Jump to content
The Education Forum

The missing windows...


Recommended Posts

It was a mistake. The retouch artist who added Z&S did not know

they were there.

(Jack White)

Jack,

This might sound like a stupid question, but is there a possibility that something/someone was removed from the pedestal and then the Zapruder and Stitzman figures added?

James

Not a stupid question at all. There are three possibilities:

1. Zapruder and Sitzman were atop the pedestal.

2. Somebody else were there and Zapruder and Sitzman were substituted.

3. Nobody was there, and Zapruder and Sitzman were added.

I favor the latter because of this Wiegman frame.

Jack

Jack,

It is obvious that Zapruder is blocking the windows if you closely study his body frame and consider the timeframe of the Wiegman frame to get your second answer.

Al

Al...I do not understand your comments.

1. I have shown that Zapruder was NOT blocking the window (see earlier posting)

2. The "timeframe" of the Wiegman frame is at a time which Z&S were alleged to

be standing IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT atop the pedestal.

Your comments do not make sense to me.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack,

This might sound like a stupid question, but is there a possibility that something/someone was removed from the pedestal and then the Zapruder and Stitzman figures added?

James

I have to agree with you, James as to how the question sounds. :blink: Not long ago Jack had to admit during an exchange that we had that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV less than 30 minutes after the assassination. That photo had remained in her possession until that time. That means that her photo and any Moorman print showing the same things on it has not been tampered with in any way - shape - or form.

Now having gotten that reminder out of the way, I will tell you what's wrong with Jack's observation about the windows allegedly missing. The first problem is he places Zapruder and Sitzman the same distance from the East side of the shelter which he should do. But then he uses his misrepresentation where the pedestal and distant windows should be and forgot to make his "gap" between the window and the pedestal the same as the ones seen in the Moorman photograph. Jack having moved the pedestal west has also pulled the distant pergola windows with it. Please take careful notice that I have overlaid part of Jack's lower background window over Moorman's lower background window so they'd match. Watch the pedestal shift west when those two windows are equally aligned. (see attachment one)

The next thing Jack has done is misread Zapruder's posture and coat outline. To prove this point I offer three views.

1) Bronson slide image of Zapruder

2) Betzner image of Zapruder

3) Moorman image of Zapruder

Note that in the middle image (#2) of attachment three (the Betzner view) that the sunlit part of Zapruder's clothing is marked with red arrows. The sunlit part of Zapruder's clothing is also well pronounced in the Bronson slide image, as well. But if you just look at the part that is in shade in the Betzner photo it looks just like the posture Zapruder appears to have in Moorman's photograph. That posture looks as if Zapruder's left hip is jutted outward to his left, but as the sunlit clothing outline Betzner's photo shows us, this simply is not the case. (see attachment three)

If I take the Moorman pedestal and leave Jack's pedestal showing the same gap and run them in an overlay, then the part of Zapruder's clothing that is sunlit and hard to see in Mary's photo is extended out over the distant window openings. It's only because Mary's photo is of poor quality and being a B&W image that has allowed part of Zapruder's sunlit clothing to blend into the background of the shelter like it did. The dark area in Moorman's photo that looks like Zapruder has his shoulders tilted and his hip shoved outward to his left is only an illusion as seen in the Betzner view. Once we add the sunlit part of Zapruder's clothing to the picture, then the distant windows should not be seen after all.(see attachment two)

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you, James as to how the question sounds. :blink: Not long ago Jack had to admit during an exchange that we had that Moorman's photo was filmed for TV less than 30 minutes after the assassination. That photo had remained in her possession until that time. That means that her photo and any Moorman print showing the same things on it has not been tampered with in any way - shape - or form. (Bill Miller)

Hi Bill,

Do you know who shot that film and if it can be viewed today? That is something I would be very interested to see.

Cheers,

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill,

Do you know who shot that film and if it can be viewed today? That is something I would be very interested to see.

Cheers,

James

It should be in the alteration threads on this site for I am sure I referred to the station by name at that time. I'll have to ask Gary Mack the name of the station that did it again. It was aired on NBC at about 3:26 p.m. Dallas time. The show "As it happened" shows a view of it for a brief moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a mistake. The retouch artist who added Z&S did not know

they were there.

(Jack White)

Jack,

This might sound like a stupid question, but is there a possibility that something/someone was removed from the pedestal and then the Zapruder and Stitzman figures added?

James

Not a stupid question at all. There are three possibilities:

1. Zapruder and Sitzman were atop the pedestal.

2. Somebody else were there and Zapruder and Sitzman were substituted.

3. Nobody was there, and Zapruder and Sitzman were added.

I favor the latter because of this Wiegman frame.

Jack

Jack,

It is obvious that Zapruder is blocking the windows if you closely study his body frame and consider the timeframe of the Wiegman frame to get your second answer.

Al

Al...I do not understand your comments.

1. I have shown that Zapruder was NOT blocking the window (see earlier posting)

2. The "timeframe" of the Wiegman frame is at a time which Z&S were alleged to

be standing IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT atop the pedestal.

Your comments do not make sense to me.

Jack

Jack,

As to #1, I believe Bill Miller has addressed that. As to #2, allow me to be the devil's advocate here as so much is taken for granted on these issues. Looking at the activity on the sidewalk in the foreground, please explain the timeframe after the shooting that this frame was taken from. How long did Zapruder and Sitzman stay atop the pedestal after the shots? Considering the poor quality of the photo as the subjects in the foreground are so blurred, how does this relate to the background blending of the area atop the pedestal? Have you tried to enhance this area as you did with the Mooreman photo that shows Badgeman?

Does this make more sense?

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White's reply to James Richards

Not a stupid question at all. There are three possibilities:

1. Zapruder and Sitzman were atop the pedestal.

2. Somebody else were there and Zapruder and Sitzman were substituted.

3. Nobody was there, and Zapruder and Sitzman were added.

I favor the latter because of this Wiegman frame.

End Reply

You never fail to surprise me, Jack. You know exactly what that Wiegman frame is. After all you have researched this topic for over 40 years and you are very familiar with all the films of the assassination. So you are perfectly aware that the frame that shows the pedestal to be empty is Wiegman 267. And what is that frame? Well you know perfectly well it was taken at a moment AFTER the car has gone through the Tripple Underpass.

Maybe you can explain to the members in this forum why you feel Zapruder should still be on the pedestal at this moment? Can you do that Jack???

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White's reply to James Richards

Not a stupid question at all. There are three possibilities:

1. Zapruder and Sitzman were atop the pedestal.

2. Somebody else were there and Zapruder and Sitzman were substituted.

3. Nobody was there, and Zapruder and Sitzman were added.

I favor the latter because of this Wiegman frame.

End Reply

You never fail to surprise me, Jack. You know exactly what that Wiegman frame is. After all you have researched this topic for over 40 years and you are very familiar with all the films of the assassination. So you are perfectly aware that the frame that shows the pedestal to be empty is Wiegman 267. And what is that frame? Well you know perfectly well it was taken at a moment AFTER the car has gone through the Tripple Underpass.

Maybe you can explain to the members in this forum why you feel Zapruder should still be on the pedestal at this moment? Can you do that Jack???

James

So the unpleasant Mr. Gordon shows up! Here is something which he can

study on for a while.

Jack :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the unpleasant Mr. Gordon shows up! Here is something which he can

study on for a while.

Jack ;)

Once we have concluded that Mary Moorman's photo is genuine and was photographed not 30 minutes after the assassination, then there should no longer be any question as to whether anyone was standing on the pedestal or not.

Jack - you should know better than to be trying to make a case out of the Wiegman film for not showing anyone on the pedestal. The combination of Zapruder's dark clothing against the dark background and the poor quality of the image says it all. A similar exposed version of the Betzner photo all but makes Zapruder and Sitzman disappear as well. (see attachment one)

Are you not aware that there is one frame in that film where one can just barely make out Sitzman's legs as she is getting off of the pedestal. Are you not aware that Patsy Paschall's film shows Zapruder dismounting off the pedestal? Are you not aware that Zapruder's film was shot at the end of the roll that has his family home movies on it and that all one has to do is stand on the pedestal to see where Zapruder was filming from? Does it not interest you why not a single Elm Street witness who has either seen or heard of the Zapruder film has not come forward and said that there was no one on the pedestal? You are aware aren't you that not only did Sitzman talk to the Hester's before she and Mr. Z got on the pedestal, but when they dismounted and went into the shelter, the Hester's followed them in there and talked with Zapruder and Sitzman some more. You have got to quit taking the things that you do not understand and immediately claim they are signs of film and photo alteration for it is killing the good work you have done in the past.

Below is a photo I took from Zapruder's pedestal of Groden standing on the same step as Emmett Hudson. The only way that I could get the backgrounds to match would be to be standing right where Zapruder was when he shot his film. (see attachment two)

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply by Jack White

So the unpleasant Mr. Gordon shows up! Here is something which he can

study on for a while.

Jack

End of Reply

Jack,

I have no wish to be offensive, but I do get somewhat tired of your mistakes or deliberate miss-representations. I do not know which it is. I do not know how many forum members have had the opportunity to study the assassination films as much as you have. But for those who have not, your work can be persuasive: that is until sources are studied more closely.

The image you posted, in reply to my earlier post, is one such example. I agree looking at the three images you appear to have made your point. However, as I once pointed out to you in another forum, your pedestal image is so dark it is not possible to see whether anyone is on the pedestal or not.

See Slide 1 below:-

Some time ago John Costella posted a series of 6 quite clear Wiegman images. You will see that on the right handside of Slide 1. Looking at your composite image, what I have labelled W 3 is your right hand image. Your middle image is what I have labelled W 5. I understand that the images are in chronological order. Which means that W3 was taken after W2.

If you look at your image which is on this slide. If we assume that the left hand image, which shows the Press car as well as the limo going under the underpass, is point zero it is possible to time the other two images in relation to it. The middle image, what I have called W5, I count to have been taken 33 frames later than the Press car image and the other image, what I have called W3, I count to have been taken 5 frames before the Press car image. So therefore these three images are not a composite of the same moment in time.

See Slide 2 below:-

As I once pointed out to you the 3rd Wiegman image is too dark to see whether Zapruder is on the pedestal or not. However the 4th image does allow us to see detail on the pedestal. As you can see, in this image taken later than the third image, Zapruder is still on the pedestal. Therefore, although we cannot see Zapruder, in the third image and the one used on the right hand side of your image, Zapruder must also be on the pedestal in the third image….even though we cannot see him.

Therefore, I believe your are just plain wrong. At the point you claim Zapruder is not on the pedestal, it is clear that actually he is on the pedestal.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I have no wish to be offensive, but I do get somewhat tired of your mistakes or deliberate miss-representations. I do not know which it is. I do not know how many forum members have had the opportunity to study the assassination films as much as you have. But for those who have not, your work can be persuasive: that is until sources are studied more closely.

The image you posted, in reply to my earlier post, is one such example. I agree looking at the three images you appear to have made your point. However, as I once pointed out to you in another forum, your pedestal image is so dark it is not possible to see whether anyone is on the pedestal or not.

James.

James,

I cropped part of your post because I wanted to point out an observation I have made several times over the last few years. Jack will take a dark blury film or photo and claim because he doesn't see Zapruder on the pedestal that the other better quality images showing him there must be retouched. I am most curious as to why Jack in this case didn't consider that maybe all the other films and photos showing Zapruder on the pedestal are genuine and that it was this poor dark Wiegman film that was altered?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Z&S should look in Wiegman (from Betzner)...

IF THEY WERE THERE.

Jack

Jack,

Please allow me to explain two things that you are not considering. One that is we are dealing with a B&W film with limited color tones so anything dark like Zapruder's clothing will blend into the foliage behind him. Secondly, the crop that you placed on the Weigman frame comes from a sharper image without the radical motion bluring taking place.

To show these points to you, I have taken the Betzner photo (seen below) and cropped part of Zapruder and Sitzman and movedd them into the darker tree foliage where you can see that Zapruder's clothing cannot be made out against the color of the tree foliage. White arrows point to those crops that I speak of. This shows the color tone blending problem.

Next I copy and pasted the image of both Zapruder and Sitzman and placed them in the lower left hand side of the image. I then added motion bluring that would equal the Weigman film and as you will note ... Zapruder and Sitzman have vanished. It is the combination of those two things that is the reason that you do not see those two individuals in the Dave Wiegman film.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill:

Question please.....

In Jack's and your Wiegman's frames I notice that the people

who have lighter clothing on ,do show up light in colour.....almost glaring

in the sunlight.

Marilyn Sitzman had on a light beige dress that day, so it should show up

as a very light in colour figure on the pedestal as with the others, in front

of the dark tree foliage you mention ..

But is in not showing at all...? She is behind to his left, in full view,

so he is not standing in front of her..??..I am also wondering where she

is as she is in bright sunlight.

Thanks

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill:

Question please.....

In Jack's and your Wiegman's frames I notice that the people

who have lighter clothing on ,do show up light in colour.....almost glaring

in the sunlight.

Marilyn Sitzman had on a light beige dress that day, so it should show up

as a very light in colour figure on the pedestal as with the others, in front

of the dark tree foliage you mention ..

But is in not showing at all...? She is behind to his left, in full view,

so he is not standing in front of her..??..I am also wondering where she

is as she is in bright sunlight.

Thanks

That is a fair question. If you look at the enlargement of the Betzner photo I posted earlier you will see that Sitzman is in the shadow that's being cast from Zapruder. The people out in the direct sunlight are much brighter and have a light background behind them. Then you saw what happen when I applied some motion blur to the Betzner image - they vanished. There is also the issue of whether she is behind Zapruder or not in the Wiegman film. We know how they were standing When Nix last saw them, but we don't know if she has stepped behind Mr. Z by the time Wiegman started running towards them.

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...