Tripple Underpass

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

Who was it who said "Simplify, simplify"?

If you go back to the photo that you referred me to, the one that shows the woman in red, and you look at the light and shadow on the shelter wall to her left (our right), to me that basically says it all. That to me looks exactly like the kind of light and shadow, in exactly that spot, that produced the gunman image. Why is it more complicated than that?

As for this alteration business, even assuming that the conspirators somehow were able to gather up all these films and photos and alter them, what was the point? Allegedly people's shoes change color etc. in Zapruder. What's the point? How do any of the alterations claimed by the alterationists help to establish the lone nut theory and frame Lee Harvey Oswald? They don't as far as I know. It makes no sense to me that all this alteration was done to accomplish absolutely nothing.

But that's just my humble opinion.

Ron

Edited October 26, 2004 by Ron Ecker

[Jack White]

Gentlemen,

I'm disappointed that so many of last night's posts overlapped, criss-crossed, and so much was lost in the shuffle.  I feel fairly beaten down from the experience, but do not want to become another researcher who gives up because of the personal stuff.  I simply believe there are discrepencies of analysis, and I know that the connection of the person-image to the car is misleading.  A fresh discussion and analysis of just the gunman image, forward of the pergola wall, is what I have sought.  There was much of value in what Jack had to say, and before the thread turned into a fast and furious storm of overlapping, disconnected posts, I had also said that the analysis by Bill with the vertical red line at the pergola was constructive.  An image cast upon a wall by a single light source (in this case the sun), will reveal the same patterns of light and shadow despite the angle of the view.  I would equate this to a movie theater, in which a person shown on the screen will be the same image, regardless of where in the theater one sits.

But now we have a whole new ballgame with Jack's assertion that his years of studying this image were never based on the possibility of a gunman but rather on his assertion that there is significant film alteration.  As for him and Sprague working together on this, I will simply say that there is plenty of evidence that Sprague did consider that this could represent a gunman.  The map he worked on with Cutler shows this, and marks the precise spot I'm hung up on.  Jack's posting of the following photo with caption is quite interesting:

His caption reads:  "After years of studying it, I concluded that the image is a red herring, added by the retouchers who blacked in the knoll area in Nix.  It is no more a gunman than that is Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal. The Nix film is CLEARLY altered.  If altered, why waste time debating what it 'shows'?"

So Jack is not only talking about a blackened area, he is asserting that the film is altered with regard to Zapruder and Sitzman - that they are no more there than a gunman.  That is a remarkable statement indeed! 

I understand that there is an issue over what happened to the original Nix.  I have asked Gary Mack about this.  My position is that proof of film alteration is significant rather than a basis to disregard, as is the case with the autopsy photos.  I have never stated any certainty that this represents a gunman, but I have and do state with confidence that this subject has not been dealt with adequately.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sprague and Cutler, and especially Jones Harris, continued to

believe in the CARTOP GUNMAN. I did not. I think it may have

been Sprague who used that term, and I picked it up. I showed

years ago that it was likely sunlight on the pergola wall. The

term CLASSIC GUNMAN was invented by the HSCA. Early

researchers did not use it, nor did they adopt many other HSCA

ideas.

For discussion of the alteration of the Nix film, see the

discussion in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.

I will try to look up my work from years ago on the moving train.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

Tim,

Who was it who said "Simplify, simplify"?  Thoreau, I believe - good advice

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

If you go back to the photo that you referred me to, the one that shows the woman in red, and you look at the light and shadow on the shelter wall to her left (our right), to me that basically says it all. That to me looks exactly like the kind of light and shadow, in exactly that spot, that produced the gunman image. Why is it more complicated than that?

As for this alteration business, even assuming that the conspirators somehow were able to gather up all these films and photos and alter them, what was the point? Allegedly people's shoes change color etc. in Zapruder. What's the point? How do any of the alterations claimed by the alterationists help to establish the lone nut theory and frame Lee Harvey Oswald? They don't as far as I know. It makes no sense to me that all this alteration was done to accomplish absolutely nothing.

But that's just my humble opinion.

Ron

Ron - I agree, too many times there are film and photo alteration claims being made because someone has missread an image. In this case - Jack says that the Nix film was altered, but was it really? Jack doesn't seem to ever look for the most non-conspiratorial answer first, but rather goes right to the conspiracy claim. If one wants to know if there was a shooter removed from the shelter wall or not - simply use a photo that shows that location that has been shown to be unaltered. Moorman's photo can be shown to have been unaltered because it was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination. No opportunity is there for alteration of her photo to have occurred. That alsone shows us that if no one is on the sidewalk near the shelter wall in the unaltered Moorman photo, then they cannot be there in the dark Nix film, nor were they retouched out of the Nix film. That's just common sense!

To address something Tim said concerning how a movie screen is viewed in a theater and about the shapes at the wall looking a bit different in Nix than in Bell ... let me say this ... Different cameras see objects differently because their lenses are not the same. The light spots in Moorman are still on the wall, but compare them to how they look in the Nix film and they will appear slightly different. Also, the angle at which an image appears will change from location to location. For instance if you see the fence from down low - it may appear to run on a slant whereas if you see it from staight on it may appear to look flat and horizontal. All these sorts of things come into play and are not always considered, which can lead to unnecessary alteration claims being made.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

I am not a believer in significant film alteration. I was surprised by Jack's assertion, and even more surprised that he states that Zapruder and Sitzman are no more there than the gunman.

Tim

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Ron Ecker]

The autopsy photos and x-rays are another matter. That's a complete mess. At least one autopsy photo, showing the back of JFK's head intact, is obviously faked. I'm referring to the films and photos from Dealey Plaza when I say that alteration of that material, even if it were feasible, didn't accomplish anything, so what would be the point?

[Bill Miller]

The autopsy photos and x-rays are another matter. That's a complete mess. At least one autopsy photo, showing the back of JFK's head intact, is obviously faked. I'm referring to the films and photos from Dealey Plaza when I say that alteration of that material, even if it were feasible, didn't accomplish anything, so what would be the point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, Ron.

Here is an example of what different cameras can do when it comes to making alike objects look different. There was a set of light spots on the shelter wall that I put a box around. One of those shadows looks like the letter "C". I located it with an arrow. Note the difference in the light patterns all around it on the shelter wall when viewed between Moorman's camera image and Nix's. (Hopefully the enlargement box will appear when the attachment is opened ... it sometimes take a moment to come up)

Edited October 26, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Proof of film alteration would be significant only if it could be proven, which I don't understand to be the case. I will repeat what I said so that it won't be distracted with other comparisons. I have seen no proof of Dealey Plaza film or photo alteration, other than the transposition of Z frames in an early version (Zf 313-316, I believe). I am not persuaded that film alteration is a relevant issue to this discussion; no disrespect to Jack White intended. Of course, his expressed atttitude is that he is the expert and if he says it's so, then we should respectfully agree. I don't at all agree with his statement that "It is no more a gunman than that is Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal." When I pointed up that quote, he responded, but apparently didn't feel this statement required correction. Is there anyone else here who believes that this frame does not show Zapruder and Sitzman?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What more proof do you need? (click on icon; forum software REDUCED the image)

Jack

Edited October 26, 2004 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Proof of film alteration would be significant only if it could be proven, which I don't understand to be the case. I will repeat what I said so that it won't be distracted with other comparisons. I have seen no proof of Dealey Plaza film or photo alteration, other than the transposition of Z frames in an early version (Zf 313-316, I believe). I am not persuaded that film alteration is a relevant issue to this discussion; no disrespect to Jack White intended. Of course, his expressed atttitude is that he is the expert and if he says it's so, then we should respectfully agree. I don't at all agree with his statement that "It is no more a gunman than that is Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal." When I pointed up that quote, he responded, but apparently didn't feel this statement required correction. Is there anyone else here who believes that this frame does not show Zapruder and Sitzman?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about this NIX FRAME which has Sitzman but NO ZAPRUDER?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited October 26, 2004 by Jack White

[Tim Carroll]

Some researchers have said that Zapruder and Sitzman were very close, both on and off the pedestal, but I don't believe that personal lifestyles should be fodder for public discourse.

Tim

[William Plumlee]

Proof of film alteration would be significant only if it could be proven, which I don't understand to be the case. I will repeat what I said so that it won't be distracted with other comparisons. I have seen no proof of Dealey Plaza film or photo alteration, other than the transposition of Z frames in an early version (Zf 313-316, I believe). I am not persuaded that film alteration is a relevant issue to this discussion; no disrespect to Jack White intended. Of course, his expressed atttitude is that he is the expert and if he says it's so, then we should respectfully agree. I don't at all agree with his statement that "It is no more a gunman than that is Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal." When I pointed up that quote, he responded, but apparently didn't feel this statement required correction. Is there anyone else here who believes that this frame does not show Zapruder and Sitzman?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about this NIX FRAME which has Sitzman but NO ZAPRUDER?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Somewhere we got off track about the 'Tripple Underpass" and the possible South Knoll shooter. What about the South Knoll picture? What about the area I refered to? Is that light and shadows? Has anything been done in reference to confirming that part, or should it be sent to the trash bend. Perhaps all this north knoll and south knoll information should be sent to the trash bend.

Is there any intelligent life out there? Any new thoughts that might further research into new areas which have not been explored as yet. OR, is it best to just hash old questions and concepts, and tickle eachothers ears, attempting to add three feet to our own puffed up stature.

Kill the messengers. Thats the solution. Thats the best thing to do. Then we don't have to think or expose ourselves anymore and life will becomes simple once again. Tosh, Tosh

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

In enlarging that photo above that has the caption under it, I can see more clearly than ever how the gunman image is light and shadow.

You can actually see the outer edge of the shelter wall against the darkness. Two of the spots, the "head" and "left arm," are on the wall. The third spot, the "right arm" resting on the "cartop," is light from the parking lot beyond the edge of the shelter wall.

And all three spots have the same bright consistency, that of light, not of body parts.

Doesn't it look that way to you?

Ron

[Alan Healy]

Is there anyone else here who believes that this frame does not show Zapruder and Sitzman?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Tim, there are people here & elsewhere who believe that & lot of these people have been studying the case far longer than you or I.

As for myself, I was educated on a forum where they give these ideas a chance & even though my stay at Lancer has been profitable(very much so) & has made me look at things in a slighty less conspiratory manner, I still believe in the possibility of manufactured evidence, the photos & films are a big part of that obviously.

Now what does that mean?

I'll tell you.

I don't look at the films & photos the way Jack does(yet) but I am open-minded enough to realise that what I am seeing in them may not be the truth.

Two good examples imo are Blackdogman & JFKs' head wound in the Zfilm.

One I talk about & study the other I don't.

I know what I see in both of them but there's no way I can trust what I'm seeing in either 100% since I believe in a major cover-up on grand scale.

As for Zappy & Sitzy on the pedestal, I can't prove that that is actually them on the pedestal in the photos & films, can you?

Maybe if you considered the idea of them actually not being there to start with & then seeing what you can find to substanciate these two individuals presence in the Plaza that day, you might have an idea of where these researchers minds are at.

It can prove an interesting exersize at least.

Bill said recently that has already pointed out this couple on the pedestal in Weigman(which is one of the major stumbling blocks here because no one else can find them) maybe he has his worked saved & can show us.

Okay back on topic(but funnily enough related to this).

Your Nix gunman has to have been "airbrushed" out of Moorman in your mind surely, what other options have you?

He's not there, or can you see something?

Also regarding "the man in profile" which I accidently created whilst deleting the lines & text in this photo;

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ype=post&id=570

I fooled you without even trying

Best regards.

Sincerly

Alan

Btw, I see what your doing here, it reminds me of the way I studied BDM, I wouldn't take anyones word for anything without proof either, I still don't & I'm a better student because of it.

[Ron Ecker]

Tosh,

I for one wish I could help with that south knoll photo, in terms of analyzing the spot where you were. But I know nothing about photography, photoanalysis, the necessary software, etc. I wish someone would do it.

Ron