John Dolva Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) What a dolt! One frame is totally black, with nobody on the pedestal. BLACKED OUT, NADA, NOTHING, NOBODY.Another frame shows a man and a woman doing the cha-cha-cha. TWO PEOPLE NOT ZAPPY AND SITZY. It is called photo alteration, dummy. Miller cannot seem to comprehend. Jack Jack, would you like for me to go back and start putting up the things you have said about NO ONE BEING ON THE PEDESTAL? That's right ... using those blurry frames was the holy grail for you to suggest that all the assassination images showing Zapruder and Sitzman are altered. Only now that I have shown you that Sitzman and Zapruder are on the pedestal in some of the Wiegman frames - the first thing that comes out of your mouth is that some one altered the Wiegman frames to make them appear. In other words - your solution for not being accurate is to merely claim everything is altered. It is for that very reason that Groden tells people that you have brought more harm to the research community with your ridiculous claims. Bill Miller Edited January 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) . Has anyone noticed yet that in a good print of Altgens #8 that you can see a potion of Zapruder's glasses? The same goes for the lightened shelter interior view in Trask's book "National Nightmare". Bill Edited January 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 What a dolt! One frame is totally black, with nobody on the pedestal. BLACKED OUT, NADA, NOTHING, NOBODY.Another frame shows a man and a woman doing the cha-cha-cha. TWO PEOPLE NOT ZAPPY AND SITZY. It is called photo alteration, dummy. Miller cannot seem to comprehend. Jack Jack, would you like for me to go back and start putting up the things you have said about NO ONE BEING ON THE PEDESTAL? That's right ... using those blurry frames was the holy grail for you to suggest that all the assassination images showing Zaprudert and Sitzman are altered. Only now that I have shown you that Sitzman and Zapruder are on the pedestal in some of the Wiegman frames - the first thing that comes out of your mouth is that some one altered the Wiegman frames to make them appear. In other words - your solution for not being accurate is to merely claim everything is altered. It is for that very reason that Groden tells people that you have brought more harm to the research community with your ridiculous claims. Bill Miller Bill, 1. I don't recall you posting any of YOUR Wiegman frames, not including the one I have supplied. 2. Please direct us to where Z/Sitz are in YOUR Wiegman frames. I'm still waiting for an original Wiegman frame from you, that will put mine to shame, then we can resolve this, I can admit I'm wrong, and we'll go on. Until then, at the least there is a woman in front of a (man with a white shirt and black pants on). Spin it the way you want, the photo tells it all. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Here's a different one. Looks like that sunlighted white shirt has started to lean a little. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Bill, 1. I don't recall you posting any of YOUR Wiegman frames, not including the one I have supplied. 2. Please direct us to where Z/Sitz are in YOUR Wiegman frames. I'm still waiting for an original Wiegman frame from you, that will put mine to shame, then we can resolve this, I can admit I'm wrong, and we'll go on. Let me quote what I said, "Only now that I have shown you that Sitzman and Zapruder are on the pedestal in some of the Wiegman frames". I have however, posted at some point the Wiegman frame showing Sitzman's legs over the side of the pedestal. I have also said that I have observed far superior frames on the 6th Floor Museums film than what you are using. The Museum will not give me their materials to post. I tell researchers to go there and look through the vast amount of high resolution images they have on file and if they do, then they would understand why using these sorry-assed blurred images that allow people like yourself to see muggers on the pedestal behind Sitzman is a waste of time.Until then, at the least there is a woman in front of a (man with a white shirt and black pants on).Spin it the way you want, the photo tells it all. chris Only a fool would say that. Only a fool would not understand that if the good prints don't show such a person and it takes a blurry image to accomplish seeing something, then you have no business even doing photo interpretations. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) pixels, pixie-laced dreams... ...look up in the sky..it's lucy...(BTW ...hic...thass no blackdogman...thass a blackladywithlonghairandadarkdress...hic..) Edited January 26, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Chris, Here are a few of my enhancements of the original you posted yesterday. I think this may be a person and that he is holding some sort of spherical object - perhaps an old style ( by today's standards) camera flashgun? You know the type like a big dish with the flashbulb in the centre. (See the conical shape in front of the main figure). The flashgun may be attached to a camera as was - I think - the technology in 1963. Is it possible that there is a figure standing behind him to his left or is this just an illusion? Your enhancements have achieved more detail than mine. I think I have gone as close as is possible with this image. I hope these images are of some interest and perhaps even of some help. Feel free to work on these if you wish. I also recommend you get PhotoZoom which is IMO invaluable for this sort of graphic enhancement. Keep 'interpreting photos', Chris! Right on! Regards, EBC Edited January 26, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Chris,Here are a few of my enhancements of the original you posted yesterday. I think this may be a person and that he is holding some sort of spherical object - perhaps an old style ( by today's standards) camera flashgun? You know the type like a big dish with the flashbulb in the centre. (See the conical shape in front of the main figure). The flashgun may be attached to a camera as was - I think - the technology in 1963. Is it possible that there is a figure standing behind him to his left or is this just an illusion? Your enhancements have achieved more detail than mine. I think I have gone as close as is possible with this image. I hope these images are of some interest and perhaps even of some help. Feel free to work on these if you wish. I also recommend you get PhotoZoom which is IMO invaluable for this sort of graphic enhancement. Keep 'interpreting photos', Chris! Right on! Regards, EBC Thanks Eugene, I will study them more closely after work. I do have PhotoZoom Pro, but I think the technology that PhotoRetouchPro uses does a better job, which is why I have chosen it. I will however go back and use Zoom again, to see if I can create a difference. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Feel free to work on these if you wish. I also recommend you get PhotoZoomwhich is IMO invaluable for this sort of graphic enhancement. Keep 'interpreting photos', Chris! Right on! Regards, EBC You guys are certainly showing one thing out of all this .... there are either people who come to this forums with the intention of making CT's look like complete idiots by taking poor images and playing the 'see what I see game' or there really are complete idiots who post on this forum. Do yourselves a favor and take a trip to the 6th floor Musuem and look at the film there. You cannot take back the silliness you have shown so far, but you can prevent calling an opening through the tree foliaqe a mugger so not to make fools out of yourselves to future researchers. Until then, just where do you fellas propose that this alleged white shirted mugger came from? He is not seen on the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman in the assassination films and photos ... are you guys even aware that Wiegman started filming before Zapruder had stopped filming? So in those few seconds ... where do you think the mugger/dancer/Sitzman fan/ etc., came from if it is not the sky seen through the tree foliage? Edited January 26, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 FWIW.....Here's my analysis of the white shirted man.....I stand to be corrected if my locations are in error.Duncan Duncan, I could not have said it any better. Your understanding of angles and the cross referencing of photos has certainly come a long way. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 FWIW.....Here's my analysis of the white shirted man.....I stand to be corrected if my locations are in error.Duncan Duncan, thanks for supplying us with an alternative view and supporting photos. When I get home, I'll study it more in depth. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Feel free to work on these if you wish. I also recommend you get PhotoZoomwhich is IMO invaluable for this sort of graphic enhancement. Keep 'interpreting photos', Chris! Right on! Regards, EBC You guys are certainly showing one thing out of all this .... there are either people who come to this forums with the intention of making CT's look like complete idiots by taking poor images and playing the 'see what I see game' or there really are complete idiots who post on this forum. Do yourselves a favor and take a trip to the 6th floor Musuem and look at the film there. You cannot take back the silliness you have shown so far, but you can prevent calling an opening through the tree foliaqe a mugger so not to make fools out of yourselves to future researchers. Until then, just where do you fellas propose that this alleged white shirted mugger came from? He is not seen on the pedestal with Zapruder and Sitzman in the assassination films and photos ... are you guys even aware that Wiegman started filming before Zapruder had stopped filming? So in those few seconds ... where do you think the mugger/dancer/Sitzman fan/ etc., came from if it is not the sky seen through the tree foliage? What an airhead! Does not understand the basics. Here are the options regarding the Wiegman movie: 1. Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal in bright sun, but unlike other photos were invisible to Wiegman. 2. Zapruder and Sitzman were photographed by Wiegman, but somebody blacked them out. 3. Zapruder and Sitzman were not on the pedestal. 4. Nobody was on the pedestal. 5. Something/somebody was on the pedestal that we should not see, and were removed by retouching. 6. Instead of Zapruder and Sitzman, a different man and woman were on the pedestal. 7. Nobody was on the pedestal, but someone added in an image of a man and woman dancing/struggling. ...and maybe others. One thing is sure...the Wiegman film does not show Zapruder and Sitzman. The real question is WHY they are not seen. Insisting that they are there just to prop up a phony official story is typical of Warren Commission supporters like "Miller"...whoever he is. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 FWIW.....Here's my analysis of the white shirted man.....I stand to be corrected if my locations are in error.Duncan Duncan, thanks for supplying us with an alternative view and supporting photos. When I get home, I'll study it more in depth. chris Duncan is ignoring the Wiegman frame which SHOWS NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL, not the dancing couple nor Z/S. All of this ignores the basic issue. The pedestal was in bright sunlight. Z/S should photograph as well as in other photos, but they do not. I am not really interested in the dancing couple. I want to know why Z/S are not on the pedestal. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 FWIW.....Here's my analysis of the white shirted man.....I stand to be corrected if my locations are in error.Duncan Duncan, thanks for supplying us with an alternative view and supporting photos. When I get home, I'll study it more in depth. chris Duncan is ignoring the Wiegman frame which SHOWS NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL, not the dancing couple nor Z/S. All of this ignores the basic issue. The pedestal was in bright sunlight. Z/S should photograph as well as in other photos, but they do not. I am not really interested in the dancing couple. I want to know why Z/S are not on the pedestal. Jack Good grief...Zap and Sitz were BACKLIT in Weigman. 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