Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 There's much more to see in Z. frame # 421 than what might appear at first glance. In that regard I have a text and graphics file already prepared for posting. However, prior to presenting it I would like others to have a go at spotting what is involved. PhotoShop software can easily do the job, but for those who wish to download a free and very high quality image editor, I would recommend Image Analyser at http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/ Ed. I agree, John Dolva put me on to Image Analyzer. It's a very powerfull little image program, and it is "Freeware" This image seems to show a "Black" handbag which Sitzman was carrying, and which appears to be the object seen at the feet of the woman on the pedestal. In the image below is this Sitzman's black bag.? Or is it Zapruder carrying a "Black" camera bag, and is that the object which appears at the feet of the woman on the pedestal. Robin...I disagree with your analysis of the so-called ALTGENS 8. Attached is MY interpretation. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Don't hesitate to check out some of the 'undocumented features of 'IA'. You can do almost unlimited quality zooms with the 3D plugin (depth map, gouraud texture, no lighting (or play with lighting to highlight features taking care not to add features). Have one image, plus a copy which is converted to grayscale, use 'image mapper' to stretch the black/white points(auto) from 0 to 256, adaptively equalise or auto gamma, apply cancel : not OK, >> undo if mistake (about 4 undos). Use this grayscale as the depth map., make it flat at 0.01. part of what may be seen as shadow is blotch on concrete step, so back to drawing board on that feature. Good, OK so yes : a black bag. Good quality early Daniels film frames may help as they show SS car entering underpass. I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on. That Zapruder and Sitzman stood on the pedestal in a friendly fashion and filmed the zfilm as we have it today (sans Costellas and others alterations around percieved distortions and blemishes (which is a big mistake btw, tragic really, apparently this sort of thing is being attempted with the Paschall film to 'clean it up', or through electronic transmisssion in various formats.) seems without serious doubt. Apart for some obvious frames missing the only thing I have concern for is the apparent 'blackout' of crucial moment of the area between sprockets when the Limo is at the sign. Anyway, Daniels, and some of the other photos from the 'other side' may be useful. I've looked at what I have and find the quality not good enought to make any definite staterments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 There's much more to see in Z. frame # 421 than what might appear at first glance. In that regard I have a text and graphics file already prepared for posting. However, prior to presenting it I would like others to have a go at spotting what is involved. PhotoShop software can easily do the job, but for those who wish to download a free and very high quality image editor, I would recommend Image Analyser at http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/ Ed. I agree, John Dolva put me on to Image Analyzer. It's a very powerfull little image program, and it is "Freeware" This image seems to show a "Black" handbag which Sitzman was carrying, and which appears to be the object seen at the feet of the woman on the pedestal. In the image below is this Sitzman's black bag.? Or is it Zapruder carrying a "Black" camera bag, and is that the object which appears at the feet of the woman on the pedestal. Robin...I disagree with your analysis of the so-called ALTGENS 8. Attached is MY interpretation. Jack Several years ago researcher Rick Janowitz and I replicated the Altgen 8 pose. Here is the result. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 There is an indication that Zapruder is standing on the lower step. Tom stated his height as 5.10. Wiegmen frames show the couple on the grass (the bit where the guy heroically dashes for cover, presumably to check it out while his gf lies low...) and may time this Altgens. As far as I can see they sit in this pose well past the time of the Limo passing on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) There is an indication that Zapruder is standing on the lower step. Tom stated his height as 5.10.Wiegmen frames show the couple on the grass (the bit where the guy heroically dashes for cover, presumably to check it out while his gf lies low...) and may time this Altgens. As far as I can see they sit in this pose well past the time of the Limo passing on. Who is Tom? Why is Tom's height relevant? I have never seen a documented height for Zapruder. Here is Rick Janowitz standing with a scale marked in feet. Judge his height for yourself. He is shorter than Zapruder. Jack Edited January 3, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Who is Tom? Jack Tom (Purvis (member), in another thread) gave Zapruders height as 5'10" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) Who is Tom? Jack Tom (Purvis (member), in another thread) gave Zapruders height as 5'10" What kind of documentation is that? I can tell you I am 7'3"...but does that make it true? Jack There is an indication that Zapruder is standing on the lower step. Tom stated his height as 5.10. Wiegmen frames show the couple on the grass (the bit where the guy heroically dashes for cover, presumably to check it out while his gf lies low...) and may time this Altgens. As far as I can see they sit in this pose well past the time of the Limo passing on. Who is Tom? Why is Tom's height relevant? I have never seen a documented height for Zapruder. Here is Rick Janowitz standing with a scale marked in feet. Judge his height for yourself. He is shorter than Zapruder. Jack Below is a composite showing Rick by the pedestal and Rick holding a rod marked in feet. Decide for yourself how tall the man in Altgens 8 is. Jack Edited January 3, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) There is an indication that Zapruder is standing on the lower step. Tom stated his height as 5.10.Wiegmen frames show the couple on the grass (the bit where the guy heroically dashes for cover, presumably to check it out while his gf lies low...) and may time this Altgens. As far as I can see they sit in this pose well past the time of the Limo passing on. Hi John. The couple sitting on the grass are Mr and Mrs Hester. I think that Mr Hester jumped up to check out the rail yard through the pergola opening in the wall. I have a clear photo somewhere, showing him looking through the opening, while his wife is on the grass in behind him. Jack. I am by no means certain that the scenario i put forward is correct. It is only an assumption on my part, at various times i too have seen the Image the way you see it. Two individuals one behind the other. Edited January 3, 2006 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) Keep in mind that Altgens 8 (allegedly the final one on the roll) is provably taken from the middle of Elm Street. Keep in mind that Altgens immediately crossed the street where he was photographed by Cancellare moments later WHILE THE MOTORCADE WAS STILL GOING BY! Jack Edited January 3, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Tom ran a thread on the DP survey maps quoting/showing/using original material. If there is doubt about that take it up with him. In this was a reference to Zapruders height necessary for working out angles. The photo of Rick has the background as cues to vanishing point of horizon, from this the proper height of the pole can be guessed for height measurements when placed at Ricks heels. When resizing the pedestal correctly and placing the pole next to Rick one may resize it for this location. Then crossreference to Zapruder. There is an error margin of course. But it seems Tom is not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 where was the limo rather than mororcade components? The attempt to locate the position of Altgens appears to be correct however: If one compares relative sizes by correctly sizing things the differences in sizes, (see how the recent photo shows more of the part of waa below the slits?) indicates that the recent photos may very well have been taken forward of where altgens was. On the whole, while a good attempt, not precise enough for this conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 John Dolva wrote: "I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on." John...you are missing the point. Even IF ALL THE IMAGES ARE FAKE, it is important to point out the discrepancies between them. That is NOT using one to "prove genuineness" of another. To the contrary, such differences make BOTH suspect. This is an important difference! I have come to believe through years of such comparisons that most of the images have been altered to some degree. For years I thought Moorman was an untampered image, but I now believe the pedestal area was retouched to add Zapruder and Sitzman. The DIFFERENCES in the various Z&S images prove tampering...not that any one view is genuine. See THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Jack, It appears the Groden photo [to this set] was taken at a different time of day? Probably a date other than Nov 22nd, xxxx, is that correct? Groden was used for scaling/size purposes alone, yes? John Dolva wrote:"I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on." John...you are missing the point. Even IF ALL THE IMAGES ARE FAKE, it is important to point out the discrepancies between them. That is NOT using one to "prove genuineness" of another. To the contrary, such differences make BOTH suspect. This is an important difference! I have come to believe through years of such comparisons that most of the images have been altered to some degree. For years I thought Moorman was an untampered image, but I now believe the pedestal area was retouched to add Zapruder and Sitzman. The DIFFERENCES in the various Z&S images prove tampering...not that any one view is genuine. See THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Jack,It appears the Groden photo [to this set] was taken at a different time of day? Probably a date other than Nov 22nd, xxxx, is that correct? Groden was used for scaling/size purposes alone, yes? John Dolva wrote: "I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on." John...you are missing the point. Even IF ALL THE IMAGES ARE FAKE, it is important to point out the discrepancies between them. That is NOT using one to "prove genuineness" of another. To the contrary, such differences make BOTH suspect. This is an important difference! I have come to believe through years of such comparisons that most of the images have been altered to some degree. For years I thought Moorman was an untampered image, but I now believe the pedestal area was retouched to add Zapruder and Sitzman. The DIFFERENCES in the various Z&S images prove tampering...not that any one view is genuine. See THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ. Jack Jack, It appears the Groden photo [to this set] was taken at a different time of day? Probably a date other than Nov 22nd, xxxx, is that correct? Groden was used for scaling/size purposes alone, yes? Yep...The Groden photo with the 8-foot pole was taken for size purposes only, to show how small Zapruder is in other photos. I think the Groden photo was made in the summer. Jack John Dolva wrote: "I share doubt about this whole thing. Partly it's 'philosophical' : how can one use a film one considers a fake to prove the genuineness of features about a film one has chosen not to call fake and so on." John...you are missing the point. Even IF ALL THE IMAGES ARE FAKE, it is important to point out the discrepancies between them. That is NOT using one to "prove genuineness" of another. To the contrary, such differences make BOTH suspect. This is an important difference! I have come to believe through years of such comparisons that most of the images have been altered to some degree. For years I thought Moorman was an untampered image, but I now believe the pedestal area was retouched to add Zapruder and Sitzman. The DIFFERENCES in the various Z&S images prove tampering...not that any one view is genuine. See THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) Rather than concentrate on the people (which have been inserted), concentrate on the permanent concrete pergola structure, as I did in 2002 (below). You will see that whoever inserted the people made a mistake in lining up the background window correctly. Jack Detail of the hair bun on the back of the woman's head. Done in 2002. Jack Edited January 3, 2006 by Jack White 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