Jump to content

Is the "Other" film a hoax?


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the "Other" film a hoax?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      14


Recommended Posts

Quote Bill Miller;'' Dean, your fellow alteration supporters are getting what they deserve in my view. For instance, I had one of them going on years ago about there was no clear image of Sitzman being in the Plaza and yet the woman turns and faces Zapruder's camera just prior to the assassination. That footage is taken at the colonnade with Sitzman talking to her friends - the Hester's. Then there is the interview of Sitzman at the pedestal ,,, pictures of Sitzman near the TSBD ... all showing her in the same clothes as seen on the woman at the pedestal. So why does another poorly researched alteration claim have to be made from all of this ... the answer may be what I just said 'poorly researched'.

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, perhaps to you or some but they were never shared if so, until Robin, obtain the films, and copied frames showing her within, one time some years back i did have a copy of the gif of the hesters and marilyn shown by zapruder before the motorcade came but that was not readily available,either and then it was lost , and for a few years it was not available on the web at all, until someone perhaps you obtained that early part of the zapruder film and created that gif, which also was not readily available and disappeared some time ago, until again Robin had access and posted his gif of such for all, about a year or so ago, if it or any of these were available to those who cannot do the gifs from films etc, they were not shared, and please leave the ask Gary part alone, the one time i did make a request some years back to him it was about an article he had written about the wiegman film in one of his copies of his magazine, i asked if it was possible for a copy as i was studying that film at the time, i received a reply to the effect he had them in a box the magazines, and the article was not available, so i still wait, i did not bother to ask further,

I just want you to realise that even though perhaps these films etc were available to you, and others, who also knew how to capture frames and prepare gifs, all did and do not, so i wanted to make it clear to Dean and others, whomever is interested, that the playing field has not been even, as some have had the availability of such, but to those that had a different opinion than them, they were not it appeared, as they certainly were not shared, ,,but thanks to Robin who has shared with all, perhaps and hopefully so,this is showing that the new younger generation of researchers such as Robin and martin hindrich who also shares so willingly,,it is a sign of more open minds than some within the older generation,though there are some within that older generation that did,, not enough did so imo... i am sorry to say, as well as to those who still hoard information and such and they are out there, without a doubt,,so cheers for Robin..and Martin, .

and yes she may be seen clearly Marilyn in the pre motorcade zapruder film,clip,as well as after in some frames, but her facial features are not seen clearly within the photos and other films taken that day just as zapruder's features are not,...while.on the pedestal.if there, which until we do see them clearly, will and has created doubt within the studies, as each are entitled to their own opinion and should not be ridiculed, nor mocked for such. and those who do so have proven they lack a sense of fairness and open mindedness within the studies as they continue to do so and have never appeared to learn...........imo...b

Thanks for the generous comments Bernice.

Cheers.

Robin.

I would like to add my respect for Lee Forman.

When i was out of work and broke about 5 years ago, Lee kindly sent me a copy of Trask's "Pictures of the pain"

about a year later when i went back to work again, i brought my first "Scanner" and that is how my Website image galleries first started.

with images scanned from Lee's copy of Trask's "Pictures of the pain"

You see it's all about sharing the images.

People tend to give Gary Mack a hard time for hoarding all the best images, and not sharing with the research community.

i must admit he has rubbed me up the wrong way a couple of times, but he has always been willing to help me with my research when i ask the questions.

Some seem to forget, that if it wasn't for Gary Mack making available the newly restored Hughes, Dorman, Nix, Muchmore & Towner film frames.

Via DVD'S like "Death in Dealey Plaza" we would still be using the crappy film frames Groden provides in the " Assassination films DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Recently on this forum:

Robin Unger and Martin Hinrichs conclusively proved that the limo did not make a wide turn via their study of the lane markings in the Towner film.

Maybe Martin, and/or Robin could once again post their findings.

Hi Duncan

Is this the thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16847&st=40

Someone can check with Gary Mack, but I seem to recall him saying to me once that the limo could be seen in part during that turn and it stayed to the middle lane. I believe that we were discussing Truly's statement about the turn. Gary would be the best person to ask for it was a long time ago and I may not be remembering it correctly.

Bill

Dorman frame showing part of the Limo and follow up car during the turn.

D-229.jpg

Dorman frame showing the distance from the south side curb to the motorcycles.

D-265.jpg

Chris / Martin

It would be interesting exersise to try to overlay the Dorman frame showing the Limo & follow up car onto a scaled overhead of the Dealey plaza corner.

Note the motorcycle is siiting next to the white road stripe !

Robin,

I don't believe we have a true overhead of this corner to work with.

Do you have something particular in mind?

chris

Hi Chris

What i had in mind is something similar to the GIF i posted with the Doorman frame overlaid on the 1968 Dealey Plaza image.

but profesionally done.

My effort was somewhat rushed so as to give an example of where i was coming from.

In Dorman we see the motorcycle almost sitting on the white lane marker ( that white lane marker should be visible from another perspective )

as it is in the 1968 image.

the other Dorman frame gives us a good indication of the distance from the curb to the first motorcycle, second motorcycle, and from that we should be able to pinpoint the approx positions of the limo and follow up car by cross referencing the two Dorman frames i provided.

I think the white road stripe is the key.

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...