Wiegman in Progress

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' dronned:

dgh: perhaps this inchoate moron can tell us what page this picture of Zapruder is on certainly isn't pg.92... then you can point me to witness testimony saying: yes, I saw Zapruder on the pedestal that noon hour on Nov 22nd 1963.... bet we're gonna have to wait for a longtime, if EVER, right Bill?

Like I said earlier, David ... you sat with your finger in your - er - uh - NOSE ... and never bothered to contact people like the Hester's Jean Hill, Moorman and so on so to see if they recognized Zapruder as the man they saw on the pedestal with Sitzman. By the way .... here is one such witness to seeing Zapruder on the pedestal .... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htm

dgh: that's Thompson's interview with Sitzman ... wake up: T E S T I M O N Y, under oath....you know perjury hanging in the balance.....thought you said you do court stuff, jeez!

dgh: then simply point us to given, recorded """ T E S T I M O N Y """. Not hearsay, conjecture -- given testimony he was recognized on that pedestal,. should be simple as pie! Btw Willie, its B A G H D A D, get your Bob's straight!

See the previous link.

dgh: McAdams url.....? oh-my, you need better Lone Nut contacts. Is this your way of saying, there is no WCR/attendent volumes testimony and/or confirmation from any person in Dealey Plaza Nov 22nd 1963 saying Zapruder and/or Sitzman was on that pedestal?

Edited January 22, 2007 by David G. Healy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Not hearsay, conjecture -- given testimony he was recognized on that pedestal,. should be simple as pie

Is this your way of saying, there is no WCR/attendent volumes testimony and/or confirmation from any person in Dealey Plaza Nov 22nd 1963 saying Zapruder and/or Sitzman was on that pedestal?[/color]

There may be a few people besides David Healy who assert that Z's presence on the pedestal remains unproven. For most of us, however, this has never been the subject of real doubt. It seems to me that it is Mr. Healy who has the burden to prove that Z & Sitzman were somewhere other than the place they said they were. Zapruder's assertions as to his whereabouts at assassination time were national news that same afternoon. His WC testimony as to where he was and what he was doing was given under penalty of perjury. So was Sitzman's.

Mr. Healy needs to refute this evidence before he can create a live controversy.

[Bill Miller]

There may be a few people besides David Healy who assert that Z's presence on the pedestal remains unproven. For most of us, however, this has never been the subject of real doubt. It seems to me that it is Mr. Healy who has the burden to prove that Z & Sitzman were somewhere other than the place they said they were. Zapruder's assertions as to his whereabouts at assassination time were national news that same afternoon. His WC testimony as to where he was and what he was doing was given under penalty of perjury. So was Sitzman's.

Mr. Healy needs to refute this evidence before he can create a live controversy.

D. Healy talks like an idiot. If we go by what he says, then any witnesses who were never called before the Commisssion or a court of law so to be sworn in under oath cannot be credible. I guess this would fall under his 'wait until they are dead so to make a case they cannot refute' plan. The funny thing is that Healy has heard Jack claim that Moorman had stepped into the street to take one of her photographs which he used to promote a Zfilm alteration claim and Healy sat by and never said a word about Mary not being sworn in under oath. I can see it will soon be time to get out the ol' Baghdad Bob Healy' contradictory statements once again to show what a double talker looks like.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

It appears he is filming with one arm.

When in doubt as to someone's posture in one photo - cross reference the same with another photo taken from a different angle. (See the Bronson Slide)

Thanks for posting the poor quality Bronson slide. Even in b/w it clearly shows

"Sitzman" standing between "Zapruder" and the limousine...so please explain

how he filmed JFK while pointing the camera at "Sitzman's" chest.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

Some questions, please....

When I look at the Bronson frame..this is what I do not see...her high heel shoes, nor any shoes on her feet..?

Shouldn't they be seen..?.or if high heels at least the heels..?

Marilyn's right leg, has no foot, and appears to be as thick as a tree trunk at the bottom.?

I do not see her light beige dress that she was wearing, and if that is her right leg and foot then shouldn't a part

of her beige dress be seen, and not in say all shadows.? She was a big girl, and I cannot see her being completely

hidden by Mr.Zapruder..possible but ??

Bill is it possible for you to post that photo from the Pascal film you mention, the one that shows Marilyn climbing down

from the pedestal..??

Thanks.

B

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for posting the poor quality Bronson slide. Even in b/w it clearly shows

"Sitzman" standing between "Zapruder" and the limousine...so please explain

how he filmed JFK while pointing the camera at "Sitzman's" chest.

Jack

Jack ... we have been through all this nonsense before, as well. Just as you can use the Bronson slide to show how Zapruder was holding the camera - you can use the Betzner and Willis photos to show that Sitzman was not waltzing around on the pedestal in Bronson's slide. You are having trouble understanding the shadow Zapruder has cast upon Sitzman ... which for some reason you think it is the shape of her body. To date - you are the only person who has failed to see your mistake that I am aware of.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

When I look at the Bronson frame..this is what I do not see...her high heel shoes, nor any shoes on her feet..?

Shouldn't they be seen..?.or if high heels at least the heels..?

Marilyn's right leg, has no foot, and appears to be as thick as a tree trunk at the bottom.?

I do not see her light beige dress that she was wearing, and if that is her right leg and foot then shouldn't a part

of her beige dress be seen, and not in say all shadows.? She was a big girl, and I cannot see her being completely

hidden by Mr.Zapruder..possible but ??

Zapruder and Sitzman's images are so dark on the Bronson slide and film that when lightened - certain details are washed out. This is why Sitzman's hand on Zapruder's back look like a white blob and so forth.

Bill is it possible for you to post that photo from the Pascal film you mention, the one that shows Marilyn climbing down

from the pedestal..??

Thanks.

The photo was Altgens 8. Altgens took his photo as soon as Zapruder hit the ground and before he started walking away from the pedestal.

The film of Zapruder getting off the pedestal is seen on the Paschall film. Groden's version is of poor quality. Mark Oakes has a good copy and it was he who showed me Zapruder getting off the pedestal.

Bill

Edited January 23, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks for posting the poor quality Bronson slide. Even in b/w it clearly shows

"Sitzman" standing between "Zapruder" and the limousine...so please explain

how he filmed JFK while pointing the camera at "Sitzman's" chest.

Jack

Jack ... we have been through all this nonsense before, as well. Just as you can use the Bronson slide to show how Zapruder was holding the camera - you can use the Betzner and Willis photos to show that Sitzman was not waltzing around on the pedestal in Bronson's slide. You are having trouble understanding the shadow Zapruder has cast upon Sitzman ... which for some reason you think it is the shape of her body. To date - you are the only person who has failed to see your mistake that I am aware of.

Bill

Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess.

Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem.

Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass.

It's not who you think it is.

Please view at full size.

thanks

chris

Edited January 23, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Chris:

Yes I have seen the research in the past done on the Zapruder and Marilyn and the pedestal....and try to stay up to date,

and how in some it shows

he is not facing or appears not to be towards the limo, for filming...I am still searching, after all these years.

I know it is the quality of the photos.....they all turned out badly..when it comes to the

pedestal area....it seems..

....She was taller than Zapruder, and it is said she had on high heels, no woman is going to wear high heels and climb on that pedestal, ask one,

and none are going to run down the grassy slope after and across the street as she says, after,when she looked around and saw that she was alone,

and left standing on the pedestal alone and Zapruder had gone, disappeared.....these are things she says, not me...

with heels on, they would stick into the grass, and she would

any woman, go flying and break her ruddy neck, just ask ask one....

Some say Zapruder is leaning down his knees are

bent in such as the Bronson, well if so, then the top of her shoulders and head should be seen, in the birght sunlight, and the top of her

dress should show

as a light beige but it does not. As she was supposedly it is said standing holding onto him..? She would not be bent over him.

When looking for Zapruder and Sitzman, in a clear photo, that you can absolutely make them out in, well I just

have never seen it yet..

I realise the photographers were not professional, well many were not, but some were...

But as you mentioned .....and it has been said many times before, every camera that day, that zeroed in on the pedestal area,and

many on the motorcade itself, was

either, loaded with the wrong film type, the shadows were too dark, the sun too bright, they jiggled the camera, they forgot to

click, whatever, none exist..not that I have seen so far...

But we continue, maybe some day...the one problem is Marilyn's recall, her story changed, and to me now, after years of

studying her, hers is confused...she says one thing to Mr.Thompson in that statement, another on TMWKK, another

to Life magazine, and yet those that will use her to prove their point, never mention that fact...she is seen as mentioned in the pre-

film clip in the Zapruder fim he took, but when it is also studied, she turns and it appears there is a handbag strap and purse hanging

on her left arm, but when

she turns completely around, no purse....She is shown in a lately released photo, at Elm and Houston, and her foot is seen, but to me

she appears to have her foot bent, and the heel of the shoe is not seen clearly..as it is all in shadow also..? You cannot make the heel

out clearly..

The Hester's were looked up...as even

their statements given to the authorities do not comply with each others, two did try to find them, but Charles died in 67, she remarried,

and moved and when

they went looking they could not find her..so...that was also a dead end, it is imo not fair to say, people have not nor tried, to find

the witnesses and talk to them...Many did but too many doors were closed, too many scared perhaps, too many names not known,too many

not found..but some did try..

Most seem to believe in some such as say ,Gordon Arnold, and that is fine, that is their perogative, their studies their research.but that does not give them

the right to try to tell others what they should or should not do ,nor believe, and I will not do so...I could go on about Marilyn, but will end it here

for now..

If interested, anyone, in what the Hesters did and did not say, or Marilyn, then go to search and the books and start digging, as well as the videos

it is there..confusing but there..

I Am still searching..below is one of Marilyn taken at the 93 Symposium in Dallas.

Thanks ,Chris for your work, please carry on, and continue your own fine research....

B.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

Thanks for posting the poor quality Bronson slide. Even in b/w it clearly shows

"Sitzman" standing between "Zapruder" and the limousine...so please explain

how he filmed JFK while pointing the camera at "Sitzman's" chest.

Jack

Jack ... we have been through all this nonsense before, as well. Just as you can use the Bronson slide to show how Zapruder was holding the camera - you can use the Betzner and Willis photos to show that Sitzman was not waltzing around on the pedestal in Bronson's slide. You are having trouble understanding the shadow Zapruder has cast upon Sitzman ... which for some reason you think it is the shape of her body. To date - you are the only person who has failed to see your mistake that I am aware of.

Bill

Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess.

Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem.

Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass.

It's not who you think it is.

Please view at full size.

thanks

chris

Chris...the small inset of the people on the pedestal is very sharp and clear...one of

the best I have seen. Will you please post just this small ENHANCED inset at about

two or three times bigger?

I can no longer post images on the forum, so I may take what you post and do

some analysis, which I can email you to post. Thanks for the good work!

Jack

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks for posting the poor quality Bronson slide. Even in b/w it clearly shows

"Sitzman" standing between "Zapruder" and the limousine...so please explain

how he filmed JFK while pointing the camera at "Sitzman's" chest.

Jack

Jack ... we have been through all this nonsense before, as well. Just as you can use the Bronson slide to show how Zapruder was holding the camera - you can use the Betzner and Willis photos to show that Sitzman was not waltzing around on the pedestal in Bronson's slide. You are having trouble understanding the shadow Zapruder has cast upon Sitzman ... which for some reason you think it is the shape of her body. To date - you are the only person who has failed to see your mistake that I am aware of.

Bill

Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess.

Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem.

Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass.

It's not who you think it is.

Please view at full size.

thanks

chris

Chris...the small inset of the people on the pedestal is very sharp and clear...one of

the best I have seen. Will you please post just this small ENHANCED inset at about

two or three times bigger?

I can no longer post images on the forum, so I may take what you post and do

some analysis, which I can email you to post. Thanks for the good work!

Jack

Thanks Bernice, it's just a matter of time.

Jack, here it is 4x larger.

chris

[Bernice Moore]

Chris:

the Zapruder waltz, by Jack...

Below...B

[Bernice Moore]

Study of the heights...by Jack....

B..

[Bill Miller]

Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess.

Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem.

Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass.

It's not who you think it is.

Please view at full size.

thanks

chris

Chris, with all due rspect, but you have got to be one of the worst at interpreting what is in this photos. Where is your hippie in the Willis photo? How about the Bronson slide? How about Moorman's photo? How would this alleged person's size play out if you go by his assumed outline versus the distance he would be from the camera? All these things should be considered when getting onto something that you may think is a person in a photo.

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

Let's try a little enhancement from a 1967 Life Magazine I possess.

Bernice, I think this will help with the dress problem.

Maybe he should turn toward the limo as he films, and not down Elm toward the underpass.

It's not who you think it is.

Please view at full size.

thanks

chris

Chris, with all due rspect, but you have got to be one of the worst at interpreting what is in this photos. Where is your hippie in the Willis photo? How about the Bronson slide? How about Moorman's photo? How would this alleged person's size play out if you go by his assumed outline versus the distance he would be from the camera? All these things should be considered when getting onto something that you may think is a person in a photo.

Bill

Bill, what is in this photo, please describe what you see, as this is what I regard as one of the better posted copies/enhancements

from Betzner.

Remember too, your the one that saw Jesus without any input from me, so sometimes we do see the same thing.

I'll just refer back to Wiegman and ask" Who is the person/person's on the wall?

If your telling me it's not a person with a white shirt, I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

But please explain what that is also, because it's not very blurry in that area of the photo.

chris