Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Chris, I was wondering if you could post the original Wiegman frame i.e. before you did any enhancements to it - i.e. the one you took from the Wiegman film. Is this the same Wiegman film I am using which I downloaded from the net? Are there different versions of the Wiegman film? I have sliced the frame in question out of a Wiegman Mpeg video and tried to enhance it but I am unable even to come close to revealing the detail which you have achieved. (See below). Could you tell me what software you are using to enhance your frame and also a step-by-step run-through of your procedure - from original extracted frame to the enhanced frame which shows this incredible detail. As I say, I am unable to see anything approaching what you see. Also, could you explain how the green tinge along the left side of your enhancement and also the general sharp edged outline nature of your enhancement were arrived at as seen below? How did you accomplish this? What am I doing wrong? Please see some of my high resolution enhancements of the same frame below. I hope they may be of interest. Regards, Software used: River Past Video Slice, Photoshop 7 ME, Adobe Photoshop C5, Corel Paint Shop Pro XI, Paint Shop Pro 7, PhotoZoom + all using various plugins (Except PhotoZoom). Plugins used: Topaz Vivacity, (Topaz Clean YCbCr), Kodak Digital Sho Professional (Automatically Reveals Details Hidden in Shadows and Highlights), Digital ROC Professional (Automatically Restores and Balances Image Color and Hue), Digital GEM Professional (Automatically Reduces Image Noise and Grain). DCE AutoEnhance, Plus various standard plugins for tweaking brightness, contrast and sharpness of image within the threshold of the image's limitations and capabilities. EBC Edited January 25, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Robin, although I did show that frame, I'm concentrating on a different frame from Wiegman. Chris, I am a bit confused here. Which frame exactly are you or have you been enhancing? Could you post a jpeg image (not a gif) of the frame you are or have been enhancing so I can extract it exactly from my Wiegman Mpeg. Also can you explain where the frame below fits in. If it is not the frame you are or have been enhancing could you please explain how the result was arrived at? EBC Edited January 25, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Miller is the bonehead. Not the sunspot dummy...look at the corner of the pedestal. And I supposethe GRASS is cement colored...look again. Read the Hester statements again and compare them to the photo...tell us what you find. The newspaper is in another image also; I will look. I don't know why researchers put up with such a revolting guy as this. Jack Jack, the sunspot that you call a newspaper can be seen even today when standing at the Willis location and looking towards the colonnade around 12:30 P.M. on a sunny day. And yes, the bench is at the sidewalks edge near the grass. It should also be pointed out that before the limo had went under the triple underpass, Wiegman had started filming and as he ran his camera passed over the Hester's and they were by that time on the grass - sitting on the ground. So it appears that as soon as the shooting started - they got down on the ground and that is basically what Charles has said in his statements. Your trying to nit pick at little details in his statement in the name of alteration makes you look like a fool making a desparate attempt to salvage some credibility over these alteration claims you make. Even now you are mentioning Mrs. Hester's dress looking to be a different color between two cameras and as a film man you should know that color differences can be effected by the distance from the subject to the camera in relation to the sun and that different types of film will also photograph colors differently. It was this very thing that made you erroneously claim that a white woman was a black woman. Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The Bronson MOVIE shows Hester on the bench with what appears to bea newspaper. However, Beatrice, who was dressed in green has become a woman in a gray skirt wearing a white hooded jacket and running north. The Bronson movie shows Zapruder just over four feet tall, and omits the two curbside ladies by the lamppost in Bronson's slide taken only seconds before. Jack Oh brother! On page 25 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" is probably the best enlargement of the Bronson slide. It shows Charles Hester sitting on the bench and watching the passing President. Bronson's view shows Charles NOT to be reading a newspaper and doing exactly what I believed him to be doing in the Willis photo. The Bronson slide also shows Charles to have his hand resting over his left leg. If Charles had a newspaper - he damned sure wasn't reading it as the President was passing by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Chris, I was wondering if you could post the original Wiegman frame i.e. before you did any enhancements to it - i.e. the one you took from the Wiegman film. Is this the same Wiegman film I am using which I downloaded from the net? Are there different versions of the Wiegman film? I have sliced the frame in question out of a Wiegman Mpeg video and tried to enhance it but I am unable even to come close to revealing the detail which you have achieved. (See below). Could you tell me what software you are using to enhance your frame and also a step-by-step run-through of your procedure - from original extracted frame to the enhanced frame which shows this incredible detail. As I say, I am unable to see anything approaching what you see. Also, could you explain how the green tinge along the left side of your enhancement and also the general sharp edged outline nature of your enhancement were arrived at as seen below? How did you accomplish this? What am I doing wrong? Please see some of my high resolution enhancements of the same frame below. I hope they may be of interest. Regards, Software used: River Past Video Slice, Photoshop 7 ME, Adobe Photoshop C5, Corel Paint Shop Pro XI, Paint Shop Pro 7, PhotoZoom + all using various plugins (Except PhotoZoom). Plugins used: Topaz Vivacity, (Topaz Clean YCbCr), Kodak Digital Sho Professional (Automatically Reveals Details Hidden in Shadows and Highlights), Digital ROC Professional (Automatically Restores and Balances Image Color and Hue), Digital GEM Professional (Automatically Reduces Image Noise and Grain). DCE AutoEnhance, Plus various standard plugins for tweaking brightness, contrast and sharpness of image within the threshold of the image's limitations and capabilities. EBC Eugene, here is the original, taken from the Discovery Channel special "Murder in Dealy Plaza". I believe the one your using might be from a Groden version. I use Photoshop and PhotoRetouchPro on the Mac. Any other questions please ask. The process I'll explain later. Not very involved. Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Miller is the bonehead. Not the sunspot dummy...look at the corner of the pedestal. And I supposethe GRASS is cement colored...look again. Read the Hester statements again and compare them to the photo...tell us what you find. The newspaper is in another image also; I will look. I don't know why researchers put up with such a revolting guy as this. Jack Jack. I have photos taken from the Willis location and your newspaper/sunspot can still be seen on the wall at certain times of the day. And yes - the bench was on the concrete at the grasses edge. But by the time Wiegman started filming the limo heading into the underpass - his camera swings over towards the Hester's and they were on the ground in the grass. Once again you are trying to pick pepper out of nat xxxx in order to try and find alteration and each time you do this it makes you look sillier than before. Your mentioning comparing the Hester's statements to the photos, then lets examine that fopr a second - shall we ................ We know that the limo was not down by the triple underpass when the shots rang out - Charles obviously got that wrong. Charles said he dragged his wife up to the concrete embankment and Wiegman's film shows the two of them on the grass. So rather than you realize that Charles in his state of panick didn't record the events in his mind perfectly - you try to use his imperfect recall as proof of alteration. Now who looks like the bonehead, Jack? Charles Hester: "My wife, Beatrice and I were sitting on the grass on the slope on Elm Street where the park is located. When President Kennedy's car got almost down to the underpass, I heard two shots ring out. Thye [sic] sounded like they came from immediately behind us and over our heads. We did [not?] see the shooting. I immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like the [sic] definitely came from in or around the building. I grabbed my wife because I didn't know where the next shot was coming from and dragged her up next to the concrete imbankment [sic] and threw her down on the ground and got on the ground with her. Then there was utter confusion. The Police rushed toward the railroad tracks and I finally found an officer to go to the Texas Book Depository Building. The officer I contacted was Officer Wiseman [sic: Weitzman] of the Dallas Sheriff's Department." Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris Maybe lightening the image will help people see Sitzman's dress against the background ............. the bottom yellow arrow is pointing at Sitzman's light colored legs. As I have said all along - it was the result of a poor B&W film filled with motion blur that makes seeing Zapruder and Sitzman so difficult. If anyone would just go into the 6th floor Museum and as Gary Mack to show them frames from the best scans of that film ... they would see these two people even better than what is shown on the forum. People like Jack have been to the plaza many times and I would like to know what his excuse was for not taking a moment to go see the Museum's Wiegman film rather than spending so many years pushing a ridiculous claim that could have been double checked with little to no effort on his part. Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 EBC Eugene, here is the original, taken from the Discovery Channel special "Murder in Dealy Plaza". I believe the one your using might be from a Groden version. I use Photoshop and PhotoRetouchPro on the Mac. Any other questions please ask. The process I'll explain later. Not very involved. Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris + Chris, Thanks For the original. You are right, at a cursory glance I can see something new in your original which is not visible in my Wiegman frame. I will do some enhancement on this and see if I can bring out more detail. However, can you tell me why there should be a difference between the Groden version and this Discovery Channel version. Finally, a minor point but would it be possible to post an unskewed version of the original? Regards, EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 EBC Eugene, here is the original, taken from the Discovery Channel special "Murder in Dealy Plaza". I believe the one your using might be from a Groden version. I use Photoshop and PhotoRetouchPro on the Mac. Any other questions please ask. The process I'll explain later. Not very involved. Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris + Chris, Thanks For the original. You are right, at a cursory glance I can see something new in your original which is not visible in my Wiegman frame. I will do some enhancement on this and see if I can bring out more detail. However, can you tell me why there should be a difference between the Groden version and this Discovery Channel version. Finally, a minor point but would it be possible to post an unskewed version of the original? Regards, EBC Eugene, Sorry about the rotated version. I did that right before leaving for work, which is where I'm at now. I'm sure it's rotated to fit the Betzner comparison I did. I will post it in PNG form when I get home, which will be after work. Why the difference between Groden and this version? I have no idea what the original sources from either are. If somebody can find that out, that would be awesome. All I do is try to work with the best material I have acquired. If there is a better frame of this out there, I ask that somebody please post it. But until they do, please refrain from telling me my posting is crap, while describing another version which they will not reveal to others. Take the MONEY out of this, and maybe the truth will come out. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Let me just add, without any enhancement to the original, it's not difficult to see them on the wall. chris Maybe lightening the image will help people see Sitzman's dress against the background ............. the bottom yellow arrow is pointing at Sitzman's light colored legs. As I have said all along - it was the result of a poor B&W film filled with motion blur that makes seeing Zapruder and Sitzman so difficult. If anyone would just go into the 6th floor Museum and as Gary Mack to show them frames from the best scans of that film ... they would see these two people even better than what is shown on the forum. People like Jack have been to the plaza many times and I would like to know what his excuse was for not taking a moment to go see the Museum's Wiegman film rather than spending so many years pushing a ridiculous claim that could have been double checked with little to no effort on his part. Bill, you see Zapruder in front of Sitzman in this photo. That's fine. Who's behind her in a white top and black pants. Surely your not saying that what you have designated as Zapruder in front of her, is easier to see than what's behind her. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The Bronson MOVIE shows Hester on the bench with what appears to bea newspaper. However, Beatrice, who was dressed in green has become a woman in a gray skirt wearing a white hooded jacket and running north. The Bronson movie shows Zapruder just over four feet tall, and omits the two curbside ladies by the lamppost in Bronson's slide taken only seconds before. Jack Oh brother! On page 25 of Groden's book "The Killing of a President" is probably the best enlargement of the Bronson slide. It shows Charles Hester sitting on the bench and watching the passing President. Bronson's view shows Charles NOT to be reading a newspaper and doing exactly what I believed him to be doing in the Willis photo. The Bronson slide also shows Charles to have his hand resting over his left leg. If Charles had a newspaper - he damned sure wasn't reading it as the President was passing by. Nonsense. The BEST ENLARGEMENTS OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ARE IN MY FILES. I gave one of my slides to Robert, who reproduced it in his book. As far as I know, I made the only copies from the original. Gary Mack went to Oklahoma to interview Bronson after we had received a tip, and Gary brought the original slides (2) back to Fort Worth and I copied them. I furnished copies to Gary (and others) as well as Groden. I believe any reproductions by anyone are from my slides. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Bill, you see Zapruder in front of Sitzman in this photo. That's fine.Who's behind her in a white top and black pants. Surely your not saying that what you have designated as Zapruder in front of her, is easier to see than what's behind her. chris Zapruder and Sitzman are so close to looking side by side from Wiegman's angle of perspective that it is silly to even debate it. The important thing is that I believe we can all see Sitzman's dress in the frame I lightened, thus any frame not showing those two on the pedestal can only be a result of a B&W image compromised by motion blur which is what I have said from day one. Your so-called white shirt is the Dallas sky seen through the opening in the tree foliage beyond the pedestal. That same opening can be seen over Sitzman's shoulder and from a different angle in the Willis photo. Is there not a similar view in the DCA film where a camera car came down the street filming in that direction? If so, then that would be the closest to the angle that Wiegman viewed the pedestal as he filmed. Your photo interpretation skills are really poor when you cannot see the obvious and apply that to the other assassination images that do not show a white shirted man standing on the pedestal/wall/ or anywhere else in that vicinity. Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Nonsense. The BEST ENLARGEMENTS OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ARE IN MY FILES.I gave one of my slides to Robert, who reproduced it in his book. Jack What's nonsense, Jack? I can see Hester quite easily in Groden's enlargement ... if you have a better one, then it will only show you to be more in error than Groden's copy does. This claim of yours is very similar to the "gap" that you said Thompson invented in his drum scan while knowing damned well that every copy before that time showed the same gap. Please feel free to scan your copy of the Bronson slide and email it to me or someone else and we will be happy to post it for you. If you want to post that image yourself, then go back and start deleting old images (espeically ones where you were shown to be in error like in the white woman being black claim or the sex change claim you made concerning the Zapruder film). Once you have done this, then you have then made available space to post more images. Bill Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Nonsense. The BEST ENLARGEMENTS OF THE BRONSON SLIDE ARE IN MY FILES.I gave one of my slides to Robert, who reproduced it in his book. Jack What's nonsense, Jack? I can see Hester quite easily in Groden's enlargement ... if you have a better one, then it will only show you to be more in error than Groden's copy does. This claim of yours is very similar to the "gap" that you said Thompson invented in his drum scan while knowing damned well that every copy before that time showed the same gap. Please feel free to scan your copy of the Bronson slide and email it to me or someone else and we will be happy to post it for you. If you want to post that image yourself, then go back and start deleting old images (espeically ones where you were shown to be in error like in the white woman being black claim or the sex change claim you made concerning the Zapruder film). Once you have done this, then you have then made available space to post more images. Bill "Miller" does not read well. I have said numerous times that I can no longer post images because of the forum's new software, which discriminates against Macintosh. It supports only OSX or higher. My ten-year old computer uses OS9.2, which is sufficient for all my needs except this forum. I have said this in at least half a dozen posts, but "Miller" is devoid of comprehending the written word. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 "Miller" does not read well. I have said numerous times that I can no longerpost images because of the forum's new software, which discriminates against Macintosh. It supports only OSX or higher. My ten-year old computer uses OS9.2, which is sufficient for all my needs except this forum. I have said this in at least half a dozen posts, but "Miller" is devoid of comprehending the written word. Jack Jack ... and what part of my response did you not comprehend when I said to either scan the damned image and email it to me or someone else so we can post it? We both know it won't show anything that Groden's doesn't show, but I will play the game with you and give you a chance to prove your position. Bill 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