Jump to content
The Education Forum

Newly RETOUCHED Willis 5 inserted into record!


Recommended Posts

Six years ago, Dr. Fetzer published my ZAPRUDER WALTZ study in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. It showed a VERY TALL SITZMAN standing

on the pedestal behind a VERY SHORT ZAPRUDER in five photos.

Someone in Langley apparently took notice, and ordered the agency

art department to shorten Sitzman for all future uses. Who else would

have the interest and capability to alter JFK photos at this late date?

So when a recent documentary was produced, the producer was supplied

with a "new" version of Willis 5. Thus it was now "on record" that Willis 5

shows Zapruder TALLER THAN SITZMAN. I guess they thought we were

all stupid. They forgot that all of the "old" versions of Willis cannot be

retrieved and destroyed.

Fortunately, Chris Davidson, a computer artist for a San Diego newspaper,

is a JFK researcher who collects videos of the assassination. He emailed

to me and Dr. Costella several images captured from some of his videos.

Among them was a fairly good image of Willis 5. Costella recognized it

as an IMAGE HE HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE. He undertook to apply color

enhancement and his special DEBLURRING program, improving the image

considerably. He sent Chris and me his enhancement. I put both of them

on my screen and immediately it was obvious to me...Zapruder was TALLER

THAN SITZMAN! The first thing I noticed (besides John's improved sharpness

and color when enhancing Chris's new Willis 5) is that ZAPRUDER IS NOW

TALLER THAN SITZMAN! In both Chris's and John's versions!

Let me repeat: ZAPRUDER IS NOW TALLER THAN SITZMAN!

Whatever source (recently) inserted this NEW VERSION of Willis into the

record is apparently trying to counter my published studies

(THE ZAPRUDER WALTZ, MIDP) showing a short Zapruder and a tall

Sitzman. In this new version, ZAPRUDER IS NOW TALLER THAN SITZMAN!

And the changes are SO EASY TO SPOT!

Do they think we are stupid?

So photo alteration is still alive and kicking even at this late date!

Monkey business? Something rotten in Denmark?

The monkeys are still active in Denmark (or Langley), to mix a metaphor.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Six years ago, Dr. Fetzer published my ZAPRUDER WALTZ study in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. It showed a VERY TALL SITZMAN standing

on the pedestal behind a VERY SHORT ZAPRUDER in five photos.

Someone in Langley apparently took notice, and ordered the agency

art department to shorten Sitzman for all future uses. Who else would

have the interest and capability to alter JFK photos at this late date?

Jack, I find much of what you do of great interest, and as you must know by now, I'm no fan of the Langley Crud Factory, but I also have to call 'em as I see 'em, and in this case it looks to me like the enhancement done of the more recent image unfortunately lost the Sitzman head and mistook the top of two diagonal highlights for the new "head." I took the lower (bluer, unprocessed) of the two images on the right and overlayed it on the original yellower image on the left, and they seem to match pretty much exactly. I've circled both heads in red based on the original (left) image of what you posted and left the circles in place as an overlay during the transition:

sitzmancompare2.gif

Happy to hear what you think having seen this.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six years ago, Dr. Fetzer published my ZAPRUDER WALTZ study in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. It showed a VERY TALL SITZMAN standing

on the pedestal behind a VERY SHORT ZAPRUDER in five photos.

Someone in Langley apparently took notice, and ordered the agency

art department to shorten Sitzman for all future uses. Who else would

have the interest and capability to alter JFK photos at this late date?

Jack, I find much of what you do of great interest, and as you must know by now, I'm no fan of the Langley Crud Factory, but I also have to call 'em as I see 'em, and in this case it looks to me like the enhancement done of the more recent image unfortunately lost the Sitzman head and mistook the top of two diagonal highlights for the new "head." I took the lower (bluer, unprocessed) of the two images on the right and overlayed it on the original yellower image on the left, and they seem to match pretty much exactly. I've circled both heads in red based on the original (left) image of what you posted and left the circles in place as an overlay during the transition:

sitzmancompare2.gif

Happy to hear what you think having seen this.

Ashton

Thanks for the animation, Ashton. But look closely at the

added flesh tones which shorten Sitzman. And if you simply

LOOK at (not overlay) the old Willises and the new ones,

the TALLER ZAPRUDER and the SHORTER SITZMAN are

strikingly apparent. There is an OBVIOUS difference.

Thanks.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, why would Sitzman being taller than Zapruder cause alarm bells to go off at Langley?

Ron...Zapruder, according to his daughter, was 5'11".

Sitzman, according to best sources was about 5'8 or 5'9. She should be SHORTER.

All photos show her taller.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six years ago, Dr. Fetzer published my ZAPRUDER WALTZ study in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. It showed a VERY TALL SITZMAN standing

on the pedestal behind a VERY SHORT ZAPRUDER in five photos.

Someone in Langley apparently took notice, and ordered the agency

art department to shorten Sitzman for all future uses. Who else would

have the interest and capability to alter JFK photos at this late date?

Jack, I find much of what you do of great interest, and as you must know by now, I'm no fan of the Langley Crud Factory, but I also have to call 'em as I see 'em, and in this case it looks to me like the enhancement done of the more recent image unfortunately lost the Sitzman head and mistook the top of two diagonal highlights for the new "head." I took the lower (bluer, unprocessed) of the two images on the right and overlayed it on the original yellower image on the left, and they seem to match pretty much exactly. I've circled both heads in red based on the original (left) image of what you posted and left the circles in place as an overlay during the transition:

sitzmancompare2.gif

Happy to hear what you think having seen this.

Ashton

Thanks for the animation, Ashton. But look closely at the

added flesh tones which shorten Sitzman.

Mmmm. Well, "flesh tones" only appear in your friend's enhancement, and in an area that already was in part of the top diagonal highlight that starts about shoulder area. Your friend's enhancement procedures obviously are not only increasing color saturation, but are adding color into the image. Having done image compositing and retouching since before Photoshop existed, and having a pretty good arsenal of image processing software, I know all too painfully that certain kinds of "enhancement" over an entire image can absolutely wreak havoc on certain areas.

And if you simply

LOOK at (not overlay) the old Willises and the new ones,

the TALLER ZAPRUDER and the SHORTER SITZMAN are

strikingly apparent. There is an OBVIOUS difference.

Okay. There wasn't to me, which is why I went to the trouble of overlaying the unenhanced images in the first place, to see if I could find any monkeying. It ain't there. If it were, overlaying them would have made it stick out like 3D. The lights/darks all align.

So we have a difference of opinion on this set of images.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six years ago, Dr. Fetzer published my ZAPRUDER WALTZ study in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. It showed a VERY TALL SITZMAN standing

on the pedestal behind a VERY SHORT ZAPRUDER in five photos.

Someone in Langley apparently took notice, and ordered the agency

art department to shorten Sitzman for all future uses. Who else would

have the interest and capability to alter JFK photos at this late date?

Jack, I find much of what you do of great interest, and as you must know by now, I'm no fan of the Langley Crud Factory, but I also have to call 'em as I see 'em, and in this case it looks to me like the enhancement done of the more recent image unfortunately lost the Sitzman head and mistook the top of two diagonal highlights for the new "head." I took the lower (bluer, unprocessed) of the two images on the right and overlayed it on the original yellower image on the left, and they seem to match pretty much exactly. I've circled both heads in red based on the original (left) image of what you posted and left the circles in place as an overlay during the transition:

sitzmancompare2.gif

Happy to hear what you think having seen this.

Ashton

Thanks for the animation, Ashton. But look closely at the

added flesh tones which shorten Sitzman.

Mmmm. Well, "flesh tones" only appear in your friend's enhancement, and in an area that already was in part of the top diagonal highlight that starts about shoulder area. Your friend's enhancement procedures obviously are not only increasing color saturation, but are adding color into the image. Having done image compositing and retouching since before Photoshop existed, and having a pretty good arsenal of image processing software, I know all too painfully that certain kinds of "enhancement" over an entire image can absolutely wreak havoc on certain areas.

And if you simply

LOOK at (not overlay) the old Willises and the new ones,

the TALLER ZAPRUDER and the SHORTER SITZMAN are

strikingly apparent. There is an OBVIOUS difference.

Okay. There wasn't to me, which is why I went to the trouble of overlaying the unenhanced images in the first place, to see if I could find any monkeying. It ain't there. If it were, overlaying them would have made it stick out like 3D. The lights/darks all align.

So we have a difference of opinion on this set of images.

Ashton

It is beyond belief that Dr. Costella would introduce fake fleshtones

into the Sitzman face.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is beyond belief that Dr. Costella would introduce fake fleshtones into the Sitzman face.

Oh, for the love of Buddha, Jack: I didn't say he did. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

I know damned well what generally pumping saturation of color unselectively into any image can do to various areas of an image, especially one that is washed out to start with. I deal with it all the time. I'm not accusing the man of willfully manipulating it to "introduce fleshtones" in an area that is now being used as the "new, lower face." Whatever you're interpreting as "fleshtones" in that area possibly was nothing more than an ARTIFACT introduced when the overall SATURATION was pumped up and the image was made to be more "colorized." That's all.

And the other possibility is that what is now "flesh tones" always was the face, and what previously was thought to be the "face" is some other highlight in the image being formed by the foliage in the background. That's equally likely.

The fundamental problem is that you are dealing with images in which there is too little information to begin with to make any certain evaluation.

And the only point that I was making, which I stand by, is that the two unprocessed images exhibit no signs of retouching to create a "shorter" woman. Beating it to death further isn't going to change my view of it, because I've looked at it highly magnified here with my own eyes, utilizing my own image processing and enhancement software, and I don't see it.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is beyond belief that Dr. Costella would introduce fake fleshtones into the Sitzman face.

Oh, for the love of Buddha, Jack: I didn't say he did. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

I know damned well what generally pumping saturation of color unselectively into any image can do to various areas of an image, especially one that is washed out to start with. I deal with it all the time. I'm not accusing the man of willfully manipulating it to "introduce fleshtones" in an area that is now being used as the "new, lower face." Whatever you're interpreting as "fleshtones" in that area possibly was nothing more than an ARTIFACT introduced when the overall SATURATION was pumped up and the image was made to be more "colorized." That's all.

And the other possibility is that what is now "flesh tones" always was the face, and what previously was thought to be the "face" is some other highlight in the image being formed by the foliage in the background. That's equally likely.

The fundamental problem is that you are dealing with images in which there is too little information to begin with to make any certain evaluation.

And the only point that I was making, which I stand by, is that the two unprocessed images exhibit no signs of retouching to create a "shorter" woman. Beating it to death further isn't going to change my view of it, because I've looked at it highly magnified here with my own eyes, utilizing my own image processing and enhancement software, and I don't see it.

Ashton

You said:

"Mmmm. Well, "flesh tones" only appear in your friend's enhancement, and in an area that already was in part of the top diagonal highlight that starts about shoulder area."

Please explain how I misinterpreted that.

I will be glad to post the two photos and let you do your own enhancements.

However, John was working with higher quality TIFFs, and I can only post JPGs.

Let me know, and I will post them.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said:

"Mmmm. Well, "flesh tones" only appear in your friend's enhancement, and in an area that already was in part of the top diagonal highlight that starts about shoulder area."

Please explain how I misinterpreted that.

There's no interpretation necessary. It's like saying "the car has four tires touching the road." It's what is. What's to interpret? The flesh tones aren't in the unprocessed lower right image. I blew the saturation as far as it would go, and there were only blues and magentas in the image. I honestly have no idea how he went about introducing the color into the image he was working with, and I totally assume good faith on his part. But I think that if you even ask him, he'll have to agree that color artifacts can creep into any processed image. That's why when doing advanced image processing, usually only certain areas or channels are processed at a time, to keep from creating unexpected, unintended, and unwanted "accidents."

I will be glad to post the two photos and let you do your own enhancements.

However, John was working with higher quality TIFFs, and I can only post JPGs.

Let me know, and I will post them.

Great. I'll PM my email address to you, and you can email them to me. I'll make every good faith effort to see what I can do with them here, and send you the results. I'm not trying to skew this in any direction. I frankly don't think it's ultimately of major importance, but I certainly could be wrong, and right now it happens to be an interesting diversion.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, for the love of Buddha, Jack: I didn't say he did. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

I know damned well what generally pumping saturation of color unselectively into any image can do to various areas of an image, especially one that is washed out to start with. I deal with it all the time. I'm not accusing the man of willfully manipulating it to "introduce fleshtones" in an area that is now being used as the "new, lower face." Whatever you're interpreting as "fleshtones" in that area possibly was nothing more than an ARTIFACT introduced when the overall SATURATION was pumped up and the image was made to be more "colorized." That's all.

Ashton, welcome to the world of "Jack". Your original response was correct, as well as your overlay. While your getting the two images over the top of one another was a tad bit off ... your point could not have been any clearer. Jack's first illustration was so far off on where he believed the head to be on one of the images that I didn't even waste time correcting him. If he wants to post a larger version of the two images - I'll address his mistake and show you a good overlay. Even in the poorer print - Sitzman's shoulders are still higher than Zapruders, thus Zapruder is never taller than Sitzman unless one misreads the image as Jack did.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is beyond belief that Dr. Costella would introduce fake fleshtones into the Sitzman face.

Oh, for the love of Buddha, Jack: I didn't say he did. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

I know damned well what generally pumping saturation of color unselectively into any image can do to various areas of an image, especially one that is washed out to start with. I deal with it all the time. I'm not accusing the man of willfully manipulating it to "introduce fleshtones" in an area that is now being used as the "new, lower face." Whatever you're interpreting as "fleshtones" in that area possibly was nothing more than an ARTIFACT introduced when the overall SATURATION was pumped up and the image was made to be more "colorized." That's all.

And the other possibility is that what is now "flesh tones" always was the face, and what previously was thought to be the "face" is some other highlight in the image being formed by the foliage in the background. That's equally likely.

The fundamental problem is that you are dealing with images in which there is too little information to begin with to make any certain evaluation.

And the only point that I was making, which I stand by, is that the two unprocessed images exhibit no signs of retouching to create a "shorter" woman. Beating it to death further isn't going to change my view of it, because I've looked at it highly magnified here with my own eyes, utilizing my own image processing and enhancement software, and I don't see it.

Ashton

You said:

"Mmmm. Well, "flesh tones" only appear in your friend's enhancement, and in an area that already was in part of the top diagonal highlight that starts about shoulder area."

Please explain how I misinterpreted that.

I will be glad to post the two photos and let you do your own enhancements.

However, John was working with higher quality TIFFs, and I can only post JPGs.

Let me know, and I will post them.

Jack

Save your Tif files to png format. It is a lossless compression (meaning no additional artifacts) and its a format that will display on most web browsers.

You can post the files on any number of image hosting websites on the web. PBASE and SMUGMUG. I've posted full res Canon 1Ds MKII files in png on pbase. ( about 50mb uncompressed, in 8 bit, 16.7 mega pixel captures)

You can also send really big files via services like YOU SEND IT

I'm away on vacation but when I return home I can also set up members of this forum as users on my FTP server and file could be deposited and retrieved from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A resounding "YES."

Will someone please explain to me why "dark forces" would want to screw around with Zapruder's height?

Brendan, while I think you respond far too often with remarks that have no value to them which only runs up the pages of threads that you have said were too long - this time your question is legit. One moment Jack is telling us that Zapruder and Sitzman was never on the pedestal and the next moment he is trying to tell us which image of them on the pedestal is correct and which one isn't - go figure!

Bill Miller :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brendan, while I think you respond far too often with remarks that have no value to them which only runs up the pages of threads that you have said were too long - this time your question is legit.

Bill, I probably had five posts in that thread, max. You no doubt had three times as many. Don't blame me for beating a dead horse.

And please don't tell me how to post. You're not a teacher and I'm not your student. If brevity suffices, then brevity it is--especially when it comes to Jack's daily spam. Not every post has to resemble the Gettysburg Address.

One moment Jack is telling us that Zapruder and Sitzman was never on the pedestal and the next moment he is trying to tell us which image of them on the pedestal is correct and which one isn't - go figure!

There's a strait jacket in that man's future.

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...