Is the "Other" film a hoax?

[Craig Lamson]

The alleged Sitzman photo(s) and/or frame(s) are inconclusive, IMO. However, even assuming that they are pictures of her--still--she is NOT the person who FILMED THE ASSASSINATION. Abraham Zapruder allegedly did the filming. Except, we can not confirm the presence of the man through clear photographic records; we cannot confirm that the man who claims to have filmed the assassination was even there from the film record. Yet we are expected to accept the "film record that he allegedly shot" as authentic despite inconsistencies found therein. This is weird logic, to be sure.

The film record does not definitively establish that Zapruder was the photographer that day. Why?

Zappy apologists would have us believe that it is because of the "lack of reliability" of the film stock, camera quality, skill of the photographers, distance from target (Zappy) etc., that obscures Zapruder's presence. We should therefore IGNORE the lack of evidence and instead we should embrace the official story: Zapruder was there. But, Mary Moorman took her polaroid within an acceptable proximity of the subject. In fact, Gary Mack claims that he located Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid! Tell me this, Gary: Why is it that even though Badgeman is obscured by foliage, by shadow, and is tiny behind the wall -- by comparison -- to the man claiming to be Zapruder who is standing on the pedestal, who is not hiding behind a wall, who's not in shadows, who's in BROAD DAYLIGHT, and he's elevated on top of a PERCH--yet, the detail in Badgeman's image is much higher than the detail in the alleged image of Zapruder! If we can discern Badgeman's detail, Gary, certainly we should be able to discern Zapruder's detail, right? C'mon, admit it... It's beyond obvious.

Yet, these same people fail to apply the same standard to the Zapruder film itself!

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

[John Dolva]

Robin, thanks for the link. Just wanted a bookmark available to your site.

_____

I think this one idicates the 'blowout' that overexposed a frame in Towner which was therefore exiced. No evil intent.

[Craig Lamson]

So someone actually took time to add that detail to the logo on the flag. O.K. !!!!

I guess detail was added to the stonework of the TSBD, in the upper right side of the photo, too.

Or, maybe the newspaper version is a copy from a better generation Altgen's, than what is available, regardless of what doctoring/airbrushing/ etc,etc was done to the original.

chris

This details the problem with using repro images to judge photo quality, too many unknowns to make a firm conclusion. In your example of the z frames in Life yes they do look different but why? Is the original film different? Where there differences in the quality of the dupe photos from the original frames? Were the sep films shot differently? Did the guys at the film stripping table get the the one page slighlty out of register? Where the forms on which each page was placed tun on a different press? On a different day? By a different pressman? Was a printing plate out of register? Did they make adjustments to the color fountains to compensate for an ad images that ran just above or below the z frames on the form? Did they use makeready pages in bindery, made while getting the press "up to color"?

I know you do prepress, were you around pre-digital? When sep films were made in a process camera and films cut and pasted, by color layer, by guys using razor blades and red litho tape? Lots of silly things happened in this workflow. Heck even today with current tech and the best presses and pressmen around its still a crapshoot when you have the same image span two pages and jump the gutter. Getting both halfs to match is nutty. I have piles of examples of the same image in a brochure looking different from one page to the next.

Craig,

Thank you for acknowledging there is a difference.

I agree with the variables you list in regards to the reproduction process.

But, there is a distinct quality difference in the Life pages.

All frames but 230 on pgs 40-41 are out of focus.

All frames on pg 42 are in focus, matching frame 230.

Past the Stemmon's sign and the quality frames appear.

In the case of the Altgen's newspaper photo, the detail is there. It's in the flag, the TSBD wall, the limo visors, etc, etc.

The limo is basically the closest object to Altgen's, the original or anything close should provide at least this same level of detail in a non-newspaper form.

I keep hearing a reference to Thompson's best print, but I'll bet the detail doesn't match the newspaper edition.

If it did, we would have seen it by now.

chris

I've not seen the Thompson print, not ...and more important, I've not seen the negative it was made from. As far as the Z frmes, why not get together a few friends and purchase a copy of the forensic or archival copy of the Z film and scan the frames? Thats going you get you a lot closer than looking a magazine or newspaper reproduction.

BTW, who owns or has possession of the Altgens original negatives? Thats the source you should be looking for.

[Greg Burnham]

The alleged Sitzman photo(s) and/or frame(s) are inconclusive, IMO. However, even assuming that they are pictures of her--still--she is NOT the person who FILMED THE ASSASSINATION. Abraham Zapruder allegedly did the filming. Except, we can not confirm the presence of the man through clear photographic records; we cannot confirm that the man who claims to have filmed the assassination was even there from the film record. Yet we are expected to accept the "film record that he allegedly shot" as authentic despite inconsistencies found therein. This is weird logic, to be sure.

The film record does not definitively establish that Zapruder was the photographer that day. Why?

Zappy apologists would have us believe that it is because of the "lack of reliability" of the film stock, camera quality, skill of the photographers, distance from target (Zappy) etc., that obscures Zapruder's presence. We should therefore IGNORE the lack of evidence and instead we should embrace the official story: Zapruder was there. But, Mary Moorman took her polaroid within an acceptable proximity of the subject. In fact, Gary Mack claims that he located Badgeman in the Moorman polaroid! Tell me this, Gary: Why is it that even though Badgeman is obscured by foliage, by shadow, and is tiny behind the wall -- by comparison -- to the man claiming to be Zapruder who is standing on the pedestal, who is not hiding behind a wall, who's not in shadows, who's in BROAD DAYLIGHT, and he's elevated on top of a PERCH--yet, the detail in Badgeman's image is much higher than the detail in the alleged image of Zapruder! If we can discern Badgeman's detail, Gary, certainly we should be able to discern Zapruder's detail, right? C'mon, admit it... It's beyond obvious.

Yet, these same people fail to apply the same standard to the Zapruder film itself!

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

That's hysterical, Craig! Mack claims to have first isolated that figure and he found it without any enhancement. It has been pointed out to us in the polaroid without any enhancement beyond magnification. Even without enhancement its clarity rivals that of the man on the pedestal.

[Craig Lamson]

That's hysterical, Craig! Mack claims to have first isolated that figure and he found it without any enhancement. It has been pointed out to us in the polaroid without any enhancement beyond magnification. Even without enhancement its clarity rivals that of the man on the pedestal.

(bolding mine.)

Great, show us those "unaltered" images and back up your point. This should be interesting indeed.

BTW, while you are at it please show us...in detail...why the Moorman lens/film/fstop/shutterspeed/ stablilty combination HAD THE REQUIRED lp/mm resolution to record this "detail" you claim is present in the area of badgeman. Without this answer, all of your mutterings are just that...meanigless mutterings.

Your answers should prove to be quite illuminating as to your abilities in this regard.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

You know thats not true Craig!

[Craig Lamson]

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

You know thats not true Craig!

Its ABSOLTELY true Dean. Jacks work created an ALTERED verison of the Moorman polariod. He threw away legimate detail and created new edgelines that in turn created "detail" not present in the original Moorman. Want proof? Simply compare his badgeman ALTERATION to any Moorman. Please tell me where the detail in the wall for example in Whites ALTERATION went.

[Bill Miller]

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

Hello Craig,

I could swear that I thought Gary Mack has mentioned to you that the Badge Man image was tested by taking Moorman's actual camera and shooting another photo of the knoll with a subject at the Badge Man location and they achieved as good of quality of this person as Jack obtained, if not better. This was done in TMWKK series even though it was edited out of the show and again on a Discovery show which I cannot recall at this moment.

I guess my question to you at this time is has not Mack told you this before? And if what Mack said is true, how do you account for Moorman's camera doing what you continue to claim is impossible?

Bill

[Greg Burnham]

That's hysterical, Craig! Mack claims to have first isolated that figure and he found it without any enhancement. It has been pointed out to us in the polaroid without any enhancement beyond magnification. Even without enhancement its clarity rivals that of the man on the pedestal.

(bolding mine.)

Great, show us those "unaltered" images and back up your point. This should be interesting indeed.

BTW, while you are at it please show us...in detail...why the Moorman lens/film/fstop/shutterspeed/ stablilty combination HAD THE REQUIRED lp/mm resolution to record this "detail" you claim is present in the area of badgeman. Without this answer, all of your mutterings are just that...meanigless mutterings.

Your answers should prove to be quite illuminating as to your abilities in this regard.

Here's a better suggestion, Craig. Let's have MACK post the image THAT HE FIRST NOTICED behind the wall--BEFORE he had ever pointed it out to Jack White. Let's look at that image, Craig. I'm sure Gary still remembers exactly the location since he discovered it. That way, I don't misrepresent Gary's work inadvertently.

[Bill Miller]

I hope you don't mind if I use your observations in my writing, with, of course providing credit to you for your personal observation.

My sincere thanks,

Doug Weldon

I do not mind anyone mentioning my observations about the windshield. If I am wrong about the frosty area Vs looking at the pristine glass in the close-up of the windshield in the WH pics, then I too would be interested in how that can be.

As far as the black woman ... I am 100% correct on that one. And to be honest with you .. while the frosted area and cracks do not match the WH garage photo - the frosted area does not match the erred claim that there is a hole in the glass in Altgens #6. I suggest you get a really good copy of Altgens #6 (possibly from Josiah Thompson) and another good print of Betzner's photo and look long and hard at it for if you try and use Altgens #7 to dismiss the WH garage photo damage ... it will also kill your 'nebula' claim that Jack concocted for it won't match up. That Black woman in Betzner's photo is holding a rolled up newspaper and if you consider the way she is holding it in that photo and apply it to how it would look as she lowered it in Altgens #6 ... you will see her hand and thumb which has been wrongly thought to be a large hole ... a large hole by the way that was not seen by anyone because those who saw it called it a small hole ... just big enough to fit a pencil through.

I cannot stress enough how detrimental it would be to allow one good observation to go unnoticed because of trying to support a bad observation at the same time.

Bill

[John Dolva]

The image used, the age of it, the grainstructure et.c. are essential in verifying this claim and of course an copy of what was used. It seems to me that people are blindly accepting things without looking at the very valid statements made by Craig. (imo)

[Bill Miller]

I have much much more Bill, just give me time to dig it all out

Dean

Dig away, Dean .... someone at the fence where you place a person could not even see the parade for the Pyracantha bush would be in the way. If elevated to see over it as you proposed, then their feet would be near the top of the fence. And if they filmed the car turning onto Elm, then Zapruder and Sitzman should also be seen ... Betzner's photo shows a line of sight from that location to the limo, but the line of sight would be very different when the car was turning and just getting onto Elm Street.

It's a bad claim all around in my view.

Bill

Edited November 18, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Bill speaking only for myself, as far as those photo frames , the one of Sitzman being interviewed after,and those of her seen on the sidewalk in front of the tsbd after, were not available a few years ago,

I posted the Sitzman images to David Healy many years ago when he and I were going back and forth about him saying there was not any recognizable images of Zapruder or Sitzman even being in the plaza on the day of the assassination. The gif of her turning around and of her being interviewed - I posted at that time. It was a later date that I think Robin showed Sitzman in front of the TSBD when a discussion was going on about whether Sitzman wore heels that day or not.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Dean ... posting crops at different depths from the camera and not accounting for their size changes leaves your illustrations open to a list of criticisms. In the B&W insert you did ... note the difference in size of the guys at the base of the steps compared to those at the top or near the dog leg and relate that to the distance from Zapruder's pedestal to the fence.

Bill

[Craig Lamson]

Because the so called "badgeman" image is nothing but an altertion of the Moorman polaroid created by Jack White. Your whole arguement reeks of desperation.

Hello Craig,

I could swear that I thought Gary Mack has mentioned to you that the Badge Man image was tested by taking Moorman's actual camera and shooting another photo of the knoll with a subject at the Badge Man location and they achieved as good of quality of this person as Jack obtained, if not better. This was done in TMWKK series even though it was edited out of the show and again on a Discovery show which I cannot recall at this moment.

I guess my question to you at this time is has not Mack told you this before? And if what Mack said is true, how do you account for Moorman's camera doing what you continue to claim is impossible?

Bill

Bill, we have been over this more than once. Crawley tested the Moorman camera, on a tripod using a different film. The resolution of a photo is the sum of all the parts, not just the lens. More to the point, and Gary is also aware of this, the resolution found in the Moorman images is the sum of this combination;the actual lens, the f-stop used( it was nearly fully stopped down inducing diffraction and destroying resolution), the shutter speed (1/100), the stability ( the camera was hand held and panning, the contrast ratio of the lighting in the subject area and finally the resolution of the film stock.

Can you please tell me or more importantly show me where a test combining all of these components was conducted and what were the results?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Craig Lamson