Wiegman in Progress

[Bill Miller]

But that is not an issue on the lighting of the pedestal. The main light in Dealey Plaza

was the SUN. It was in the southeast...NOT the west as Lamson claims. He is calling

the open sky beyond the trees backlighting. I guess the poor guy doesn't own an

exposure meter...there is a vast difference between the light output of the sun vs sky!

It is time for this oxhockey to cease.

Jack

Jack, the "oxhockey" will cease the day that the forum software stops taking your text just as it couldn't stomach any more of your pictures. Dorman was so far off to the side of Houston Street that her location didn't allow for one to see that the shadows of the vehicles on Houston Street run to the north and to the east. The compilation of photos in post # 149 show that the southwest sides of the concrete wall and the shelter are all illuminated with direct sunlight and the sides facing the corner of Elm and Houston Streets are in shade. Your remark about the main light in DP being the sun .... what other light could there have been other than the sun? It's just like Groden said when he commented that you are most always wrong in every case. You don't understand angles and you have been one of the worst in recent times at reading images. It's been 43 years since the assassination and your statement that everyone has been wrong as to the location of the sun and you are right mirrors only what you have said about your nutty alteration claims. It seems only right that if Craig is to be called "Mr. Light", then you have certainly earned the title of "Mr. Wrong".

Edited January 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks, Bernice. This episode proves that these clowns are just here

to waste our time...but some are taken in by their disinformation.

Jack

The ony crap that needs cutting is YOU Jack! Regardless of your BS, Zap and Sitz are backlit in Weigman. Since you dont seem to understand, backlit means the lightsource (in this case the sun) is over 90 degrees around from the centerline of the FOV. That is clearly the case in Wiegman where the sun is at least 110 degrees or more around from the centerline of the FOV. In this case that places all of Zap and SItzman that FACES THE CAMERA are in shadow...because they are backlit. Your claim they were standing in full sun (or "sidelit") is simply disinformation.

Of course since a big part of both Zaps and Sitz's bodies are in shadow AGAINST A BACKLIT TREE BACKGROUND that was rendered as black, its no wonder they are hard to spot.

So much for you ability to interpret photographs.

And hey, how come those shadows in your study run different directions? You keep telling us thatin the Apollo photos that means studio photos with many lights....so is this photo fake too? ROFLMAO!

And this guy calls himself MR. LIGHT. He cannot even define BACKlighting correctly.

BACKlighting is when the light is on the opposite side of the subject from the lens. Care

must be taken that the backlight does not strike the lens.

SIDElighting is from the SIDE. Very simple concept.

Sidelighting...from the side.

Backlighting...from the back.

But that is not an issue on the lighting of the pedestal. The main light in Dealey Plaza

was the SUN. It was in the southeast...NOT the west as Lamson claims. He is calling

the open sky beyond the trees backlighting. I guess the poor guy doesn't own an

exposure meter...there is a vast difference between the light output of the sun vs sky!

It is time for this oxhockey to cease.

Jack

Yes it IS time for this to stop, this thread is simply stupid. Just admit your errors and we can move on. You are having a hard time seeing Z and S because the bulk of their bodies are in shadow because of the backlight...not some silly notion tha they were not there, they were retouched out, or that some other guy in a white shirt is behind them...no THEY ARE SIMPLY IN SHADOW FROM BACKLIGHTING!

Thank you Jack, Yes the sunlight in Wiegman was BACKLIGHTING Zand S BECAUSE IT WAS BEHIND THEM. If you care to look at the nice diagram John has provided you can see in all positions the sun is beyond 90 degrees from the centerline of the fov...PUTTING IT BEHIND Z and S!

Next I have never made the claim anywhere in this thread about the sun being in the west. That is simply YOU creating disinformation. Bad Jack...bad. Telling the truth is a good thing...remember.

And finally I'm not calling the open sky behind the trees backlighting, I was simply telling you and anyone else who cares to understand the truth that the lightsource (the sun) is lighitng the treeline....from behind....so the trees are also backlighted. But is it your claim now that open sky is NOT a light source?

This stuff is simply photography 101 Jack. You fail.

Oh and BTW, how do you explain those shadows in the DOrman you posted...you know the one where the shadows all run different directions on a flat surface? To be consistant with your Apollo works you MUST declare the image to be a fake. Are you consistant? Or are you simply wrong about the Apollo shadows? More Jack White disinformation?

Edited January 27, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

Duncan, Zap's head is roughly at the elevation of Houston St. I suggest this as roughly being W's line of sight. Note that the top of the fence is just visible in W.

[Chris Davidson]

Quite right, Chris, the way the light spots move in the background as the cameras move is an important ingredient in fully understanding what's going on.

The background and items closer shift in predictable ways if one knows the filming location. So that helps to say which items are in front etc. (think Parallax)

The flower photo by Peter in 'some pics' is perhaps helpful.

John,

Are you indicating that what you have circled is the white shirt man area, because of Parallax?

I believe there is a way to line up photos, shot from different angles with common elements. (3 Dimensional Registration).

Since I don't possess this software, I used what I believe an anchor point in the (somewhat) center of these photos. The tree.

Earlier, I described the Cabluck photo was taken from a bus. Yet the difference in the location of the light spot is minimal, compared to others taken on the ground.

Peter's photo and the Wiegman photo appear to be taken down near the street at ground level.

Whoever took Peter's photo was to the left of Wiegman's position. (Relation of Stemmons sign to tree)

I found what I thought to be my white shirt guy.

The problem:

If Peter's guy is to the left of Wiegman, shouldn't that white shirt area also move left and not towards the pergola.

And the light spot you circled, I assume indicating possibly my white shirt guy, is within the parameters of Parallax, compared to the bus/ground

scenario.

thanks,

chris

[John Dolva]

IMO right reasoning, wrong blotches. My suggestion(gif):: (rip and compare if gif's not clear) the jumping square is yours, the blue mine

EDIT:: I've reread your post a few times and perhaps we already agree on the blotch and you're pointing out what you previously thought? Anyway, on the right track I think.

Edited January 27, 2007 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

I've managed to lose track of where this thread was going...

[Chris Davidson]

IMO right reasoning, wrong blotches. My suggestion(gif):: (rip and compare if gif's not clear) the jumping square is yours, the blue mine

EDIT:: I've reread your post a few times and perhaps we already agree on the blotch and you're pointing out what you previously thought? Anyway, on the right track I think.

John,

I follow what you are saying.

But how does the light area in Peter's photo, become the pants/shadow area in Wiegman?

thanks

chris

[Bill Miller]

I've managed to lose track of where this thread was going...

It's OK, Frank ... it was going to hell in a hand basket the minute someone started seeing muggers on the pedestal in a severly blurred film.

[Robin Unger]

This is not the same LOS as wiegman, but this Cabluck image gives us a good indication as to how much sky was visible through the trees.

The sky area visible seems to corrolate with the wiegman image.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Chris Davidson]

This is not the same LOS as wiegman, but this Cabluck image gives us a good indication as to how much sky was visible through the trees.

The sky area visible seems to corrolate with the wiegman image.

Robin,

Peter's photo which is part of the animation is much closer to Wiegman's position. (Relation of pergola to pedestal corner) check Cabluck.

Where's all that light in Peter's photo?

thanks

chris

[John Dolva]

Zap and Sitzman from one and the flowers from the other partially obscures parts of the other. There are objects beyond the tree/fence as well that look like different things at different times. I've been looking for but can't find any photos of the scene from the other side in the RR yard.

In this image, the flower bunches are copied on to the W, on which Z and S are highlighted. The photos are aligned by the tree outlines.

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

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?

Bill,

This is not a game - this is bona fide research.

EBC

Edited January 31, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

You irascible old bin-lid! This is not a game - this is bona fide research.

Anyway, Bill, my old Two-Copies-of the-Warren-Commission

pal, to tell the truth and be perfectly frank with you I really do have

great difficulty taking seriously anything said by a supercilious poser such as you who

confesses openly to owning - not one but two copies of the Warren Omission!

You do yourself a favour and learn some manners!

Or alternatively, do this forum a favour and learn some manners and shut the f*** up!

If you had taken the time to read the posts which accompanied my enhancements

you would perhaps not have shared your venomous bile with this forum.

I don't agree with anything Posner says, but to be anti-Posner doesn't mean that one has to be foolish either. You have several photo and film sources to cross check your so-called bonafide research observations with so to know if anyone besides Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal. Instead you choose to create false images out of a B&W blurry film. Just so you know - it is your alleged bonafide research practices that makes you Posner's best friend.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Bill,

Thank you for those words which after all are merely your opinion.

I respect your well mannered and measured words but do not

refer to me again either obliquely or directly as being an 'idiot'.

EBC

Edited January 31, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Thank you for those words which after all are merely your opinion.

I respect your well mannered and measured words but do not

refer to me again either obliquely or directly as being an 'idiot'.

EBC

"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."

There were no less than five angles to the knoll being filmed or photographed during the assassination in which to decide if there were white shirted Sitzman manhandlers on the pedestal and/or wall next to the pedestal, not to mention Zapruder and Sitzman's own statements. I will leave your post as a testimonial to which category your responses fall under.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Bill Miller