Sitzman - Did She Shoot The Other Film ?

[Bill Miller]

A lot of long winded mouthy speculation on your part as usual.

For the third time now, and the one which you keep avoiding, the question is in the image, and remember it's YOUR recreation.

Duncan, you appear to be referencing something I have done in the past, but I don't recall anything I have ever posted looking so blurry. I am however interested in seeing the two images from the GIF you have worked from. The reason that I ask this is to check and see if a tree has grown at a particular location since 1963, considering the two images are 40 years apart. It would also be interesting to see if the foliage is the same. As I recall, I mentioned that the main body of tree branches in Moorman's photo was a match ... I don't recall saying that the foliage and other trees along the fence had not grown there over the past 40 years. Please be more specific as to what you are first using and then what you are getting at. This will help prevent a lot of meaningless banter from being exchanged.

Bill

Edited June 4, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

name='Duncan MacRae' date='Jun 4 2008, 05:01 PM' post='146910'

Duncan, you appear to be referencing something I have done in the past, but I don't recall anything I have ever posted looking so blurry.

Yes, it's your gif which I merely enlarged.

Well that explains the loss of clarity.

The reason that I ask this is to check and see if a tree has grown at a particular location since 1963, considering the two images are 40 years apart.

You mean at the 33ft location ?

If you are talking about some wash-out at the location where you claim a shooter to be, then yes. It would make no sense in wondering if trees had been planted at a different place in the Plaza ... would you not agree.

It would also be interesting to see if the foliage is the same.

That's an impossibility

Agreed! So the answer to your original response would be that there is no wash-out of trees in Moorman's photo that were not present in 1963. So describing the presence of tree trunks seen between the top of the fence and the overhanging tree foliage is not relevant if those trees were not even planted at the time of the assassination.

Now in an earlier response you were asked if you had compared this alleged 'wash-out' with the sunspots on the fence as seen in the other assassination images. Have you done this and what are your findings?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for acknowledging and thanks for being honest enough to admit that your original posted gif was blurry and of poor quality.

Now, I don't really understand your response. Are you saying that if there is not a new tree at the 33ft spot, then you agree there is something there that you can not explain?

Duncan

The gif uses the Moorman print that has been common knowledge that it is not very sharp. By the time the drum scan had been made ... the original Polaroid had faded. The gif consist of a mixture of two images ... one in B&W and the other in color.

Now what I have said about the trees in my photo is that there was no tree seen above the fence and below the tree foliage in Moorman's photo where you claim an assassin was elevated into the air and shooting at the President. I have asked that you cross reference other assassination images to see if you can deny or validate this point. I await your response saying that you have done this.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

You are missing the whole point of my question.

Why, in the crossover image of the gif from Moorman to your reproduction, does the 33ft shooter body area not have any washout and can be seen clearly at the level of the fencline.

Duncan

I refuse to believe that you cannot follow what has been said. It appears to me that sometime during the 40 year span between Moorman's photo and the picture that I had taken ... a tree has grown up at that location. This is just why I asked you to look at the other assassination images so to note this point, but as usual you refuse to check your work and there lies the big mystery as to why your claims never get anywhere.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I have looked, and I can't see any photographs which show a tree that has grown between Moorman 1963 and Miller 19?? at the 33ft location.

I will investigate further, but my guess is that your claim that a tree is now at the 33ft spot exactly where the 33ft shooter was located in 1963 is bogus.

but as usual you refuse to check your work and there lies the big mystery as to why your claims never get anywhere.

What is the alternative if a tree has not grown at the location that you claim a shooter to have been ... you are not suggesting that the alleged assassin was still at the fence when I took my photo some 40 years after the event - are you???? I would also think that it would be more important to know if a tree was there at the time of the assassination. You surely have looked at the other assassination images ... do you see a tree at that location or was it washed out of all the assassination films and photos in your opinion. (smile~)

Yawn..."Bowers could identify a man he couldn't see" Now there's a claim that never got anywhere LOL!!!!!!

Duncan

Who made that claim??? All I recall is saying that Bowers couldn't say where the man in the plaid jacket had gone to in response to the question that Mr. Ball asked him. I think it is time to ask you to be specific concerning the constant misstating of the allegation that you continue to make.

Bill

Edited June 5, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

A tree has NOT grown BEHIND the fence at the 33ft location over the last 45 years, so the question is simple.

Why does the lowest point of the 33ft shooter meet the top of the fence in the crossover to your reproduction?

I think we can rule out that the object seen at the fenced in my photo IS NOT your alleged sniper .... would you not agree??? You were asked to look at the other available assassination images to see if there was anything at your alleged sniper location and you said you would do so. Your bold statement that a tree has not grown there in the past 40 years is somewhat of a bold statement and one that you must have researched before making it, so please tell me just what have you done to substantiate such a remark???

To be precise, and I qoute

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

Duncan

That is correct and I was right in what I said. Bowers was asked about the two men that he had just described to Ball only moments earlier (one wearing a white shirt and the other a plaid jacket). Lee Bowers said that one man was still visible and the other was not. The man that Bowers could see was the white shirted man and the other that he could not see any longer would be the plaid jacketed man. I have seen idiots come and go in the JFK assassination field over the years and I cannot recall a single one of them ever failing so miserably in understanding this simple point. There must be another reason why you have had so much trouble in understanding that Ball's question was pertaining to the two men that Lee had just described. So when Bowers says he could see the white shirted man ... it becomes a simple matter of elimination to know that the man that Lee could no longer see was the plaid jacketed man.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I think we can rule out that the object seen at the fenced in my photo IS NOT your alleged sniper .... would you not agree???

If you mean in the crossover Moorman/Miller composite, then No I don't agree

Oh really ... this is a very interesting revelation that the photographic prodigy has made. Your Moorman image shows nothing but Dallas sky ... you call it a 'wash-out'. I take a photo 40 years later which shows what looks to be a tree trunk near that location and you somehow think that I brought that out of your alleged washed-out photo. That too is an impossibility. If the print you are using shows nothing there ... my overlaying my image over the top of it will not bring out something that you photo didn't have to start with.

I am going to ask this for about the 5th time now ... have you cross referenced the assassination films and photos to see if a tree or any other object was present on 11/22/63 that could account for what appears to be a tree trunk in my photo. I assume that you are doing your best not to do this because if nothing is in the other films and photos ... you cannot claim wash-out on all the images - and it means that what ever you see in my photo has since been placed there whether it be a tree trunk - RR Yard bum - cigar store Indian - or what ever.

Are you completely bonkers? A tree has not grown at the 33ft shooter location behind the fence over the last 45 years, unless they chopped it down before you took your pic LOL!!!

2006 Behind the fence

Duncan

Nice picture ... do you kknow that it was taken well after mine was. Have you checked on the history of the RR yard ... when it was paved and so on?

You have admitted that the dark area in my photo is not your assassin at the fence some 40 years after the event .... you claim it is not a tree .... so if we accept that the photo you have used accurately depicts the RR yard within the last 20 to 25 years, then what ever is in my photo has nothing to do with Moorman's photograph.

Now don't let it be said that I am not a fair man ... Would you like to try rehab and come back and discuss the matter at that time??? I will give you that opportunity if you so desire it. (grin)

Bill Miller

Edited June 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I think we can rule out that the object seen at the fenced in my photo IS NOT your alleged sniper .... would you not agree???

If you mean in the crossover Moorman/Miller composite, then No I don't agree

Oh really ... this is a very interesting revelation that the photographic prodigy has made. Your Moorman image shows nothing but Dallas sky ... you call it a 'wash-out'. I take a photo 40 years later which shows what looks to be a tree trunk near that location and you somehow think that I brought that out of your alleged washed-out photo. That too is an impossibility. If the print you are using shows nothing there ... my overlaying my image over the top of it will not bring out something that you photo didn't have to start with.

I am going to ask this for about the 5th time now ... have you cross referenced the assassination films and photos to see if a tree or any other object was present on 11/22/63 that could account for what appears to be a tree trunk in my photo. I assume that you are doing your best not to do this because if nothing is in the other films and photos ... you cannot claim wash-out on all the images - and it means that what ever you see in my photo has since been placed there whether it be a tree trunk - RR Yard bum - cigar store Indian - or what ever.

Are you completely bonkers? A tree has not grown at the 33ft shooter location behind the fence over the last 45 years, unless they chopped it down before you took your pic LOL!!!

2006 Behind the fence

Duncan

Nice picture ... do you kknow that it was taken well after mine was. Have you checked on the history of the RR yard ... when it was paved and so on?

You have admitted that the dark area in my photo is not your assassin at the fence some 40 years after the event .... you claim it is not a tree .... so if we accept that the photo you have used accurately depicts the RR yard within the last 20 to 25 years, then what ever is in my photo has nothing to do with Moorman's photograph.

Now don't let it be said that I am not a fair man ... Would you like to try rehab and come back and discuss the matter at that time??? I will give you that opportunity if you so desire it. (grin)

Bill Miller

they're looking for you on that Towner thread, something about microphones and such -- appears GaryM got you in a mess there..... Get'em out of this one and I'm sure he'll make you a unpaid museum summer replacement docent. If you can find your way to Dallas....

[Bill Miller]

The objects are in BOTH of YOUR images (which you used to create your gif which was unsuccessful in recreating Arnold) one crossing over from Moorman to your recreation.

The level of the lowest point of the 33ft shooter in Moorman does not "touch" the fence, but when crossed over/added to YOUR image, miraculously it does "touch" the fence.

Here is the question again.....................................WHY?

I'll allow you to finish your beer before you reply LOL!!!!

Duncan[/b]

Your question seems silly to me. I created an animation whereas I used two images and brought them over on top of one another. Each image is a combination of the other, but in reverse opacity. Now you asked me why the Moorman image doesn't show any darkness touching the fence when mine does and the answer is that what ever is there in my photograph was not there at the time of the assassination when Moorman took her photograph.

Now I have a question ... Have you sought out any photo experts or historians of Moorman's photo so to better tell if what you have been saying is valid or not or do you still think you know more about it than they do???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Ok, I guess i'll have to read between the lines and conclude that you do not know the content of your own photograph at the 33ft shooter mark and leave it at that.

Duncan

Non-responsive answer. As you may recall ... my photo was designed to concentrate on the Badge Man area ... not identify every person or tree that was in the plaza that day. Now about the question you have been asked .... can we assume that you have not done anything to consult an expert either in photography or on the history of the Moorman photo so to validate your claims???

Bill

Edited June 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Non-responsive answer. As you may recall ... my photo was designed to concentrate on the Badge Man area ... not identify every person or tree that was in the plaza that day. Now about the question you have been asked .... can we assume that you have not done anything to consult an expert either in photography or on the history of the Moorman photo so to validate your claims???

Bill

The topic in question is not Moorman, it's the crossover to YOUR photograph which is being discussed.

Now if YOU don't have a clue to what is in YOUR photograph, what chance does a so called expert have LOL!!

By the way, while i'm here, Why did you clone to erase areas around the Moorman Arnold to compare with your recreation Arnold, or was it pre-altered by someone else?..just curious as to why you would create a recreation comparison using a faked Moorman

Duncan

The topic is whether Sitzman shot the alleged 'other film' ... the particular issue that we were discussing concerned this so-called 'wash-out' theory you invented in an effort to explain why no one is seen between the top of the fence and the base of the tree foliage. We are currently at the 'duh ... why is there something seen in your photo taken 40 years later that is not seen in Moorman's'. The latter is self-explanatory .... it was taken 40 years latter. If we go back to the day of the assassination ... you had said that you would cross reference the other assassination films and photos to see if anything at that location could be seen. I still await your findings and I hope that you won't claim that this area was selectively wash-out in the other images as well. Have you considered asking Jack to look at his good Moorman print(s) to see if anything there is washed-out or is that too risky???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The topic in question is not Moorman, it's the crossover to YOUR photograph which is being discussed.

Now if YOU don't have a clue to what is in YOUR photograph, what chance does a so called expert have LOL!!

By the way, while i'm here, Why did you clone to erase areas around the Moorman Arnold to compare with your recreation Arnold, or was it pre-altered by someone else?..just curious as to why you would create a recreation comparison using a faked Moorman

Duncan

The topic in question is not Moorman, it's the crossover to YOUR photograph which is being discussed.

Now if YOU don't have a clue to what is in YOUR photograph, what chance does a so called expert have LOL!!

By the way, while i'm here, Why did you clone to erase areas around your Arnold stand in to create a human shape ?

It is very noticeable and very amateur rolleyes.gif

Duncan

I am not really sure what on earth you are talking about, but at least we are on an even playing field now. The first thing is how can an expert help you when you have not bothered to consult one on anything. You should try consulting one sometime ... one might surprise you. And if you really thought that what I have said is so far off ... you'd consult an expert if for no other reason than to validate YOUR POSITION. So one must wonder why you avoid doing such a thing.

The combination of combining Moorman's photo with my own was to show that my photo was taken on the Moorman location whereas I reproduced her image by aligning many important landmarks. My photo was taken with a 35MM Canon camera and I still have the original negative which has not been in the control of the CIA or any other branch that one might think altered it. Nothing was erased from that image. It is a simple transparency overlay and nothing more. The figure you see and claim was erased is Mike Brown standing near the sidewalk. Mike is in silhouette against the background ... just as was Tony Cummings.

Now that you have mentioned the Arnold study ... let me point out something for your unprofessional and often outrageous inept study .... Tony Cummings was right against the fence. Mike Brown was at the west edge of the walkway. Gordon Arnold said that he was within 3' of the fence. If 6' 3" Tony Cummings is how he looks at the fence and on the RR yard side ... just how big would 5'10" Arnold appear to be only an arms reach in front of Tony??? You can start by marking off where Tony's feet would be in relation to the wall. Then you can apply Arnold's size to someone standing 3' closer to the camera and tell us where their feet would be in relation to the wall. I look forward to you response.

Bill

Edited June 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Have you considered asking Jack to look at his good Moorman print(s) to see if anything there is washed-out or is that too risky???

Bill

The same way you asked to see Jack's copy when creating this work of art??? LOL!!!

Duncan

As usual you draw a conclusion and work your way backwards. Is what you are calling a 'cloning' the sunlight glaring off of Mike Brown or Gordon Arnold .... please enlighten us with more of the 'Duncecan' approach at photo interpretation.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

My response

Duncan

Your response didn't address where Tony's feet came in a real life photo that Groden and I took. I will ask once again ... where do you place Cummings feet???

Bill

[Bill Miller]

The Moorman you used for your Arnold comparison with Mike Brown has been faked at the Gornold Arnold position, and no amount of " Billony " { grin } will change that.

You should have used an unfaked Moorman for your study, but then again, if you had did that you would have been even further off the mark.

YOUR FAKED MOORMAN ARNOLD

Duncan

There was no faking ... saying such a thing is just the actions of some dimwit who doesn't know the facts. We didn't set out to overlay Moorman's photo - we took a photo of three people who stood at various locations above the wall and we did it from Moorman's location. Then in response to some off-the-wall post ... I placed my photo over the top of the same Moorman photo that you use. If your Moorman photo is a fake, then so is mine for it was YOUR photo. The overlay is a mixture of two opacities to show how close I was able to align the various reference points. One can act stupid all they like and it will not change that fact. Maybe if you'd consult and expert ... then possibly they can explain it to you. Anyone can look at the overlay and see some of each photo combined together. One image has less than 50% Opacity and the other greater than 50% and then visa versa. The color going from B&W and back to Color shows this, thus there was no attempt to fool anyone but a fool who cannot take the time to know what was done.

Now where does Tony Cummings standing height come to in relation to the wall???

Bill

Edited June 8, 2008 by Bill Miller