Tripple Underpass

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Alan Healy]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lmao,

you serious?

For all you know these two may have contributed to the way in which we view the assassination today(or at least some of us).

Sitzman most certainly has helped pull the wool over peoples eyes regarding what did or didn't happen behind the wall(my opinion & I'm proud of it).

If she & Zappy where bang at it(please excuse me) then not only do I want to know the details but I think it's extreemly important that y'all know about too.

You think these two were mearly innocents?

Well maybe before 12.30pm, maybe, but afterwards? No way.

They did there part, they would of had no choice, much like Ruby.

Alan.

[Ron Ecker]

Now you see 'em, now you don't. Zapruder and Sitzman may have been in on the plot, knowingly, unknowingly, whatever, but what would be the purpose of their act of appearing and disappearing? They can be seen on the pedestal in Moorman, for example. They can be seen in one of the films when they have just gotten down from the pedestal. But it's claimed they aren't seen in the frame posted above from whichever film it is. What would be the purpose of altering films or photos to make them here one moment and gone the next? There would have to be some rhyme or reason, wouldn't there, given the time and expense that would have to go into all this odd manipulation?

Perhaps it was done just to make people waste time like this years later. It just dawned on me.

[Tim Carroll]

I consider it unlikely in the extreme that Zapruder and Sitzman were not consistently atop the pedestal throughout the filming. But if Jack White's age and/or experience is determinative, then we have to believe that they weren't both there, despite the appearance of trousered and bare legs both showing.

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Bill Miller]

I don't anything about Zapruder and Sitzman being on the pedestal - off the pedestal - and back on the pedestal. The Zapruder film is a countinula pan of Elm Street - the location can be substantiated through recreation vies - Zapruder and Sitzman are seen on the pedestal in Betzner's photo - Willis's photo - Bronson's slide - the Nix film ... all supportive of where we see both these people in the Zapruder film.

Zapruder and Sitzman stood inside the shelter for a while after the shooting while talking to the Hester's. They can be seen together in one of Altgens photographs taken post assassination.

While I can see why you (Tim) see a face in the sun spot on the wall - I do not see how you could have thought it to be a real person once you were presented with Moorman's photograph. You have mentioned occams razor a few times, so let me share the definition with everyone ...

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor

Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-

Function: noun

Etymology: William of Occam

Date: circa 1837

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

It seems to me that once Moorman's photograph was shown to you - you had stopped applying occams razor.

[William Plumlee]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Ron. I have been trying for years to get the photo experts to look into this, (even the Dallas PD) but it always goes back to the debate of the North Knoll.

Tom Wilson some years ago did look into it and he did state, to me and others, he felt that somebody was at that location, but it needed more work. Shortly after that he died. I ask Jack long ago about the photo, but he said he failed to see anyone there but never to my knowledge did any extensive work on it.

Seems everybody wants to stay clear of that photo. Makes me wonder Why. Perhaps, if it is proven someone is there, then some researchers will have to retract their words and their works. Heaven forbid that. They are the X-Spurts and their livelyhood depends on what they have had to say in the past and their credibility would then be in question. Thanks again Tosh

[Bill Miller]

deleted for space

Edited November 4, 2004 by Bill Miller

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Jack White]

Why does everyone IGNORE THE EMPTY PEDESTAL in Wiegman

but claim the other pedestal images are genuine? The pedestal

was (and is) in bright open sunlight, and Wiegman's camera

would have filmed anybody on top of the pedestal as well

as any other camera.

Jack

[Jack White]

Why does everyone IGNORE THE EMPTY PEDESTAL in Wiegman

but claim the other pedestal images are genuine? The pedestal

was (and is) in bright open sunlight, and Wiegman's camera

would have filmed anybody on top of the pedestal as well

as any other camera.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An idea for your consideration:

[Jack White]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Ron. I have been trying for years to get the photo experts to look into this, (even the Dallas PD) but it always goes back to the debate of the North Knoll.

Tom Wilson some years ago did look into it and he did state, to me and others, he felt that somebody was at that location, but it needed more work. Shortly after that he died. I ask Jack long ago about the photo, but he said he failed to see anyone there but never to my knowledge did any extensive work on it.

Seems everybody wants to stay clear of that photo. Makes me wonder Why. Perhaps, if it is proven someone is there, then some researchers will have to retract their words and their works. Heaven forbid that. They are the X-Spurts and their livelyhood depends on what they have had to say in the past and their credibility would then be in question. Thanks again Tosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Tosh...Yes, Tom did extensive work on Cancellare but would never share it

with either you, me nor Peter Lemkin. He said he saw a "person" where the shadow

of the forked tree is on the grass (not where you said you were located near the steps).

I did many hours of darkroom work trying to find you or ANYBODY in the Cancellare

photo. I told Tom and Peter (and perhaps you) that I COULD FIND NOBODY THERE.

That does not mean that there was nobody there...just that I could not find anyone.

I do not say I see things when I do not.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

How long after the shooting was this frame taken? It would obviously be after the shooting, but it's so blurred I can't make out who any of the people are. What is the thing by the street on the left? A motorcycle?

Ron

[Jack White]

But if Jack White's age and/or experience is determinative, then we have to believe that they weren't both there, despite the appearance of trousered and bare legs both showing. Jack is mistaken about Sprague's belief in Cartop Man, given this 1970 diagram by Sprague and Cutler, unless his information is pre-1970:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My AGE has nothing to do with this discussion. You have NO REASON

to think I am senile. I knew Sprague and Cutler very well. The map

you show was only one of at least a dozen different Dealey Plats

drawn by Cutler to demonstrate EACH NEW THEORY. The plat

does show a car...BUT IT IS YOU, NOT SPRAGUE NOR CUTLER

WHO ASSOCIATES THE CAR WITH A GUNMAN. I have all of

Cutler's DIFFERENT maps. Showing this ONE is meaningless in

this discussion. In conversations with both men IN RELATION TO

NIX, I recall them calling the image the CARTOP GUNMAN. Unfortunately

Dick is dead and Bob has Alzheimer's...so they cannot confirm what

I say.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack,

How long after the shooting was this frame taken? It would obviously be after the shooting, but it's so blurred I can't make out who any of the people are. What is the thing by the street on the left? A motorcycle?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron...I assume you are referring to the Wiegman frame(s). The JFK car had

not yet reached the underpass. The final few frames (see attached) later on

in the film show the limo reaching the underpass. Nearly ALL of the Wiegman

frames are blurred. He was running with his camera rolling. The attached

image is one of his clearest frames. Note the open left door of the car pulled

over to the curb.

Jack

PS...IMPORTANT CORRECTION. I just ran the complete Wiegman film several

times. This CLEAR FRAME immediately PRECEDES the frames showing the

pedestal, and not vice versa...but the film is continuous, so this is actually

not significant timewise.

Edited October 27, 2004 by Jack White

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

Here's my interpretation of the blurred Wiegman frame. Because of the poor quality of the image, all the people are blurred and very dark (except for some light clothing that shows up on the right). Look at the two or three dark figures standing in the middle of the frame. You can see them because of the grass behind them. If you were to put them in that dark area that is directly above the pedestal, you wouldn't be able to see them. It's matching darkness, all you would see is darkness. It's the same with Zapruder and Sitzman: that's where they're still standing.

Ron