Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) dgh01: you went ahead an edited your original post -- so hear we go again-- Nothing of substance has been changed in my replies. dgh01: push? Never collected a dime... "Pushing a book" does not mean you are the one profitting from it. Please stay focused. dgh01: evidence of alteration? Why would I post that? A simple scenario and explanation elludes you: IF the film was altered, here's how it COULD of been altered, that was the thesis for the HOAX chapter, right in the first page -- Have you actually READ the article? tsk-tsk! All other claims as to my pushing the alteration scenario, from your side of the fence are, quite simply BOGUS... I realize that one can sit around and think up ways that a film could have been altered, that's the easy part. Finding evidence for such an idea is the hard part! I can tell everyone how Nellie and Jackie can be switched out so to make it appear Jackie was riding with Connally and Nellie with Kennedy - so what good does it do if the other films and photos don't support what I'm suggesting? I cannot realistically just tell everyone that the other films and photos are a sideshow and should be ignored because that's taking information away from the researcher in order to make a suggested scenario look plausible. dgh01: tell people to buy HOAX? no young Bill -- READ Hoax! Scientic evidence of chicanry, 2nd class propogandist have tried to debunk it, Dr. Costella's work stands. Let me say this again ... Costella wrote about how Moorman's photo could have been altered because of an imaginary 27 hour window of opportunity he came up with. Jack White has already acknowledged that Moorman's photo was still in her possession when it was shown to the TV people for filming not more than 30 minutes after the assassination. Costella must not have known this when he wasted all that book space, but even worse is someone now knowing the facts and then still talking about Costella's work still standing. About your saying just "READ THE BOOK" ... you need to find a site that doesn't archive your post. Let me share something you said just recently ------ David G. Healy Nov 5 2004, 03:46 AM Post #9 Experienced Member Group: Members Posts: 102 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 712 Buy the book, HOAX -- it's all in there.... David Healy dgh01: and the attacks on Jack White continue, thank you Mr. Peter's! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe it was you who called all the other photo and film evidence a sideshow. It just so happens that Jack White put on the so-called 'sideshow' evidence in the Hoax book. If you don't want Jack mentioned, then I'd give a little more thought to your replies in the future before posting them. This is just what this thread was about. So try to cite facts and not just opinions that have nothing to support them and more importantly ... keep it straight as to what you have previously said in the past. One word of advice - I would also appreciate you keeping it straight as to who you are posting to. If you can't keep the simple things straight, then you aren't going to find a lot of people taking you serious over the more complex issues like the need for scientific testing on the Zapruder film. Edited November 13, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 dgh01: and the attacks on Jack White continue, thank you Mr. Peter's! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David..."Miller" has never grasped our position. ZAPRUDER DID NOT TAKE THE ZAPRUDER FILM. It is doubtful that he and Sitzman were even on the pedestal (see the Zapruder Waltz). The entire film is a fabrication of unknown origin. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Another Wiegman clear frame. In bright sunlight, it shows NOBODY on the pedestal. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 (edited) David..."Miller" has never grasped our position. ZAPRUDERDID NOT TAKE THE ZAPRUDER FILM. It is doubtful that he and Sitzman were even on the pedestal (see the Zapruder Waltz). The entire film is a fabrication of unknown origin. Jack So Jack - let me see if I understand you correctly ... are you saying that Zapruder and Sitzman were part of some plot to come in after the assassination and just say that they were on the pedestal filming the motorcade? Let me divide your only alternatives into two possibilities. One scenario is that no one was ever on the pedestal at all and the other scenario is that the two people on the pedestal were not Zapruder and Sitzman. For no one to be on the pedestal at all during the assassination ... that would mean that Bronson's film is doctored - Nix's film is doctored - The Willis photo is doctored - the Betzner photo is doctored - the Paschall film is doctored - and that the Moorman photo is doctored. Now you and I have already talked about Moorman's photo being genuine because she kept it in her possession for the 30 minutes after the assassination when a film crew talked to her and taped her photo. Moorman's photo shows two people on the pedestal. If Moorman's photo is genuine like you have said in the past, then this means that the Wiegman film has been doctored to the point of removing Zapruder and Sitzman, while leaving them in all the remaining photos and films or there is another set of circumstances at play here that you have failed to consider. I believe it is the latter. I believe that Zapruder is blocking out Sitzman in the frames you have chosen and that his dark clothing is blended into the background. If this is not the case, then the Wiegman film has been altered and it makes no sense to have altered a poor blurry film to start with and not correct all the others. If you look at the Mark Oakes work on the Paschall film you will see Zapruder actually getting off of the pedestal. If your position was that someone filmed from atop of the pedestal, but it was not Zapruder, then who was on the pedestal dressed like Zapruder and Sitzman? Also, tell me how did these alleged impostors get Zapruder's home movies on the same roll of film that that the assassination was recorded on? How did these alleged impostors get Sitzman to turn around and face the camera as she spoke with the Hester's? How did the impostors get the film to Zapruder to take back to his office? These are questions that should be considered when considering the plausibility of your observation. One other thing also worth mentioning here ... are you not aware that the Hester's followed Zapruder and Sitzman into the shelter and spoke to them for a while after the assassination? Have the Hester's ever once said that the man and woman they seen before, during or after the assassination was anyone other than Zapruder and Sitzman? If they did, then I am not aware of it. Below in the first attachment is Sitzman and Zapruder walking away from the pedestal as seen in the Bell film. I also have attached a clip showing Sitzman that Abraham Zapruder took of her as she stood next to the Hester's talking to them before the arrival of the motorcade. Note the same dress and black scarf she is seen wearing on and around the pedestal in the other assassination images of them. I might also add that in the clip of Sitzman near the Hester's that her dark scarf blends into the shade of the pergola. From the distance Wiegman was from them and the film being blurred the way it is - it's no wonder Zapruder's dark clothing hid the two of them against the background of the tree foliage. You consider what I have stated here and see if it doesn't explain the Wiegman film not showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal to your satisfaction. Edited November 15, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now