Chris Davidson Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Enlarged and lightened with pseudocolor.Jack Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks like a man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Not nonsense at all. Jack Jack, Exactly. Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Comparison. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Enlarged and lightened with pseudocolor.Jack Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks like a man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Not nonsense at all. Jack Jack, Exactly. Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris Chris...what is the distortion? ...and please check post #6 and give your opinion. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) Jack, Exactly.Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris Chris, thanks for inadvertently coming up with a good Wiegman frame that shows Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. For years we have been saying that Weigman's film was so blurred that it made anyone on the pedestal look to not be there ... You're showing of one of the clearer frames proves my point. Bill Miller Edited October 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Enlarged and lightened with pseudocolor.Jack Jack, you did good by posting the details of Crawley's testing of your work, so please don't ruin it by posting such nonsense from a terribly blurred image. Bill Miller What's YOUR explanation for what the Wiegman frame shows? To me it looks like a man in a white shirt and black pants in an awkward position. What does it look like to you? And WHY is it not in other frames? Not nonsense at all. Jack Jack, Exactly. Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris Chris...what is the distortion? ...and please check post #6 and give your opinion. Thanks. Jack Jack, I used the "barreling" filter in Photoshop along with an aspect ratio adjustment. Here is a animation of your comparison frames. They are 1/2 second apart in the movie. Not sure I have an opinion as the one frame is quite deformed. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Jack, Exactly.Another point. If Zapruder is supposed to be in front of Sitzman, where do his legs attach themselves to the pedestal. This is quite clear with the other two bodies (legs to the pedestal) that are on the wall. chris Chris, thanks for inadvertently coming up with a good Wiegman frame that shows Zaspruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. For years we have been saying that Weigman's film was so blurred that it made anyone on the pedestal look to not be there ... You're showing of one of the clearer frames proves my point. Bill Miller Bill, Sorry, I didn't inadvertently come up with it. I always provide the best of what I have. Perhaps you can point out Zapruder and Sitzman for us, and then tell us who that third figure is. The one which is much more in focus than the other two. The one who's proportions quite easily match a modern day photo. If your trying to convince others about light through the trees creating this image, why can't your same theory be applied to other photos chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) Bill,Sorry, I didn't inadvertently come up with it. I always provide the best of what I have. Perhaps you can point out Zapruder and Sitzman for us, and then tell us who that third figure is. The one which is much more in focus than the other two. The one who's proportions quite easily match a modern day photo. If your trying to convince others about light through the trees creating this image, why can't your same theory be applied to other photos chris Let me try and make myself clearer so you can follow what I am saying because you didn't get it the first time. You do try and produce clearer images sometimes, but in this case you also produced a clear enough Wiegman frame to show Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. That shape-shifting image that you guys think is a person is wearing a white shirt made up of sky and tree foliage ... and this is why it shape shifts as Wiegman runs along Elm Street. This answer may not have the sinister tone that you and Jack like to look for, but that's a personal problem that you two have. One of these days you should try and ask Gary Mack at the Musuem to put up the film for you to view and I wouldn't be surprised that you'd reach the same conclusion as I. Bill Miller Edited October 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) The area that you guys are talking about isn't even the same spot over the pedestal, which is where someone would need to be to be standing anywhere. You have taken the sky seen through the tree foliage and have let Jack turn it into a white shirt. Then you guys waste your time attempting to try and pass it off as a person standing on the concrete wall extension that runs from the shelter to the pedestal. Interesting enough is the fact that after all this time there is still some of you who refuse to conduct a sensible and logical investigation by first cross referencing the other assassination photos and films. Moorman's photo can be shown to have never had the chance to have been altered and no one can be seen where you wish to see someone in a white shirt. As there is obviously no one there in Moorman's photo, the same can be said about the Willis - Betzner - and Bronson photos ... and the Nix and Bronson films. If I live to be 1000 years, I will never understand your motives. Bill Miller Edited October 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blair Dobson Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) very nice work mr davidson. i like to see people using the "modern techniques". (not that drum scanning and darkroom technique aren't "modern"..) haven't been on the forum for awhile largely because the bickering was giving me a reading headache... nice thread, nice work everyone. does anyone know of a good copy of the couch film that i can get my hands on? Edited October 30, 2008 by Blair Dobson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Blair, I use the footage from the program "Beyond the Magic Bullet" if you are speaking of his grassy knoll coverage. If you can't find it you can PM me, and I'll send it to you. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now