Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) 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 Jack, Number one is the closest thing to reality that you have spoke about in years. You left off just a few words that would have made it more accurate .... 1) Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal in bright sun, but unlike other photos were invisible to a frantically running Wiegman in most of his frames due to motion blur on a film with limited color tones. Now Jack ... you seem to have no trouble shagging-ass down to the plaza to conduct some of the most poorly thought out studies concerning where Moorman stood or how Toni Foster looked to be 7 feet tall from an elevated perch above the plaza, so why haven't you gone in and allowed Mack to show you his higher quality Wiegman film? You've been babblling on about no one being on that pedestal in Wiegman for years now and yet I have not once seen where you mentioned going to look at a better print so to see if what you had been saying was indeed accurate ... so why is that??? Edited January 27, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) 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. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Edited January 26, 2007 by Jack White 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. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Thanks for proving my point, they were BACKLIT! Weigmans camera was pointed almost DIRECTLY into the sun. And to think Jack calls himself a photographer! 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. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Thanks for proving my point, they were BACKLIT! Weigmans camera was pointed almost DIRECTLY into the sun. And to think Jack calls himself a photographer! 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 Good grief...Zap and Sitz were BACKLIT in Weigman. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Thanks for proving my point, they were BACKLIT! Weigmans camera was pointed almost DIRECTLY into the sun. And to think Jack calls himself a photographer! HOW IGNORANT! WIEGMAN'S CAMERA WAS POINTING WEST. AT NOON THE SUN WAS IN THE SOUTH! Any photographer who knows lighting knows that is called SIDELIGHTING! What crap! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 HOW IGNORANT! WIEGMAN'S CAMERA WAS POINTING WEST. AT NOON THE SUN WAS IN THE SOUTH!Any photographer who knows lighting knows that is called SIDELIGHTING! What crap! Jack The sun was in the Southwest. The peoples shadows on the ground point to the Northeast. The Bronson slide shows the side lighting, but it is not so descernable in photos taken from the corner of Elm and Houston Streets because it is Zapruder's right side that was sunlit - not the front of him from Wiegman's angle of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger 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 Nice job Duncan. Looks about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) HOW IGNORANT! WIEGMAN'S CAMERA WAS POINTING WEST. AT NOON THE SUN WAS IN THE SOUTH!Any photographer who knows lighting knows that is called SIDELIGHTING! What crap! Jack The sun was in the Southwest. The peoples shadows on the ground point to the Northeast. The Bronson slide shows the side lighting, but it is not so descernable in photos taken from the corner of Elm and Houston Streets because it is Zapruder's right side that was sunlit - not the front of him from Wiegman's angle of view. From looking at the shadows on the ground Brehm, Moorman, hill, Babushka i would have to agree that the sun appears to be in the South West. Depending on the height of the subject, the taller they are the longer the shadow they cast. Edited January 26, 2007 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) From looking at the shadows on the ground Brehm, Moorman, hill, Babushka i would have to agree that the sun appears to be in the South West.Depending on the height of the subject, the taller they are the longer the shadow they cast. Actually - the lower the sun is in the sky - the longer the shadow it will cast as well. If directly overhead - I giraffe will hardly cast a shadow. At that time of the year (November) - the sun crosses the sky in a low path and not directly overhead as some might imagine. And yes - the sun was in the SW, unless of course you are Jack White who lives in a make believe world. Obviously understanding the sun's position and the shadows it creates are not one of Jack's strong points. If they were, then he would have noticed Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass in Altgens 6 while he was trying to make a case for them being in the street at the same time. Bill Edited January 27, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 From looking at the shadows on the ground Brehm, Moorman, hill, Babushka i would have to agree that the sun appears to be in the South West.Depending on the height of the subject, the taller they are the longer the shadow they cast. Actually - the lower the sun is in the sky - the longer the shadow it will cast as well. If directly overhead - I giraffe will hardly cast a shadow. At that time of the year (November) - the sun crosses the sky in a low path and not directly overhead as some might imagine. And yes - the sun was in the SW, unless of course you are Jack White who lives in a make believe world. Obviously understanding the sun's position and the shadows it creates are not one of Jack's strong points. If they were, then he would have noticed Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass in Altgens 6 while he was trying to make a case for them being in the street at the same time. Bill The ignorant leading the blind. Bernice is about to post a definitive shadow photo. The eat your words; salt and pepper to taste. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 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. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Thanks for proving my point, they were BACKLIT! Weigmans camera was pointed almost DIRECTLY into the sun. And to think Jack calls himself a photographer! HOW IGNORANT! WIEGMAN'S CAMERA WAS POINTING WEST. AT NOON THE SUN WAS IN THE SOUTH! Any photographer who knows lighting knows that is called SIDELIGHTING! What crap! Jack ***************** Photo posted for Jack..... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 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. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Thanks for proving my point, they were BACKLIT! Weigmans camera was pointed almost DIRECTLY into the sun. And to think Jack calls himself a photographer! HOW IGNORANT! WIEGMAN'S CAMERA WAS POINTING WEST. AT NOON THE SUN WAS IN THE SOUTH! Any photographer who knows lighting knows that is called SIDELIGHTING! What crap! Jack ***************** Photo posted for Jack..... B Thanks, Bernice...perceptive viewers will note that the sun is DIRECTLY BEHIND THE LIMO CASTING A SHADOW DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE LIMO. South is directly to the rear. It is thirty minutes past noon, so the sun has just crossed its 90 degree azimuth...but is not yet noticebly in the west. Get a compass, fellows. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 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. How ignorant! It was noon in November. In Dallas Texas the sun was IN THE SOUTH. The people on the pedestal were FACING SOUTH. Shadows of the pedestal fall to the NORTH (strangely, the people on the pedestal CAST NO SHADOW). Wiegman's camera is POINTING WEST toward the pedestal. The sun is to Wiegman's left. There is no way in hell that the people on the pedestal are BACKLIGHTED. And Lamson calls himself "Mr. Light". Jack Thanks for proving my point, they were BACKLIT! Weigmans camera was pointed almost DIRECTLY into the sun. And to think Jack calls himself a photographer! HOW IGNORANT! WIEGMAN'S CAMERA WAS POINTING WEST. AT NOON THE SUN WAS IN THE SOUTH! Any photographer who knows lighting knows that is called SIDELIGHTING! What crap! Jack ***************** Photo posted for Jack..... B Thanks, Bernice...perceptive viewers will note that the sun is DIRECTLY BEHIND THE LIMO CASTING A SHADOW DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE LIMO. South is directly to the rear. It is thirty minutes past noon, so the sun has just crossed its 90 degree azimuth...but is not yet noticebly in the west. Get a compass, fellows. Jack Uh Jack, can you explain the shadows of the cycle and the bystanders at the top of the frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Thanks, Bernice...perceptive viewers will note that the sun is DIRECTLY BEHIND THE LIMOCASTING A SHADOW DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE LIMO. South is directly to the rear. It is thirty minutes past noon, so the sun has just crossed its 90 degree azimuth...but is not yet noticebly in the west. Get a compass, fellows. Jack Houston Street does NOT run north-south. It runs north-northeast a few degrees, which counteracts the sun's location and makes shadows on Houston run parallel with the street. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.html U.S. Naval Observatory Washington, DC 20392-5420 DALLAS, TEXAS o , o , W 96 47, N32 47 Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun Nov 22, 1963 Central Standard Time Altitude Azimuth (E of N) h m o o 06:10 -11.3 106.7 06:20 -9.3 107.9 06:30 -7.3 109.2 06:40 -5.4 110.4 06:50 -3.4 111.7 07:00 -1.5 113.0 07:10 0.9 114.4 07:20 2.6 115.8 07:30 4.4 117.2 07:40 6.2 118.6 07:50 8.0 120.1 08:00 9.8 121.6 08:10 11.6 123.2 08:20 13.3 124.8 08:30 15.0 126.5 08:40 16.7 128.2 08:50 18.3 130.0 09:00 19.9 131.8 09:10 21.4 133.7 09:20 22.9 135.6 09:30 24.4 137.7 09:40 25.7 139.7 09:50 27.1 141.9 10:00 28.3 144.1 10:10 29.5 146.5 10:20 30.6 148.8 10:30 31.7 151.3 10:40 32.7 153.8 10:50 33.5 156.4 11:00 34.3 159.1 11:10 35.0 161.8 11:20 35.6 164.6 11:30 36.1 167.4 11:40 36.5 170.3 11:50 36.8 173.2 12:00 37.0 176.1 12:10 37.1 179.0 12:20 37.1 182.0 12:30 37.0 184.9 12:40 36.7 187.8 12:50 36.4 190.7 13:00 36.0 193.6 13:10 35.4 196.4 13:20 34.8 199.2 13:30 34.0 201.9 13:40 33.2 204.5 13:50 32.3 207.1 14:00 31.3 209.6 14:10 30.2 212.0 14:20 29.1 214.3 14:30 27.9 216.6 14:40 26.6 218.8 14:50 25.2 221.0 15:00 23.8 223.0 15:10 22.4 225.0 15:20 20.8 227.0 15:30 19.3 228.8 15:40 17.7 230.6 15:50 16.1 232.4 16:00 14.4 234.1 16:10 12.7 235.7 16:20 10.9 237.3 16:30 9.2 238.8 16:40 7.4 240.4 16:50 5.6 241.8 17:00 3.7 243.2 17:10 2.0 244.6 17:20 0.3 246.0 17:30 -2.2 247.3 17:40 -4.1 248.6 17:50 -6.1 249.9 18:00 -8.1 251.2 18:10 -10.1 252.4 Edited January 27, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Her LEFT foot is still on the sidewalk...have a look..with no high heel......she surely was not wearing one right shoe with a highheel and one left shoe without...you are silly... Below you will find the one Robin posted....and the other posted by a member on another forum..neither touched....as they were.. Please go ahead, and post not only this one, but also Sitzman getting off the pedestal, and Zapruder as well, that you do keep mentioning but as yet, have not posted...show the Beef Bill......?? B The photo crop you posted is not of good quality and surely not the one that I remember being posted before which brought the Sitzman not wearing heels nonsense to a dead stop. It was either on this forum or Lancer's that someone posted a good capture of the same crop ... I have been looking for it with no success so far. It is the Paschall film that shows Zapruder hopping off of the pedestal and starting to walk away. The Bell film shows Zapruder walking away from Sitzman. Altgens 8 shows Sitzman and Zapruder just as Abe had gotten off the pedestal. (see below) So here is what happens when you cross reference the films ... Groden's copy is very dark, but Mark Oakes has a copy of Paschall's film made directly from the original. In the good copy - Sitzman is already standing next to the pedestal as Zapruder hops off and immediately starts walking away. Altgens takes his photo #8 just as Zapruder hit the ground and before Abe starts walking away ... his right foot is in the process of taking his first step. The Bell film picks up as Zapruder is walking away from Sitzman. Also, look at Altgens #8 and note how tall Sitzman is compared to Zapruder. The Wiegman frames showing Sitzman's legs is on the high resolution scans at the Museum. I do not have access to those scans, but have sat in the basement at the 6th Floor with Gary Mack and viewed them. Anyone can make an appointment and go see them if they like - its free! ****************** Bill: Sorry you do not remember and cannot find the crop, that seems to be par...but I do know they do disappear on you..... When you do find it post such,thank you, as well as all you have mentioned and spoken of... I have all the copies of the photo crops, of Marilyn at the corner of Houston & Elm, from all three forums, do not try to tell me that the two I have posted were not from such, the third was the same as posted, and by the same man, and is the same crop....they are the smaller of the two.....the only difference is the one is enlarged...you can compare when you finally find yours, and it will be the same as one or the other.....unless you decide to do your own. Altgens also denied taking what you call the Altgens 8.... The Willis 15 which I posted was sent to me....by a photographer ..no not Jack, nor anyone on here.....I notice you choose to ignore such. Whether she was wearing, flats or a type of wedge heel, which would, I think may have given her the ability to perhaps run down the knoll..after she was left alone and Zapruder had descended and gone, in her own words, which she repeated several times........they were not as you seem to call them High Heels...they may have been a one inch wedge type,.....but not High Heels...imo until I am shown them clearly, this is what I believe she wore, if not then I will see for myself...no woman would dare run up and down a grassy knoll with highs on.. I have been searching the photos, and as I have posted there are and were women at the knoll with heels on, you did mention I do believe ,you saw some running on the knoll in them, if so, please post those also, thanks...but I have been unable to find one, running in high heels, flats yes, but the others no......not so far, if I do find one, I will post such...if you have them please do.... You keep mentioning good copies of such and such but you do not come through with them?? If you do have all these, why do you not share?, it is show and tell time, I do think, after all this. If you perhaps have not access to them or cannot find some at the present time, and that does happen with one or two at times, it does not happen with all that you have mentioned. If you contacted Gary Mack would he not supply copies to you, as he has in the past.....after all that is what the Museum about, information and education for the public...and they do support it, many here have.. ******************* For all...a question, thanks.... Abraham was said to be about 5.10"..by his son, I have also found 5'.9"..and also by others that he was shorter...He also called himself a short man. For all...a question, thanks.... How much difference in all these studies ,if he was that much shorter and Marilyn was as tall as say close to 6'....and she did not have high heels on as well, but a flat or a one inch or so heel, would it make..?.. and how much difference within the studies ,if he did Not have on his fedora.....yes Marilyn has also stated that in her Doctors tape, that he was not wearing his hat. She stood behind him and she was looking at the top of his head, and he did not have much hair up there...she states.. I would appreciate any thoughts and or info, in relation to this question if possible, again thanks.. B.. Edited January 27, 2007 by Bernice Moore 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