Jump to content
The Education Forum

Image Editing under Stemmons Between Betzner and Willis


Recommended Posts

came across a couple of different websites, one of them French, discussing different problems with the Stemmons sign in Zapruder (using the "damaged" Life Mag frames) and the supposed missing North Hwy 77 signs on the left post - while I don't think the signs are actually painted out, I am convinced some people under Stemmons got "moved around" between Betzner and Willis.

how have these people rearranged themselves within about a second span? what's going on here...?

peopleUnderSign.jpg

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's some guy trying to say that the "NORTH 77" on the left post of Stemmons is missing in Betzner and Willis because of Umbrella Man standing there and the Feds had to "fix" the film - it took some time, but I finally could see the NORTH 77 signs - but there IS an issue with the group of people. Hard to imagine there's not more talk about this.

This person actually suggested that the Black Dog Man figure is another alteration as a diversion of the mess they made below the sign. :)

77_.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

peopleUnderSignrepdesat_zpscnrqnsux.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure what you're getting at, John...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lines connect the people who have not moved.
The camera position is different as well as the people in the background walking on the footpath, and the cars have moved at different speeds. A number of movements photographed at different times from different places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not so sure, and i'm not trying to create what's not there. but the two photographers were no more than a few feet apart up the street. that accounts for the slightly different angles of the stationary objects and the two Agents. the movement of that one car that's visible is taken into consideration. that doesn't explain the gap in the lower group of people OR the bright sunlight on the two taller figures that are centered. and there seems to be a gap to the other side of these two figures in the opposite group.

you're saying that gap is because someone is walking behind them? hmmm... looks like a face to me, not the left side of a person's head.

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wonder how many people were walking when POTUS was driving by 10 feet away...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably mixed up about the time of some other images . Perhaps bronson film for a different view of that area. I've got a vague idea this was discussed some time ago on this forum. Could have been years. From memory I think all matters were dealt with and no sign of alteration is there in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, the camera position in the black and white photo is much to the right of the camera position of the colour photo.(Note the different views of the walls behind the sign.) This would account for the apparent difference in positions of the spectators. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another piece about this: http://assassinationofjfk.net/was-umbrella-man-a-shooter/. It's really hard to say when the films are so unclear.

Excellent article. We know from Bronson that UM was in front of the sign, not behind it as in Willis and Betzner. And there is no way the part of the umbrella where the suspect dark patch is should be seen in Willis and Betzner because it obviously would be behind the "North" sign. Based on this, the article makes a strong case for UM having been moved by photo alteration, which would most likely have been deemed necessary if UM acted as a shooter and not just a bystander or signaler. It also makes sense that the weird BDM image would be added as a distraction from the alterations.

The only question I still have about the fletchette theory is whether firing the umbrella gun could be that accurate as to hit a moving target that precisely. Was there no danger of hitting Jackie instead? The Warren Commission would have had a fine time explaining that.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, the camera position in the black and white photo is much to the right of the camera position of the colour photo.(Note the different views of the walls behind the sign.) This would account for the apparent difference in positions of the spectators. IMO.

not so much as to cause that. i'll post the positions of Betzner and Willis...

ah - you may be right >>

BetznerWillisSign.jpg

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another piece about this: http://assassinationofjfk.net/was-umbrella-man-a-shooter/. It's really hard to say when the films are so unclear.

Excellent article. We know from Bronson that UM was in front of the sign, not behind it as in Willis and Betzner. And there is no way the part of the umbrella where the suspect dark patch is should be seen in Willis and Betzner because it obviously would be behind the "North" sign. Based on this, the article makes a strong case for UM having been moved by photo alteration, which would most likely have been deemed necessary if UM acted as a shooter and not just a bystander or signaler. It also makes sense that the weird BDM image would be added as a distraction from the alterations.

The only question I still have about the fletchette theory is whether firing the umbrella gun could be that accurate as to hit a moving target that precisely. Was there no danger of hitting Jackie instead? The Warren Commission would have had a fine time explaining that.

that's what i thought at first, because that's what the guy was talking about who posted this about the altered signs - the movement of UM - but as i looked more closely, it looks to me like UM is in front still, just obscured by a motorcycle antenna, angle, etc...

my good graphics software brings it in close without screwing it up, but not as nicely as some can - i'd sure like to know what the pros use with images that's better than Photoshop in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably mixed up about the time of some other images . Perhaps bronson film for a different view of that area. I've got a vague idea this was discussed some time ago on this forum. Could have been years. From memory I think all matters were dealt with and no sign of alteration is there in the end.

right, good enough. I could look for it, but if it's long ago, no telling what's been redecided since...

ultimately i think it's false alarm, too. like the face in the background opening in the pergola. I'm CERTAIN that's been seen before. It's not like "OH!!! LOOK!!! something noone's seen yet!!! - A FACE!!!"

:)

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

×
×
  • Create New...