ... when I am lacking knowledge ... I will find a way to contact someone who has the knowledge. I won't post 'How do I find an expert'. (sigh~)

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Hey Bill, that reminds me, have you found your old analysis showing the swinging tarzan tree shooter yet?

I bet you breathed more than one huge sigh of relief when Rich lost his data on that astounding discovery LOL!!!

Duncan

Duncan, the thread you speak of was about where the other film was shot - which I don't believe happened at all ... not from where shots were fired. Then I said that I could draw photographers in the trees and it was then through a constant misstating of that thread and my response that has led to some twit misstating the entire affair. Why must you get so much stuff wrong ... forget Rich losing threads ... I just wish you'd repeat something correctly for a change.

And if we didn't accept anything else that Groden says because of a screwed up photo interpretation, then I take it that none of your post can be valid any longer either.

Bill

Edited May 29, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I was there, I seen your Tarzan shooter, and others on this forum seen it too. I don't know why you deny it, it's no great shame to get something wrong.

Duncan

You also saw the BDM as an enhancement after totally destroying it. You claim to recall something that you have already been shown in error about concerning the topic altogether. And anything I ever did was to show a crop taken from the Moorman photograph. So seeing how you feel that you have a great memory of that thread, then by all means post the area that I was alleged to invent what you first said was a shooter (not a filming location), and now you call it tarzan. It seems to me that it is counter-productive for you to take the time to post such stupid cartoons while not having time to give direct responses to legitimate questions being asked pertaining to your claims.

Bill

Edited May 23, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I can't post what I don't have, but i'm not the only one who remembers.

Duncan

Well so far your memory has not been accurate! Hopefully someone else can

at least recall where this so-called shooter/other film maker/Tarzan was. I have never supported this so-called 'other film', thus any remarks I have made about a location for this individual has been to ridicule the logic of the whole idea. It has been some bone-head who was short on facts and memory that got it started that I claimed someone was filming another Zfilm during the assassination. Then by way of rumor/ignorance/or propaganda ... it changed to shooter, and then some swinging Tarzan. And it seems that you have a desire to continue the disinformation while defying the logic of it all.

Now is there anything about how this selective washout theory of yours works that you can tell us yet ???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Now is there anything about how this selective washout theory of yours works that you can tell us yet ???

Bill

I don't have a selective washout theory. That term is your invention.

Now is there anything YOU can tell us about YOUR selective washout theory???

Duncan

Duncan ... the fence line, as well as the tree foliage line has been pointed out to you as 'NOT WASHING OUT' ... it was also pointed out that tree trunks and towers passing between the two are visible, but yet you say the midsection of the alleged shooter that you have purposed has no midsection because it is 'washed out'. I have asked you a simple question as to how can the photo, which has in its entirety be subjected to the same amount of light and temperature, be alleged to have washed out the area between the foliage and the top of the fence in that one particular spot??? The people I have spoke to on this matter have said that there was no so-called washout on the original photo and/or the good prints made from it. They go on to say that there could be no washout of one thing and not another of equal tone and density. What you have done is to rather than to admit your mistake ... you merely say that the photo washed out in that one spot. I refer to that premise as 'selective washout'. So please tell me how there could be washout just on your alleged figure near the fence and not of the fence and foliage, not to mention the train tower much further away???

Bill

[Alan Healy]

The Duncan Black Dog Man enhancement

Bill

And what's wrong with the enhancement. It's the clearest view the research community has ever had of BDM.

No one has bettered it as far as I know.

Duncan

This wasn't the worst "enhancement" of BDM I've ever seen(I've seen things many times worse) but when the producer of it comes out here claiming "it's the best" it actually turns into the worst.

Someone needs to start a "Photo enhancement semina" on this forum asap.

One thing you have to get through your head;

when the image you are working with starts to become pixelated on your screen, stop enlarging the image right there, do not keep zooming in until the pixels become blocks & then click "save as" like you've found something new.

Both the Moorman & Betzner images you have "Shinola"'d in this thread are rife with blocky pixels & you can't search for small details amongst those type images because, anything you find is totally unreliable since it is surrounded by all that noise which we all know was not in the original image.

Your camera, your man behind the wall with his box & your words "the best", they all fit into the catagory of "noise" & I seriously can't believe your still pushing this ear-ache in '08.

"It's the clearest view the vision impaired community has ever had of BDM."

Fixed.

This is the best view of BDM from the Betzner3 in LIFE magazine

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...man/blacdog.png

Or this actual careful enhancment of the above.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...dogman/3074.jpg

Notice an pixels?

There's also the blow-up of B3 from Groden in TKOAP,

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...lifevgroden.png

These are the best we have & anyone with anywhere near what we would call resonable vision can see the difference in quality.

The same goes from this Moorman crop.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff188/B...n/DSpedcrop.png

It's the best we have & it firmly remains in the realms of reality, where as "your best" look like they're from another dimension, one where time & space have no meaning.

Enough with the cartoons already.