Sitzman's two dresses

[Jack White]

A great puzzle is why the Z film shows Marilyn in a

short sleeved beige dress and the Bronson slide

shows her in a dark dress with long white sleeves.

Jack

[Jack White]

A great puzzle is why the Z film shows Marilyn in a

short sleeved beige dress and the Bronson slide

shows her in a dark dress with long white sleeves.

Jack

I am surprised that 39 people have looked at this image

showing Sitzman in TWO DIFFERENT DRESSES and nobody

has offered any kind of comment.

I at least expected Miller to say I was mistaken or Lamson

to say specular highlights can cause a dress to photograph

two different ways.

C'mon, folks...someone must have some kind of opinion

or observation!

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

It looks to me like Sitzman in Bronson is in Zapruder's shadow and could be wearing the same beige dress. I can't make anything out about the sleeves. However, I'd be willing to bet money that it's the same dress and sleeves.

[Bill Miller]

It looks to me like Sitzman in Bronson is in Zapruder's shadow and could be wearing the same beige dress. I can't make anything out about the sleeves. However, I'd be willing to bet money that it's the same dress and sleeves.

You are correct, Ron. I think that I remarked on this in another thread, thus I didn't deem it necessary to point out the obvious once again. For some reason - Jack has a hard time understanding light and shadows when seen from different angles and how it appears on film. Bronson was clear across the plaza, so the way his camera saw someone in shadow would be darker than another camera that was much closer to the subject. An example of this is when we are driving along and we see a tunnel up ahead of us ... at first it will appear as a black hole, but as we draw nearer to the tunnel - the opening becomes lighter and detail from inside starts to appear. I have noticed that on camera these observations are more pronounced. The BDM is another example. For instance, if I take someone's photo while having them between me and the sun - I will see the color of their clothing with the naked eye while on film they may be nothing more than a dark silhouette. It's not a complicated matter and even if one doesn't know the technical reasons for the cause of it happening - they should be able to compare it to their own experiences of taking photographs.

Below is a crop from Altgens 6 where James Altgens took a photo of the approaching limo while the sun was to his back. The street is light in color tone like Sitzman's dress and yet the shadow makes it look very dark, if not black, depending on the contrast of a particular print.

In another thread over the Miller photo, I had seen where someone mentioned how he and Jack have experience in graphic design as if they have an edge on interpreting photographs, but what causes them to make errors is that they don't apply the other rules of photography concerning light and shadow to their observations, which in turn leads to erroneous interpretations on their parts. Far too much nonsense is being put onto this forum because people are not following a simple rule called "Occams Razor". Occams Razor suggest that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.' Jack wouldn't ask why if the street is light in tone, then why does it appear dark when in shadow (???), but yet that is what has occurred over Sitzman's dress.

Bill Miller

Edited July 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I am surprised that 39 people have looked at this image

showing Sitzman in TWO DIFFERENT DRESSES and nobody

has offered any kind of comment.

I at least expected Miller to say I was mistaken ....

Jack

Jack, I can answer your question with a question and that is ... Why does the white concrete at the base of the pedestal look so dark where the shade is being cast upon it? Why do the people in light tones clothing in the Bell Film walking from the sunlit area of the knoll and into the shade appear to go dark to the point of not being seen? The answer is because that is a natural occurence with film.

Bill

[Ashton Gray]

It looks to me like Sitzman in Bronson is in Zapruder's shadow and could be wearing the same beige dress. I can't make anything out about the sleeves. However, I'd be willing to bet money that it's the same dress and sleeves.

You are correct, Ron.

I agree with Ron that Sitzman is in Zapruder's shadow. Her eyes are visible just above the camera, and her scarf is discernible, and even her barrett appears to be catching a bit of light.

In another thread over the Miller photo, I had seen where someone mentioned how he and Jack have experience in graphic design as if they have an edge on interpreting photographs...

Well, no: that isn't what you saw at all. How about you quote it.

...but what causes them to make errors is that they don't apply the other rules of photography concerning light and shadow to their observations, which in turn leads to erroneous interpretations on their parts.

Heh. I don't think either Jack or I tried to build a case that a splashed blob of chemistry was the sole of a shoe.

Far too much nonsense is being put onto this forum because people are not following a simple rule called "Occams Razor". Occams Razor suggest that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.'

Couldn't agree more. So why did you spend so much time and so many forum pages on trying to sell the photo chemical stain as the sole of Clint's shoe, which requires the postulation not only of Clint's third leg, but also insectoid articulation of his lower limbs?

The main support you had for such a surreal "case" was a photo taken an indeterminate time apart from the photo at issue, which, really, has nothing whatsoever to do with where he had moved his foot to by the moment when the Miller shot was snapped—which was inside the car, as anybody but a damned fool would have done on a vehicle accelerating to the speeds it reached.

Even putting everything you write in bold still won't make the splotch a shoe (though it does make replying hell), so maybe a little more respect for Jack's efforts would be in order. He had it dead right on Kennedy's hand, but nobody would accept the obvious—including you—because that thing in front of it just had to be photographic information, so just had to be something.

It was nothing. It was a big fat nothing but a stain. "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

And here we are both in agreement with Ron that Sitzman is in shadow. That isn't to help you batter Jack, because I don't think he should be battered, and I think you're out of line to keep at it. It's just a different perception of the same mostly-inadequate information, that's all.

How about you start working with him instead of against him to try to arrive at the most sensible interpretation of the limited information available? Don't you agree that would accomplish the most with fewer forum pages?

Ashton Gray

Edited July 26, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

Couldn't agree more. So why did you spend so much time and so many forum pages on trying to sell the photo chemical stain as the sole of Clint's shoe, which requires the postulation not only of Clint's third leg, but also insectoid articulation of his lower limbs?

Ashton - trying to explain this matter to you is like trying to teach the law of physics to your goldfish .... neither of you are capable of understanding whats being said.

Bill Miller

[James R Gordon]

A great puzzle is why the Z film shows Marilyn in a

short sleeved beige dress and the Bronson slide

shows her in a dark dress with long white sleeves.

Jack

Jack,

You appear to be contradicting yourself. In the thread on Willis #5 you show Marilyn ON the pedestal and THIS time she is in the light clothing that you are trying to suggest, in this thread, she is not wearing.

The problem must be with the slide you are showing in this thread.

Edit:-

I understand that it breaks protocol to simply refer to images in a particiular thread rather than including the image. Below I include the image for all to now see.

In my initial post I had not included that this Wilis #5 topic was actually initiated by you Jack. Nor had I noticed that on your image you actually mention the light coloured dress she was wearing. Yet in this topic, also iniated by you, you are suggesting that the image does not show this colour. Well, we know from Wilis that she was wearing a biege dress, so the problem has to be your image her and not the dress.

James.

Edited July 26, 2006 by James R Gordon

[Jack White]

A great puzzle is why the Z film shows Marilyn in a

short sleeved beige dress and the Bronson slide

shows her in a dark dress with long white sleeves.

Jack

Jack,

You appear to be contradicting yourself. In the thread on Willis #5 you show Marilyn ON the pedestal and THIS time she is in the light clothing that you are trying to suggest, in this thread, she is not wearing.

The problem must be with the slide you are showing in this thread.

Edit:-

I understand that it breaks protocol to simply refer to images in a particiular thread rather than including the image. Below I include the image for all to now see.

In my initial post I had not included that this Wilis #5 topic was actually initiated by you Jack. Nor had I noticed that on your image you actually mention the light coloured dress she was wearing. Yet in this topic, also iniated by you, you are suggesting that the image does not show this colour. Well, we know from Wilis that she was wearing a biege dress, so the problem has to be your image her and not the dress.

James.

Exactly! In Willis and all photos except the Bronson slide, SITZMAN

IS WEARING A LIGHT COLORED DRESS, WHICH IS NOT DARKENED

BY ALLEGED SHADOWS OF ZAPRUDER. But in Bronson ONLY, she

has a dark colored dress. It seems like everyone is ignoring the

obvious! Try to get the point...BRONSON SHOWS HER IN A DARK

DRESS.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Exactly! In Willis and all photos except the Bronson slide, SITZMAN

IS WEARING A LIGHT COLORED DRESS, WHICH IS NOT DARKENED

BY ALLEGED SHADOWS OF ZAPRUDER. But in Bronson ONLY, she

has a dark colored dress. It seems like everyone is ignoring the

obvious! Try to get the point...BRONSON SHOWS HER IN A DARK

DRESS.

Jack

Jack, a child can see that Sitzman has a shadow being cast upon her in the Willis photo, thus saying otherwise is false. The Bronson slide difference is related to the distance to the subject among other things and if you can no longer follow the logic of these simple rules, then it is time to stop spending so much time on them.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

A great puzzle is why the Z film shows Marilyn in a

short sleeved beige dress and the Bronson slide

shows her in a dark dress with long white sleeves.

Jack

Jack,

You appear to be contradicting yourself. In the thread on Willis #5 you show Marilyn ON the pedestal and THIS time she is in the light clothing that you are trying to suggest, in this thread, she is not wearing.

The problem must be with the slide you are showing in this thread.

Edit:-

I understand that it breaks protocol to simply refer to images in a particiular thread rather than including the image. Below I include the image for all to now see.

In my initial post I had not included that this Wilis #5 topic was actually initiated by you Jack. Nor had I noticed that on your image you actually mention the light coloured dress she was wearing. Yet in this topic, also iniated by you, you are suggesting that the image does not show this colour. Well, we know from Wilis that she was wearing a biege dress, so the problem has to be your image her and not the dress.

James.

Exactly! In Willis and all photos except the Bronson slide, SITZMAN

IS WEARING A LIGHT COLORED DRESS, WHICH IS NOT DARKENED

BY ALLEGED SHADOWS OF ZAPRUDER. But in Bronson ONLY, she

has a dark colored dress. It seems like everyone is ignoring the

obvious! Try to get the point...BRONSON SHOWS HER IN A DARK

DRESS.

Jack

In reviewing this thread, I just noticed that the attachment

has vanished, so I am reposting it for the benefit of those

who think that a shadow can cause a light colored dress

to turn black ONLY IN ONE PHOTO.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

In reviewing this thread, I just noticed that the attachment

has vanished, so I am reposting it for the benefit of those

who think that a shadow can cause a light colored dress

to turn black ONLY IN ONE PHOTO.

Jack

Jack, do you not understand the things that are being said? I mentioned already that shadows can be seen turning the asphalt black in the Altgens 6 photo ... the same happened in the Zapruder film of those shadows of people hitting the light green grass.

The very Bronson slide that you use shows the shadow of the pedestal hitting the white steps to our right of the concrete structure. So don't tell people that a shadow in the Bronson slide cannot make something like a light colored dress turn black when the same thing happened to the white concrete of the steps just a few feet away!

You have become so hung up on finding alteration in these images that you no longer can see the forest for the trees. Now please stop this nonsense!

Bill Miller

Edited July 27, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

In reviewing this thread, I just noticed that the attachment

has vanished, so I am reposting it for the benefit of those

who think that a shadow can cause a light colored dress

to turn black ONLY IN ONE PHOTO.

Jack

Jack, do you not understand the things that are being said? I mentioned already that shadows can be seen turning the asphalt black in the Altgens 6 photo ... the same happened in the Zapruder film of those shadows of people hitting the light green grass.

The very Bronson slide that you use shows the shadow of the pedestal hitting the white steps to our right of the concrete structure. So don't tell people that a shadow in the Bronson slide cannot make something like a light colored dress turn black when the same thing happened to the white concrete of the steps just a few feet away!

You have become so hung up on finding alteration in these images that you no longer can see the forest for the trees. Now please stop this nonsense!

Bill Miller

Explain why they turn black ONLY IN BRONSON...not any of the

other photos of people on the pedestal. That is the question.

You are having trouble with attention deficit disorder.

Jack

[Jack White]

FANTASTIC...BILL MILLER FINALLY MAKES A CONTRIBUTION!

He has pointed out yet another proof that ZAPRUDER AND SITZMAN

WERE NOT ON THE PEDESTAL.

I know Bill is eager to explain his wonderul discovery. I do not know

why I never noticed that they CAST NO SHADOWS! It is great of Bill

to use such a big arrow to point out my error of never noticing that

the doppelgangers did not block the sun like ordinary mortals.

Maybe Mr. Light will chime in and explain that the sun is not a

reliable light source and sometimes can shine right through

certain races of people.

Thanks, again, Miller. This is a very valuable addition to JFK research!

Gratefully,

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I know Bill is eager to explain his wonderul discovery. I do not know

why I never noticed that they CAST NO SHADOWS! It is great of Bill

to use such a big arrow to point out my error of never noticing that

the doppelgangers did not block the sun like ordinary mortals.

Jack, you are so inept at understanding angles that it is embarrassing to even have to address this stuff because it over shadows the past things you had done. The pedestal is not square with the camera - it angles back towards the shelter. The little black square atop of the larger shadow is Sitzman's purse sitting atop of the pedestal. Zapruder and Sitzman's shadows are angled in the direction of the shelter that is out of our view. I honestly don't get it .... I spoke to Jean Hill a couple of times about Zapruder filming atop of the pedestal and capturing her and Mary in his film. Jean saw these individuals ... all the assassination images show these two individuals on the pedestal ... Mary Moorman's photo which was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination shows these individuals atop of the pedestal. It is only YOU who continues to say they were not there. You are always talking about how the Zfilm was altered by way of placing the limo onto a dummy film ... well, how else would there be any film images of the limo passing by had not someone stood atop of the pedestal and actually filmed the muder of JFK. Your remarks do not show any forethought being given to your claims in order to even check to see if they make any sense.

Bill Miller

Edited July 27, 2006 by Bill Miller