Wiegman in Progress

[Jack White]

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 high

heel 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..

A researcher who shall remain nameless recently talked on the phone to

Zapruder's daughter. She said her father was about 5'11" tall. I'll take that

over hearsay.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

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.....

If it was posted on Lancer, then it is par for the course for their archives is full of lost images. I am in the process of moving and most of my materials are boxed up and in storage. I will eventually find the photo and post it. I don't bet on anything unless I know what the next card is ... that you can bet on.

Altgens also denied taking what you call the Altgens 8....

I think more accurately that Altgens couldn't recall taking that photo for his photos were taken from him and rushed to be developed. However, as I believe "Pictures of the Pain" shows ... Number 8 followed number 7 on Altgens roll of film, thus he damned sure took the photo. I also noticed that when I downloaded the Paschall film from the Internet - Zapruder hopping off the pedestal is observable and when he hit the ground he kept right on walking East and Sitzman turns towards the shelter.

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..

Sitzman is more than an inch taller than Zapruder, thus her heels made her that way ... one can guess as to how many inches were needed on her heels to accomplish this. Like I said before, her stance in the Betzner photo shows her to have her arches elevated. The image Mark posted of her on the concrete also shows those heels at work. Her height against Zapruder is also telling. And if you can find someone with access to Trask book "That Day in Dallas" - there will be a few clear photos showing women on the knoll who were indeed wearing high heels ... I guess they didn't think like you. Many women were office workers and dressed as such. They left for the plaza to see the President in what ever shoes they had on at work. The photos show this regardless of what you say.

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.

It happens when you are in the middle of a move. I have also posted those images in the past when discussing this issue.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

She's not quite to the knoll yet but she sure seems to be motivated.

[Jack White]

Last chance for all you dummies to climb out of the grave before

Bernice starts shoveling in the dirt. We were all wrong...THE SUN

WAS IN THE SOUTHEAST! Not south, not southwest, not west...

southEAST! Cut the crap. Case closed.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

Last chance for all you dummies to climb out of the grave before

Bernice starts shoveling in the dirt. We were all wrong...THE SUN

WAS IN THE SOUTHEAST! Not south, not southwest, not west...

southEAST! Cut the crap. Case closed.

Jack

***************************

"Miller" and Lamson CUT THE CRAP and

quit wasting our time with ignorant nonsense. This

shows the sun to be in the SOUTHEAST..

Jack

[Jack White]

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

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

Jack

[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!

[Bernice Moore]

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.....

If it was posted on Lancer, then it is par for the course for their archives is full of lost images. I am in the process of moving and most of my materials are boxed up and in storage. I will eventually find the photo and post it. I don't bet on anything unless I know what the next card is ... that you can bet on.

Bernice: If you are in the midst of a move, then I do understand, perhaps you should have mentioned this before, thanks for clearing this up now, and do still hope that you

will be able to post such for us, some time when you are settled..perhaps I shall remind you...

Altgens also denied taking what you call the Altgens 8....

I think more accurately that Altgens couldn't recall taking that photo for his photos were taken from him and rushed to be developed. However, as I believe "Pictures of the Pain" shows ... Number 8 followed number 7 on Altgens roll of film, thus he damned sure took the photo. I also noticed that when I downloaded the Paschall film from the Internet - Zapruder hopping off the pedestal is observable and when he hit the ground he kept right on walking East and Sitzman turns towards the shelter.

Bernice: All I do know from reading his the Altgens information, is that he has said that after the photo taken of them going towards the underpass, showing

Hill on the back of X100. He did not take another?? The Pascal that I have seen and tried to study available on the internet ,has been a disappointment, a poor copy and not complete..Could you provide wher on the web, you did copy if from, thanks.

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..

Sitzman is more than an inch taller than Zapruder, thus her heels made her that way ... one can guess as to how many inches were needed on her heels to accomplish this. Like I said before, her stance in the Betzner photo shows her to have her arches elevated. The image Mark posted of her on the concrete also shows those heels at work. Her height against Zapruder is also telling. And if you can find someone with access to Trask book "That Day in Dallas" - there will be a few clear photos showing women on the knoll who were indeed wearing high heels ... I guess they didn't think like you. Many women were office workers and dressed as such. They left for the plaza to see the President in what ever shoes they had on at work. The photos show this regardless of what you say.

Bernice: No Sitzman was as tall or taller than Zapruder,in her stocking feet, if he was as said 5' 11', but then why would he call himself a short man ??? to begin with.

As I have mentioned previously, I have also spoken to people who met her, and she was a very tall big girl..... If she had on heels she would have then been that many more inches taller than he, on the pedestal.. such as if they were two to three inch heels, that would make her that much talller.....

I have Trasks books, I have mentioned that before, and also, that I have found women in the photos wearing high heels in the plaza, but that I had not found any running on the grass, but Mark has posted one, I believe she is running across the road..

That's correct we worked in offices , banks wherever, and we wore high heels every day, as I have also mentioned previously....I have never said there were No women wearing high heels, I said there Were many......again you try to twist my words, it does not word...

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.

It happens when you are in the middle of a move. I have also posted those images in the past when discussing this issue.

Bernice: See reply above...I guess Gary would not comply and extend his graciousness in supplying some, I take it...?

*********************************

Mark;

Thank you, you have found one, running.....across the road I believe....I had not as yet...have been trying to find the time, to

stick at it..

..appreciated....I continue to try to find any running on the grass and exactly what she was wearing on her tootsies...

***********************

Jack:

If her daugher and son said about the same 5'11".....then that should be enough, the only but I have is that he called

himself a short man...and 5'11" I do not consider short.....I will continue the search..on all.

Thank you....

and Thank you all for your input...

****************

No one, no thoughts about his not wearing his fedora ?

B

[John Dolva]

Thoughts yes. I've always assumed he was wearing the hat. The images available seem to indicate he was. Interesting Sitzman may have said otherwise. It might help to know for sure.

with regards to the sun. The sun is to to the left of Wiegman.

There are so very few ( you can probably count them on one hand) frames that are of any real use, and no consecutive ones. Of those, who knows exactly how they were posing at those moments. So, the possible planes of sunlit parts of Z and S could form any kind of kaleidoscope of illuminations. On the whole, the fact one cannot clearly see Z and S in these very few frames at this time is not a proof they were not there.

[Jack White]

Thoughts yes. I've always assumed he was wearing the hat. The images available seem to indicate he was. Interesting Sitzman may have said otherwise. It might help to know for sure.

with regards to the sun. The sun is to to the left of Wiegman.

There are so very few ( you can probably count them on one hand) frames that are of any real use, and no consecutive ones. Of those, who knows exactly how they were posing at those moments. So, the possible planes of sunlit parts of Z and S could form any kind of kaleidoscope of illuminations. On the whole, the fact one cannot clearly see Z and S in these very few frames at this time is not a proof they were not there.

Bullcrap, John.

Willis and Betzner were all approximately on the same line of sight.

Z&S were lighted by the sun for Willis.

Z&S were lighted by the sun for Betzner.

Z&S were NOT LIGHTED BY THE SUN for Wiegman.

That concept is very simple.

Theoretical diagrams have no relation to the above.

Remember...K...I...S...S.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Bernice: All I do know from reading his the Altgens information, is that he has said that after the photo taken of them going towards the underpass, showing

Hill on the back of X100. He did not take another??

Are you sure that Altgens isn't saying that he didn't take another photo of the motorcade? You see, there are images of Altgens on the north side of the street at the time his number 8 photo would have been taken. That photo is on his roll of film, so what does that tell us?

By the way, doesn't anyone have Trask's book "That Day in Dallas"? I am certain that there are a couple of good large photos in that book showing women in heels on the knoll. Women who went to work with them on and who were caught up in the moment of the assassination are not going to even think about their shoes when moving in and around the knoll. Just like the woman in the photo Mark posted ... that woman had just come across the south pasture to get to Elm Street.

[Jack White]

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

[Chris Davidson]

Here are photos that are the closest in location to Wiegman's frame as I have.

Their is a consistant light area coming through the trees that's common to each, except Wiegman's.

The light STARTS at the 2nd lowest opening in the pergola and RISES.

Cabluck's photo, (boy running) was taken while he was riding a bus(higher elevation) so that light area dips a bit lower which is correct.

The white shirt in Wiegman /light spot, depending on what you believe, ENDS at the 2nd opening and drops.

They are not the same.

I do not see other light in this area to create the appearance of a man in white shirt and black pants.

If someone does, please point it out.

Duncan, the closest I came to the image is from the Couch film, which is the picture in the upper right.

The angle on that is much further down Elm, and the image is alot higher than would be expected.

chris

Edited January 27, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[John Dolva]

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.

[Robin Unger]

John Dolva "compilation of Dorman frames" showing the direction that the shadows are being cast.